Jump to content

User talk:Richard3120/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

CfD

Hi. As you've been populating the category in question, it's only fair to inform you that I've opened this proposal to delete it. Please feel free to contribute. Thanks. ----Jack | talk page 11:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I have no problem with the category being removed, but I do think there should be a list of the players in question included in the article One-Test wonder - do you or the WikiProject Cricket members have a problem with this? Personally I do believe that there is enough interest and notability in creating such a list - there are several Cricinfo and newspaper articles, and even a book (by Roderick Easdale, 1999), on the subject. Obviously I'd want to know if such a list is likely to be nominated for deletion before I spend my time and effort trying to create it! Thanks, Richard
Hi Richard. I have no problem with that except I would rename the article to something more objective like List of cricketers with a single Test appearance. You would be best to raise the question at WT:CRIC. Regards. ----Jack | talk page 03:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Great job on The Blue Nile. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


Discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Green

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Green. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Pink Moon Advice

Your advice and assistance on Pink Moon is very appreciated. A little background on the article. We know that the Pink Moon has failed to get the B-class status, but that was before we rewrote nearly everything. We were worried about doing this but our research indicated that there was so much lacking and some things incorrect. We were simply ecstatic to find the interview with John Wood about that particular recording night, it laid to rest a lot of unfounded rumours. When we found the full page ad announcing the release of the Album...it was so exciting. Our main sources are: Petrusich, Amanda. Pink Moon. 1. Bloomsbury Academic, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8264-2790-8 and Humphries, Patrick. Nick Drake: The Biography. London: Bloomsbury PLC, 1998. Print. ISBN 978-0-7475-3503-4. The ONE area we did not edit was the references section, which you point out has problems. Lesson learned...I will again go through the manual of style and make sure the references are done correctly. I thought I'd done mine right, but I also need to review all others in the article. Thank you so much for your advice, I want to make sure I do this one exactly correct before picking another one to work on. I've got my eye on Valery Bryusov...the Russian version is a FA and I have access to a translator...my husband. : ) Pugsly8000 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Quick question, then I'll leave you in peace. You commented that Sputnikmusic can only be referenced if the writer is an editor. This album review was done by an ermeritus. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources says to "Use staff and emeritus reviews only, recognizable by tag." I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, but it seems that review should stay. Thanks again. Pugsly8000 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You are a Superstar

For helping out Newbies
Thank you so much for already making edits to the Pink Moon references. Those were my citations and I did not do them correctly. We will learn from your edits and not make the same mistake again. Pugsly8000 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


Richard! Just noticed your additional edits to Pink Moon on the moment Nick dropped off the tapes. SWEEEEEEET! With your guidance this will make GA, if possible...I'm sure of it! Pugsly8000 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

VW Promotional Campaign with Pink Moon

Richard3120 and Elisunshine01. Do you think it worthwhile to add the following to Pink Moon? My sister-in-law had the VW Promotional CD that buyers of VWs were given in 2001. Nick Drake's Pink Moon is the first song. 

 Pugsly8000 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why not, but I wouldn't make too much out of it - probably just one sentence and maybe the picture of the CD itself: you can't read the tracklisting on the other pic so the relevance to "Pink Moon" is lost really. Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Good call. The CD alone is probably enough and then just a quick blurb in the legacy section about it. If Elisesunshine01 agrees, I will make the change.Pugsly8000 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

RE:WikiProject Latin Music still running?

Hello Richard! The Latin music project is rather active, I just archived the entire discussion from last year like I did the year before at the beginning of the month. So as far as Colombian-related articles go, we often collaborate with WikiProject Shakira on Shakira's Spanish albums and songs and had Fijacion Oral 1 Featured Article last year. I also got Fruta Fresca Good Article and right now, I'm helping another Colombian user (Luisnh1210) who has been contributing to Colombian music-related articles who doesn't much experience on Good Articles and such. Currently, our article Volvi a Nacer is a GAN. English isn't his first language so I'm sure he definitely could use your help. As for the artists you mentioned, if any of them are folk, Latin jazz, or anything else that would fit on the Latin Grammy categories, they're allowed in the project too. And yes, you're allowed to assess ratings on talk page for projects you're not part of. Cheers! Erick (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hola Richard

Hola, como estas? Pues en el sentido de peliar, no hay necesidad, siempre y cuando las cosas se hablen y se discutan de la forma mas sana posible. We are colaborators with a same intention. OK, with ChocQuibTown, I will create the discography section with chart positions and certifications, If you think something about the releasing of Oro, me avisas and change it. No problem. My english is some bad, but try that I can. My projects is related to Colombian artist songs, discography. Search me on Facebook as luisnh1210@hotmail.com, this is the way that keeping touch with other Wikipedians (Erick). Greetings from Barranquilla, Colombia. Luis Nuñez (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Como ando en la Universidad, he tenido muchos deberes y le sacó el tiempo a Wikipedia. Aunque no sé cuales son los sencillos oficiales de ChocQuibTown, pues sé que del álbum Eso Es Lo Que Hay, se desprendieron tres sencillos "Calentura", "Hasta el Techo" y "Uh La La"; y uno promocional "Tu Canción". Tengo que investigar un poco mas, acerca de la promocion de los álbumes Somos Pacífico y Oro. Respecto a Oro, pues en la tabla se pondría la fecha de su lanzamiento original en Colombia (su primer lanzamiento). Luis Nuñez (talk) 12:08, February 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry for the delay, (been busy IRL), but I've replied to your comments at my talk. Cheers! — sparklism hey! 08:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Weigh in on discussion?

