User talk:Raritydash/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Username change

How can I change my username? Because I'm a bit unhappy about my username. I'm planning to changing it to "RarityDash". Is that acceptable or does that violates the username policy? Andrew (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You can request a change of username via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. You should check the username policy yourself; I don't see any problems with "RarityDash", but if you work for RarityDash, Inc. or something like that, there might be issues that wouldn't be obvious to me. Huon (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock question

Regarding this comment, which sockpuppet set or other IPs are involved? I track a few LTVs on some of the artists this IP was editing, but I do not recognize this editor's specific behavior. DMacks (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That could be regarding as the person was an LTA genre warrior using multiple IPs such like that guy did at Alicia Keys about four months ago and got reverted by Binksternet [1]. Even the one on Emeli Sande here and here which I reverted. That could be the IP range like 92.20, 92.9 and 79.68. That guy is from the UK. Raritydash (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! DMacks (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ariana Grande

Just so you are aware, I've begun a discussion at the page, listed above, concerning the need to add a "2017" year to the article. livelikemusic talk! 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Already replied there. Raritydash (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Heavy (Linkin Park song)

I believe a close watch should be kept on this situation. 183.171.183.255 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I see that you reverted the user above, I think that you should discuss with the editor whom you reverted instead of trying to make me keeping an eye on it because I'm not here to get involved in an edit-war with anyone else. Raritydash (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Britney: Piece Of Me

Hi Raritydash, I am writing to you today about your deletion of the edit I made to the Britney: Piece Of Me set list. As Britney herself stated last year, as the year(s) go on, certain changes to the set list would be made. I have indicated these changes on the set list itself.

I want to keep the set list as up to date as possible to make sure that people reading the article can get the correct information. The edits I made were verified by Setlist FM and other fans that went to see Britney's residency show at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas.

If you have any concerns please feel free to contact me.

Bjmitchell2001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmitchell2001 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Setlist FM is not a reliable source, also within that reason, the source says nothing about the setlist that you added. This is why we stick to what the source says and you have been warned and reverted several times already. Raritydash (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, I have seen the show myself and the edits I made fitted the exact current Setlist of the show. Bjmitchell2001 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if you did see a show for yourself, you still need to provide a reliable source, because that is original research and Wikipedia does not allow it. Raritydash (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential fourth single for Glory Days

I don't know if you'd find it to be worth it, but this confirms that Little Mix have filmed a music video for "Power". And while that is not a confirmation of fourth single — only an implication — do you believe it is worth mentioning that they've shot a music video for the song on the album's page? Or do you believe it'll just balloon out of control from IP's and anonymous editors that believe it automatically means that it's going to be the album's fourth single? Because you and I both know that music video ≠ single release. livelikemusic talk! 22:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: While I do get what do you mean, I'm still getting the impression that whenever they announced "Power" as the fourth single, it should mean that it's supposed to be a radio release or digital release. And of course, music video does not mean single release. Also what frustrates me is that whenever anything that added was unsourced or something that is not according to source, I can just manage to revert it. And also, I don't know if that would be worth mentioning that, because some anonymous IP users may put down that date that is a music video release. It's just like they did in the past at "7/27" as the third single was announced that's called "That's My Girl", the music video was released in September 19, 2016 and the radio release was September 27, 2016. That's why I believe that we should stick with the radio release or digital download. And anyway, thanks for leaving me this information. It's really much appreciated. Raritydash (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Do I believe "Power" is the fourth single? Yes, I do! But, right now, it's premature trying to predict the future. Maybe, on the album page, we mention a video for the song is being produced? My only pause for doing that is that it's going to just make people add "Power" as the fourth single to the infobox, and the "No More Sad Songs" page. And I don't get why people equate music video = release date; that's not how things work in today's media. And you are very welcome! livelikemusic talk! 02:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Britney Piece of Me Infobox Issue

Hi Raritydash,

I am quite confused with the infobox situation for the Britney: Piece of Me page. When you initially reported the problem, I was not the one who broke the infobox. However, after reverting the information that Bjmitchell2001 made on the infobox, it seems to have "broke" despite I do not see any errors (As in after I edited the infobox date, the infobox was still intacted). One pattern noticed is that I've edited the infobox before and this never happened but it seemed to have happened after Bjmitchell2001 modified it. Can you verify with me what happened with the infobox and how it possible broke the infobox. Thanks. JonHoOfficial (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for the repost. I forgot to sign the post and when I edited back in, something messed up which led to reposting it again. JonHoOfficial (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's OK. And about the infobox issue that you were talking about, I guess you had the "Visual edit" which causes the infobox to mess up when you edit something on the infobox. Raritydash (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Protection templates

No need. I got it. El_C 14:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for the reminder. Raritydash (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you applied a protection template to Shrek Forever After, an article that is not currently protected? Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Doniago, the page is pending-changes protected until 15 July. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Ah, mea culpa. I checked the protection log, didn't realize the pending changes log also needed to be checked. DonIago (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the weight-in Primefac. I guess putting down protection templates are my favorite thing to do. Raritydash (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Also for pending-changes protected, it may had looked liked that the article is not protected as the IPs or new editors may still be able to edit the page, but the difference is that the pending-changes reviewer checks their edit to see if any of their edits are acceptable or not acceptable. That's why the pending-changes protection template is definitely needed. Raritydash (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

the IP vandal

Noting that it might be a good idea to report the 86.* IPs to AIV immediately after reverting instead of waiting to see if they make productive edits. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and technically besides that case you linked, that guy might be currently using different IPs that has the same summary like this one so I think it's best to keep an lookout for that edit summary (despite that either that it could be right or wrong). Raritydash (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

TF

Ok. I will stop editing if you correct some things on that page! First off The Pinkprint is not at 682,000 units. Secondly Nicki does not have 79 billboard entries she has 80*... don't tell me to stop doing something when you're doing it wrong to begin with 2jbk 44 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:STICKTOSOURCE, because we stick with what the source says, not inflating the numbers or going against what the source says. Unless you have a source where it says that the numbers are different, then you can change the number with the source updated. Please read WP:RS to see how it's done. Raritydash (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

the pinkprint.

Hello Raritydash, this is Mekhi Stuart who edited The pinkprint sales to 2 million. I see in the information provided that the pinkprint was indeed certified 2x platinum by the RIAA for streams and album equivalents. This has been seen on many artists' pages. http://headlineplanet.com/home/2016/02/11/nicki-minajs-the-pinkprint-certified-2x-platinum-in-the-united-states https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=NICKI+MINAJ&ti=THE+PINKPRINT Please message me with any more concerns. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekhi stuart (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is true that the album is 2x Platinum. But please note that certified sales does not mean pure sales. And we must stick to what the source says. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE for more info. Thank you. Raritydash (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Raritydash. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)