Hi. Would you care to weigh in on this discussion? It concerns whether a particular review quote should be removed from an article. Dan56 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Marquee Moon, an article about a rock music album? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bookends GA review

Hey there! Thank you for your suggestions! They were entirely implemented across the article (and yes, I don't know what I was thinking when I used the word "begat", haha). Great idea to split the song analysis section into just two paragraphs (I've shortened it a tad as well, as it went into unnecessary detail about "America" that's already covered on that article's page). And that would be amazing if you could track down some reviews from 1968... the Rolling Stone review was the best I could do searching online. Thanks again! Thardin12 (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Year in topic

Yes, I totally agree with your suggestions. As you can probably gather, I have my own opinions as to how "Year in topic" articles should look, which is not always in keeping with other people's interpretation of the "standards", but if a specific format is agreed by consensus for a specific group of articles, I won't have any problem conforming to it. Deb (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I would have preferred not to have had to split off the charts, but it was becoming unmanageable and, more to the point, it was skewing the article content. Deb (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

British music charts

As you know, the OCC may publish the results as a Saturday but they get published on a Sunday. I created that page, I built it up and if you change it, I could treat it as vandalism. The chart runs from Sunday to Saturday, not Saturday to Friday as it avoids confusion.

In that case, if for example it is Saturday 21st June, it would be easier to date the issue date 15 - 21 June.

"I built it up and if you change it, I could treat it as vandalism." No, you couldn't, not if it is an improvement and is referenced. Deb (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you can use the term "chart week" rather than "issue date" if you use the date range. Also, in terms of other editors to contact, check out the edit histories of some of the chart lists, such as List of 2010s UK Singles Chart number ones, to see who are recent and regulator contributors. User:A Thousand Years might be particularly helpful. By the way, note how much better the summaries in the list I linked you to are, with the entire year summed up in only a few short paragraphs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I entirely agree, and I think Deb does too... a short summary of the entire year is all that's really needed – a weekly summary is far too excessive and doesn't provide any detail that you couldn't find just by looking at that week's chart anyway. But I won't change it lest I get an ANI for "vandalism"... Thanks for the additional info.
Deb – Hadji87 probably won't have seen your comment above. I don't understand why after all this time on Wikipedia he still can't/won't sign his comments. Richard3120 (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Judging by his comment above, I would say difficulty with the English language is probably the reason. Deb (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Again I tend to agree with you about the sales figures. It should at least be clear where they come from. Deb (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: 'xxxx (year) in British music' articles

Hello, Richard3120. You have new messages at A Thousand Doors's talk page.
Message added 08:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2013 in British music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to George Benjamin, Lang Lang and Matthew Martin
1988 in British music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The Christians and Flying Colours
1986 in British music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Real Thing
2010 in British music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sunny Side Up (album)
2014 in British music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to John McCabe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

British charts week numbering

In your case then, you should do the same with the other years. For instance, the chart for 26 December 2010 should be in 2011 in British music charts, the chart for 27 December 2009 should be in 2010 in British music charts and the chart for 28 December 2008 should be in 2009 in British music charts but you left those pages alone. Also, even the OCC have for instance, declared "Happy" as the final number one of 2013, not the first number one of 2014. They declared "Timber" the first number one of 2014. hadji87 (talk)

Track list numbering

Thank you for your comments at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple. A Rfc is currently open at Template talk:Track listing to finally settle the dispute. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give your opinion on the matter one last time. Lewismaster (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1983 in British music

Yes that looks good and clear. (note: OCC in their infinite wisdom use http://www.officialcharts.com/all-the-number-ones-singles-list/_/1983/ even though it's http://www.officialcharts.com/all-the-number-one-albums-list/_/1983/)

On the no. 1's that straddle the year end: I much prefer to have them in there (not like OCC, who just start with the first new number 1 each year) for both years, maybe with something like 2 (3) in the weeks column for 2 weeks this year 3 total (with suitable col header). In the year-end charts - could the peak position have the number of weeks at number 1 in brackets as well? I know one could look back at the weekly charts but it's handy to see them here as well.

So nice to have the whole year in a manageable length; if only the recent years pages looked this clear and concise. Thanks. Btljs (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Best selling singles of the 1990s

The list on this page is unsourced and dubious. Have you got an official list from anywhere? Surely Queen: BR/TAtDoOL must be in the top 50 at least - and it's nowhere in the top 100 that is shown in the article. Btljs (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh Lord, I wasn't aware of this article. :( The list doesn't appear to match with either the only officially published list in 2000 in Hit Music (a defunct trade magazine) or this list produced several years later by the OCC for MTV. As you rightly pointed out, with several glaring errors in it and no references, the current article will either have to replaced by the MTV list (I think I can fill in the mysterious blank spaces, although I don't know why it stops at number 45) or it will have to go. Frankly I don't trust the MTV list either: for example, going by the million sellers list "Believe" by Cher should be at least top ten, if not in the top five biggest sellers of the decade. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Amazing how many there are. The MTV one is even different from one quoted in this discussion www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=86262 I mean I can believe that the 1970s would be debatable but the 90s? I mean there were computers by then! Imagine if they were in banking or something where accuracy mattered. Btljs (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that thread and I have to say the final two lists (which are nearly identical) seem to me to be the most likely to be closest to reality (compare the order of the top 20 with the sales figures in Wikipedia's million sellers article, which are referenced)... but of course they can't be used as an official reference for Wikipedia. Certainly the current Wikipedia list seems like garbage to me, and with no references to back it up, it's not worth keeping.
One of the big problems with the 1990s sales figures was that between 1994 and 1996 when Millward Brown were compiling the chart, they couldn't decide whether to use what they called DUS (defined universe sales) or TMS (total market sales) – having used the latter at the time, OCC now go by the DUS figures which are substantially lower and has resulted in the downrating of many of the singles released during these years.
I know people love having "definitive" sales figures and best-seller lists, but really it's impossible to get it right, even in 2014... I remember back in 1990 when there was the big deal about Steve Miller's "The Joker" and Dee-lite's "Groove Is in the Heart" supposedly tying for number 1, and "The Joker" getting the nod based on having risen more places the week before – but Alan Jones wrote in his Record Mirror column that nationwide there were only seven sales difference between the two records... how on earth could he state that with such accuracy, considering sales are based on scaled-up extrapolations from just a few hundred record shops?!?! Richard3120 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
According to here http://www.everyhit.com/number1quirks.html they announced this to save face. Seems plausible, like Mt Everest having 2 feet added to its height so that people didn't think it was rounded to 29,000 feet. Fact is, like you say, people like to live in a world of certainty whereas the reality of measuring things is that there is always a margin of error. (I never knew that there were years in the 80s when a chart was compiled for the last week of the year but not used, either.) Seriously, I think that we need to make the uncertainty clear on all these pages, as we were discussing on the 1970s one. It's how you show this in a table that's an issue as we can't do OR such as working out confidence intervals (unless there's a suitable research paper somewhere). When you put something like "Here's a chart, published in X, but it has errors in it." people naturally say "If you know there's errors then you must be able to make it more accurate by removing them." and this often happens in WP where well-meaning amendments to tables render the whole rather meaningless. If, for example, you simply tried to find a source for the sales of each record in the 90s you'd get a whole new chart which didn't exist anywhere else and you'd have unwittingly compared different methodologies for calculating sales in the same list. I reckon a reasonable compromise between accuracy and people's desire to see a proper chart is to choose one (whichever you think is best) and then to put footnotes etc. making reference to other charts, commentaries etc., as necessary. And be conservative with usage of sales figures - maybe only the million sellers as we have good continuity of evidence on them. I think you should put some stuff in the lede about what you said above on DUS as well (OCC say this now accounts for 99% of the singles market but I'd imagine it was less in the 90s? Btljs (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Btljs: I agree with you – as there are no official sales figures at all for the first half of the 1990s, I'd like to avoid them if at all possible; I don't see how we can realistically find any confirmed sales numbers within the decade alone. From what I can gather Millward Brown used TMS figures while they were compiling the chart between 1994 and 1997, and it's now generally accepted that the DUS figures are closer to the mark, hence sales in this period have subsequently been revised down substantially. I think for both articles (1970s and 1990s) the best thing is to make clear straight away in the lede that there is a great deal of uncertainty and conflicting information, although I'm still thinking over how to present that in the best way without looking muddled and unclear. I'll have a go at it in my sandbox over the next couple of months, although don't expect much progress before the end of the year as I'm off to South America next week for a wedding and to help my sister out with her work, and my online access will be limited. I'll finish off the two articles I've been working on ("Do They Know It's Christmas?" and Hounds of Love) and then make a start on drafting something in my sandbox.
PS: I used to be a research scientist, and I'd hoped I'd left the world of confidence levels and statistics behind :-( – thanks for reminding me of it all. ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
How inconsiderate of your family to drag you away from your vital work for the betterment of humankind. I suppose we'll just have to struggle on without you. I'll see your research scientist and raise you NHS Information Analyst - frighteningly similar to doing the pop charts actually. You know you can never leave statistics behind if you still shout "correlation!" at any news story about something being caused by something else or "which one?" when they say "average". Btljs (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Back Issues

Hi mate. I might be wrong here, but I seem to remember you saying that you had access to back issues of some of the British music press. I'm currently working on The Hungry Saw, and I'd like your help if possible.... Firstly, do you happen to have a copy of the Q mag that reviewed the album (I think it's May 2008)? If so, could you let me know what it says (or add some text to the article in the 'Reception' section)? Secondly, the Uncut review here scores 3/10, but it doesn't read quite like the slating a 3/10 would suggest. That review is also listed on Metacritic as scoring "60", which would make a 6/10 review by Uncut's ratings system - any idea what the actual score in the mag was? (I'm not precious either way, I just want it to be accurate.) Thanks in advance :) Cheers! — sparklism hey! 15:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

PS I see you've contributed quite a bit to that article already - thanks for that too :) — sparklism hey! 15:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sparklism: Not quite correct – I'm a member of the British Library so I can go in and look at their collection of back copies of music magazines. Problem is, I'm just about to head off to South America for a couple of months, so I'm not going to be able to get in there for a while. I will try and remember to have a look at the relevant Q issue next time I'm in there – there should be an NME review as well. Unfortunately Uncut is the one major UK music magazine that the BL does not stock in its archives, so I wouldn't be able to check this anyway – unless you can find someone with a copy, the only option is to buy a back issue from Uncut's website (either print or online version).
I'm never happy with people quoting the online reviews from Uncut, for the simple reason that the print version of the magazine rates albums out of five, while online it suddenly changes to a score out of ten. Obviously this gives the potential for confusion to arise, which might be what has happened here: the magazine score may well have been 3/5, which would match the text a bit better and match up with the 6/10 rating on Metacritic. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's fine. If you find anything, please let me know. And bon voyage! — sparklism hey! 20:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've spent the last three years bouncing between the UK and Colombia every few months, would be nice to settle down in one place but I never mind heading over there just as the cold weather begins to approach! I noticed the comment from Niwi3 on your talk page regarding the difficulty in obtaining album reviews from the pre-internet era: this is why over the last couple of years I've focused on trying to improve the articles on UK albums from the 1970s and 80s which are considered important and/or classic records nowadays, even if they never sold that well at the time... these tend to be among the most sadly overlooked and incomplete music articles on Wikipedia due to the lack of available information online or in biographies, and the fact that they are not as much of interest (or even known) to the predominantly US audience of Wikipedia, so are unlikely to get the willingness to improve them. I'm always happy to go to the BL and look up the original reviews for an album if somebody asks me for it – I realise saying that immediately puts me in the firing line for about 5000 requests to look up album reviews from 20 or 30 years ago! But obviously priority would be for those articles that people are trying to get to GA status. Richard3120 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I get the impression that it's a bit of a labour of love for you :) - keep up the good work! — sparklism hey! 16:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It's fascinating actually to go back and read the issues of NME, Melody Maker and Sounds from 1977–84 with the benefit of hindsight: the style of journalism is so different, and I love seeing the articles about 'next big things' which promptly sank without trace... NME plugged Blue Rondo à la Turk incessantly throughout 1982, and who remembers them now? Richard3120 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello again mate - hope South America is warmer than dear old Blighty! I've actually replaced the Q review in The Hungry Saw with one from Record Collector for the time being. It's not a great review to use as a source, since it's quite short, but then I've no idea how long the Q review is either. Anyway, I'm about to submit the article to Good Article review - it would be great if you could give it the once-over if you get the chance (the backlog there is slow going, so there's no major urgency). No worries if you can't - cheers! :) — sparklism hey! 05:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently preparing for the wedding of two good friends this weekend and showing the English contingent around the place - it's warmer than the UK but it looks like they brought the rain with them! Obviously a bit hectic for the next week but things should be easier afterwards so will try and have a look for you. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Cheers! Have fun :) — sparklism hey! 19:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Do They Know It's Christmas?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Blake. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Songs to Remember

Hi mate, I just had a quick look at this article - not had chance to look in depth, but just a glance over it. I'll fire off my initial thoughts - apologies if they come across a bit garbled...interesting (and well-written) article, by the way!

  • Firstly, the lead needs some work. WP:LEAD states that the lead should "...summarize the body of the article." A really great piece of advice somebody gave me was that you should write the body of the article first, and save the lead until last, since the lead should just be a summary of the content of the rest of the article. Most people would interpret WP:LEAD as meaning that there shouldn't be anything in the lead that is not contained later in the article, and the knock on effect of this is that there should usually be no real need to cite anything in the lead, provided that it is properly cited later on. In Songs to Remember I count five references in the lead - I don't think there should be any need for these at all in a non-controversial topic like this. In a nutshell: get all the info into the body, and just use the lead as a summary. (I think some GA reviewers might instantly fail the article for this, though everyone sees things differently.)
  • The article continually refers to Green Gartside as "Green" - this would be better as "Gartside", since the reader doesn't know him personally.
  • The 'Background' section is fascinating, but very quote-heavy. Could some of these be paraphrased into your own words?
  • 'Artwork', 'Personnel', 'Track listing' and 'Release history' are all completely unreferenced - another potential instant GA fail. {{Cite AV media notes}} is useful for some of these.
  • Structurally, the article is pretty good. The 'Artwork' section is a little short, so I'd be tempted to incorporate that into the 'Release & promotion' section (maybe as a subsection). I think you could add a 'Legacy' section too, which could incorporate some of the stuff currently contained in the lead (the Wet Wet Wet/Madness stuff, for example). Personally, I'd also put 'Writing and composition' before 'Release' (as we've talked about before).

So there's a little bit of work to do if you want to take it to GA (which I recommend that you do, because it's a fine article and only needs a few tweaks really). If I was reviewing it for GA (I've GA reviewed six album articles in the last couple of months), these would be the points I'd raise with you initially. As I said, I've not been through it in enough detail to check out the sources/prose etc., but I hope this is a good starter for ten. Let me know when you've had a chance to think about these points, and I'll take a closer look. It's a great article so far - well done! Hope this helps; cheers :) — sparklism hey! 16:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sparklism: Thanks for the comments, they're much appreciated – I'll try and address them during January. I would point out that Green is normally referred to by that single name, which is why I used it (neither Green nor Gartside is his real name). Cheers. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Musician and painter

Dear Richard, you probably know quite a lot about music and I was wondering if we could compose a Did You Know together? Then you can introduce it here on English Wikipedia, and I'll introduce it on Dutch Wikipedia. As a matter of fact I am thinking of one, that could be complemented with naming more internationally known artists. The sentence I have in mind is: "did you know that ... when mentioning artists like Jimi Hendrix, Vangelis, David Bowie, Adrian Vandenberg, ......, the subject could easily be on painting?" (probably it should be fine tuned in perfect English) Could you amplify the list of artists a little bit maybe, with examples of other well known musicians that could be filled in? Ymnes (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, well the obvious example I can think of to add is Captain Beefheart... apart from Bowie I don't think anybody in the UK would think of the other people as painters! Richard3120 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) How about Joni Mitchell? (And Ymnes: although this is a nice idea, in order for any article to qualify for Did You Know on the English Wikipedia, it has to be classed as "new or recently improved" - I doubt that any of those people would meet that criteria). Cheers! — sparklism hey! 14:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about Joni Mitchell... I think that's her self portrait on the cover of Turbulent Indigo. And then that reminds me of Self Portrait by Bob Dylan. But then we're gettin into the territory of "are these just musicians who paint occasionally for fun" or genuinely regular painters who sell their work commercially? Richard3120 (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the examples! I read that Bowie isn't real good in painting though, but he's trying his best :-) The rules on Dutch Wikipedia may differ from those on English Wikipedia indeed. Next saturday I will try to compose one in Dutch, and update the articles there when necessary. In case someone has an idea, meanwhile, don't hessitate to let me know! All the best, Ymnes (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
John Squire? Btljs (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

List of singles which have spent the most weeks on the UK Singles Chart

With your knowledge of the ins and outs of the history of the charts, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the above page which I revamped recently. I had worked on the assumption that top 75 was the 'official' limit of the chart from 1978, as Guinness Records etc, seemed to quote weeks in the top 75 as "weeks on chart" (see the references to "I Gotta Feeling" breaking the consecutive weeks record). Now that OCC are publishing top 100s back to 1994 I don't know where to go with this. Btljs (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to go with whatever the OCC considers 'weeks on chart' from now on and publishes on their site. You're right, the official chart was only a Top 75 from 1978 onwards – there had always existed numbers 76 to 100 from this date onwards, but they were never considered "true" chart positions because if a single's sales had decreased by more than a certain amount week-on-week, it was automatically dropped from these bottom 25 positions, so if a former top ten hit for example had gone from number 62 to outside the top 75, it wouldn't have appeared even if it had been nominally number 78 that week, but a single that had entered at number 83 and next week dropped to number 89 would still be there. Does that make any sense? So it was more a "bubbling under next 25" than the true 76 to 100. I think at some point this was changed to a proper Top 100, but I'm not sure when that was: 1994 would make sense because that's when Gallup stopped compiling the chart and it passed to Millward Brown instead. Richard3120 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I checked and OCC have a top 100 from Feb 1994 which is when MB took over. The OCC archive used to have weeks on chart as top 75 but now they have top 10, 20, 40, 75 and 100 regardless of which existed at the time of the single charting. They don't seem that interested in weeks on chart in their articles - there was nothing on Happy and Let it Go spending the whole of 2014 in the top 75 or Happy passing I Gotta Feeling for consecutive weeks. Not enough public interest in these things maybe. I'm leaving it as top 75 for now anyway because digital downloads and streaming make songs stick around for so long anyway that I really don't want to have to keep checking to see if something has re-entered at number 99 from 5 years ago because somebody mentioned it on telly. Btljs (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Elbow; Trucking magazine RS?

Hi Richard3120; firstly an apology if this isn't quite the way to tackle the "I disagree with you" viewpoint on this subject, but I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and am still feeling my around it. This is the first time I've ever tried to enter into conversation with a fellow editor on such things. By the way, do we call ourselves editors? I also assume that rather than just click (undo) that it is better/easier to talk as we could ultimately just end up clicking undo for ever... So, regarding my recent addition to the Wikipedia page for Elbow's Take Off And Landing Of Everything album, I'm assuming the RS in WP:RS is Relaible Source. If that's the case, I'd have to disagree strongly with you. The magazine in question (available in WH Smith's etc.) is well-established and has no reputation for unreliability, shoddy facts, poor reporting, or anything of that type. Additionally, it has had dedicated people reviewing music, DVDs, books and so on (in the context of in-cab entertainment for drivers) for many years now, these reviews occasionally quoted by bands themselves, for example VEGA just used a Trucking review on their Facebook page. The magazine is also on the promo recipient list for a number of music labels, publicists and PR companies. On the basis of those facts alone, I'd say Trucking qualifies as a valid and non-biased source, and therefore should be able to be referenced on Wikipedia as such. After all, I argue - does it not imply industry accepted credibility if music labels, publicists and PR companies consider the publisher worthy of inclusion on distribution lists? I'd also add that in terms of readership figures, and accepting Trucking is not genre-specific to music, that its sales probably outstrip many of those currently accepted as reliable sources. That's enough babble for now. Look forward to your response. And please, if I've done this backward way round, do let me know. I'm keen to get things right! WolpatWolpat (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wolpat, no problem at all, I have no objections with another editor (yes, that's what we call ourselves, apparently) conversing or even disagreeing with me in a polite manner. I accept the magazine itself is a well-established and credible publication, I just think it probably would not be considered a reliable source for music reviews, as that isn't its main focus... would you accept a review about trucks in the NME as a valid source? I admit to being an Elbow fan myself but have no problem with negative reviews appearing on the article (I don't go in for "fanboy" status, something is what it is, regardless of my opinion)... if it can be established that the source in question is a relaible one. Shall we put it to the Wikipedia Albums project page and see what they say? If the consensus is that Trucking is a reliable source for music reviews I will accept it without question. Richard3120 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: List of best-selling albums of the 2000s in the United Kingdom

Hello, Richard3120. You have new messages at A Thousand Doors's talk page.
Message added 01:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of best-selling albums of the 2000s in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold: Greatest Hits. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Hungry Saw

Hi Rich. Great news - The Hungry Saw finally passed the GA review! Thanks again for your input to the article. Since it now meets the criteria, I've put it forward for DYK, and since it was you that added the best bit to the article, I've taken the liberty of adding your name to the DYK nomination. You can see it at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hungry Saw. Hope that's OK! Cheers :) — sparklism hey! 10:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, I'm not sure I deserve the credit as you did most of the work, but thank you, much appreciated. Congratulations on getting it passed: great to see a Tindersticks album get GA status, although sadly I don't think my favourite two (the first two) will ever progess beyond B-class at best.
You may have noticed I've started adding reviews to the articles for the 1990s albums we talked about – I have other bits and pieces that can be used to expand the articles. Richard3120 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: indications are that this will feature at DYK on the main page on 16 April at 08:25 UTC - you don't want to miss that historic event :)
By the way, I don't rate The Hungry Saw much at all (nor the stuff that came after); like you, I much prefer their earlier stuff. Hope Columbia is treating you well - I'll get to those articles we talked about someday. Cheers! — sparklism hey! 10:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Hungry Saw

Allen3 talk 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Elbow; Trucking review, a reliable source or not?

Hi Richard3120, I've been away from this for a while. Reason are varied, and not because I've lost interest... The busy with work reason aside, I just waited as I wanted to see what sort of enthusiasm/interest (or otherwise) the topic might generate. I left it too long I think as I've been archived... Also, as I feel that in broader sense an almost (not any...) is valid, I thought I'd pursue some thoughts from the record companies themselves. Took a while but I managed to get in touch with Trucking and via the editor was put in touch with the PR/marketing gurus for some of the companies that supply them with samples/promos. I picked three at random, made contact and simply explained the situation surrounding Elbow and asked them for their views and opinions on the validity, reliability, credibility of Trucking as a review source in the bigger picture. I was pleasantly surprised with the positive reviews I promptly received back from all three. To further support my view that Trucking is a reliable source for use in Wiki album reviews, and should be used as such if A N Other so desires, how would I go about making these responses available for anybody to see? Should I just cut & paste here if anybody wants to see something? As more general view I picked up on is that a truck driver is seen as a captive audience for music; most (there are no figures I could find so most will have to do!) listening to some form of music while they work/drive. And of course, we shouldn't overlook that come rest/overnights, in this digital age a truck driver in a layby somewhere can stream pretty much anything he (or she...) likes. So a valuable audience. Also noted that rival magazine Truck & Driver does music, book and DVD reviews also, as does the truckers newspaper, TruckStop News. Look forward to views and opinions back again. PS: I could not work out how to get this into the original discussion on the albums page, but that's probably just me being inept!Wolpat (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wolpat – as you have probably seen, there were no objections with using Trucking as a reliable source when I put it to WP:ALBUMS, so I've gone ahead and reinstated the review, with a proper citation. :-) I hope there's no bad feeling – my original reversion was not to somehow "protect" the album from any criticism, or because I believed Trucking was not a reliable source per se, but because I didn't think non-music magazines qualified as valid sources: as I have been proved wrong on this, I have no objection to reinstating your addition. (My brother-in-law is a truck driver, so I certainly have no vendetta against truckers...)
As regards your query regarding feedback from the companies you contacted, I'm not sure... maybe that's another one we'll have to put to Wikipedia community! Cheers. Richard3120 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richard3120; had not seen the revert so will have a quick look in a mo - and learn how to cite correctly. I'm still learning. Absolutely no hard feelings, there have to be rules [guidelines?] in everything we do or chaos would follow for sure! The B-I-L may have even read that review... I understand they're quite popular. If there's any feedback regarding wanting to see what others might say, I'll happily post the responses I received. Wolpat (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Messed up page

Hi, Someone seems to have messed up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_girl_groups page; and the table is a bit off. - I can also prove Little Mix have sold 7.5 Million records World Wide - http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/x-factor-winners-ever-now-4128511 and http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/fashion/celebrity-fashion/2015/06/little-mix-style-evolution--fashion-trends/viewgallery/1422389  ; would you please be able to look into this for me, cheers :-) --Minimixer (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I will do, but to be honest I have a problem with these tables anyway. Firstly, there are supposed to be separate tables for physical sales and digital sales, but in the case of Little Mix it's impossible to say what percentage of their 7.5 million sales are physical or digital - those are the combined total sales of both formats. I'm sure this is true of some of the other groups in the list as well. Secondly, there's no way of stating for certain that these are the 20 biggest selling girl groups, they are just the 20 we know about and have sales figures for. Japanese and Korean girl groups sell huge amounts of records in their home countries and in China, abnd I would not be surprised if many more if them have sold more than 10 million records.
I'll change the table, but I am going to raise these issues on a discussion page. In short, I don't believe Little Mix's 7.5 million is anywhere near enough to make the top 20. ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Ideal, another way to do it would be to have an over-all sales table to be sure then there is no confusion between physical sales and digital sales, :-) cheers --Minimixer (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree, it makes no sense in this day and age to try and split the physical and digital sales – I will make this suggestion. Richard3120 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation page style (One live link per entry)

Thank you for your work on Oxygene (disambiguation). Unfortunately, disambiguation pages do not follow the same stylistic rules as normal pages. In particular,

  • there should be only one live link per entry.

Please see the disambiguation style guide for more information. If you have any questions not answered there, drop me a note or try the help desk. By the way, I have already brought Oxygene (disambiguation) into line with the guidelines. All the best! Ubcule (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Little Mix's picture.

Could you please change the picture on the groups main page to a different more current one please. Like one from the salute tour. Please and thank you. Christianofficial (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Christianofficial, the only pictures that are allowed on Wikipedia are ones that are not copyrighted, i.e. they are in the public domain or taken by the person themselves. We can't use most pictures of Little Mix that you find on, for example, media websites that publish articles about the band, because the photos belong to the professional photographer or agency who took the photo – if you look at the pictures most of them show the credit for the photo underneath because the website has paid to licence a copy of the photo. So unless you have a picture of Little Mix that you have taken with your own camera, there's not much I or anyone else on Wikipedia can do. Read the page Wikipedia:Image use policy. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Little Mix

Could you updat Little Mix's page again and add to Jesy's part in the member section that she is engaged to Jake Roche now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingmix (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Somethingmix: people have tried adding that information before, and it keeps getting deleted straight away. The main reason is that it is considered gossip about the personal life of just one member of the band, and it is not important or relevant to the rest of the band and their music. I could add the information again, but I know it will be deleted soon afterwards, so it seems a bit pointless. Richard3120 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing Album Release Dates

Hi Richard, just wondering where you sourced the release date for Cliff's "Wired for Sound" album (and it's two singles), as it might be useful in sourcing others? I noticed you didn't get it from the BPI who list a release date which is a few days out from the one you entered. Thanks. AusChartMan (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @AusChartMan: in fairness, I didn't source them – they are "educated guesses" for the time being and I plan to go back and confirm those dates the next time I am in London and can get to the British Library. I figured that as the article hasn't been widely read, I could get away with it – apart from you, who seems to have been the only editor over the past year!
You can normally work out the release date from the date of chart entry: in the UK in the 1970s and early 80s release dates for singles and albums were almost always on a Friday. The weekly sale was collected up until the following Friday, added up, and the figures posted to BMRB who produced the charts. They calculated the chart over the weekend, it was announced on BBC Radio 1 on Tuesday lunchtime, and the "week ending" chart date would then be the Saturday four days later (with the Top 40 played the following day on Sunday afternoon). So you can see that in general the release date was 15 days before the chart "week ending" date, and that's how I estimated the release dates. It should be easy enough to confirm these from past issues of music magazines held in the British Library. Richard3120 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Edit: I too am wary of using BPI dates, they tend not to be accurate for records stretching back to the 1970s and 80s. Always best to go "back to the source" as it were and look up magazines from the time. I'm having a similar discussion about the Police's Synchronicity album which you can read on the article's talk page: the article suggests it was released on 1 June 1983 but there's no way this can be true, going by the chart entry dates. I imagine that 1 June date has been sourced in a similar fashion: where only the month of release is known, websites often convert it to the first of the month in the absence of any hard evidence. Richard3120 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info! By the way, I found a bit more info to add to the article to take it a bit further. AusChartMan (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do They Know It's Christmas

Thanks for your edit on this page. I would have agreed with you that the Police had split by 1984. However, I recently learned from the Wikipedia page on the Police that they did not officially split until 1986, although their last album released was 1983. So technically he was still a member of the Police. Just checked and his first solo album was released in '85, so at this point he was still known as the Police frontman. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rodericksilly: fair enough, if that's the case I have no problem with it. The amount of self-promoting garbage and deliberately false insertions on the Live Aid article which you also edit is a far bigger problem... I'm not suggesting you are responsible for that, by the way! Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Richard3120. You have new messages at Dkriegls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I'm Not in Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multitrack. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

List of best-selling girl groups

This list, is the best option. Good Job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Richard3120/sandbox#Best-selling_girl_groups

How did you get on with this page? I'm afraid I never made any headway and then got distracted by other things. Btljs (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I really need to put it online, even if it has the errors in it, because people still keep messing about with the tables as they stand in article. I've been too busy the last couple of weeks to spend any serious time on Wiki – been applying for (and been accepted onto) a CELTA course to become a qualified English teacher, which starts next month, so in November it's likely I won't be on here at all. Anyway, had the interview last week and got accepted, so I have a couple of clear weeks now, will try and do something before the end of the month. Richard3120 (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations! Btljs (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Alan Jason 96 manipulating the List Of Best Selling Girl Groups

Hello, this is the 86.27.128.174 user and as a frequent viewer of the "List Of Best Selling Girl Groups" page, i have noticed very often that the user Alan Jason 96 repeatedly changes information and manipulates girl group sales such as Pussycat Dolls, 2NE1, Brown Eyed Girls and several others to edit and then place Girls' Generation at a higher rank whilst providing false information for Girls' Generation too. I regretfully yet honestly suggest to block this user so they can no longer edit this page and provide false information for his pleasures as a Girls' Generation fanatic. PLEASE TAKE ACTION. MANY FANS ARE BEGINNING TO BECOME AGITATED WITH THIS USER.

Finally regarding the hallyu citations surrounding 2NE1's sales figures. I can confirm that they are reliable as on that blog, the user leads you to a detailed french blog with all the references and citations of where they got the figures for that detailed french blog from whilst the sales figures Alan Jason 96 places for Girls Generation are incorrect and are only correct once i continuously research and restore the sales figures. Thank you and please consider taking action on that user to prevent them from manipulating hard work. Sorry for the inconvenience it may have caused you all.

Amy Tran

Hi, thanks for your comments. I've asked at RFC to see if anyone has any ideas as to what name should be used for the final article, because I'm not sure what's best either. Red Fiona (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redfiona99, sounds like a good idea – it's the only reason I didn't perform the merge myself, because it's quite clearly the same person and should be non-controversial, it's just a case of deciding the final name for the merged article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived comments for 'List of best-selling girl groups'

Can we comment here for ease? I think we should get rid of ranking and sorting altogether as this implies that one set of figures is higher than another when in reality we don't know. If different refs have different sales, what do you think: list them all, list a range (eg. 40-50M)refs or something else? Btljs (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I have no idea why the sort parameter was included in the first place as it's redundant - I can only assume somebody copied the table style from a similar article to use as a template.
I have a feeling we might have to include all figures where there are more than one, otherwise just picking the highest (or any single one) might contravene WP:OR? Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that just deleting the rank column and keeping the other columns sortable could be a viable solution. Also, for most recent groups (especially East Asian ones) all figures are available. --Mαuri’96 “everything and nothing always haunts me…” 00:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mauri96: thanks for your comments. I have no objection to getting rid of the rank column either, I just know that other people will complain though, because they like to know what position their favourite group are on a list. Regarding East Asian groups, I'm guessing you mean that figures are available from Gaon or Oricon charts, in order to be able to calculate cumulative sales? I think that's the only way to do it, as I can't read Korean or Japanese, so I'm hoping somebody can tell me that the figures for those artists are correct. For example, 2NE1 have four citations for their sales figures, but one of them is in Japanese, two are from the same onehallyu blog so I don't know how verifiable these figures are, and the other is from Forbes magazine, which IS a reliable source, but four years old, and it quotes figures dramatically lower than the blog. So which is the "correct" figure to use, in your opinion? Richard3120 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The blog source likely has the most updated sales (taken from RS such as Gaon) but is not reliable itself. Specifically for 2NE1, though, all that is needed for digital sales is [6], which includes links to the Gaon Year-End charts of 2010-2014 (specific sales amounts have already been conveniently compiled here and here) and [5], the Forbes reference for their 2009 megahit "I Don't Care".
Also- the blog source contains unverifiable sales from 2009 and sales from collaborations.
Oricon's sales figures are unfortunately unavailable for viewing without a paying subscription to the website, so sales amounts have to be taken on good faith. --Mαuri’96 “everything and nothing always haunts me…” 03:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mauri96:@Btljs: The current edit war between 86.27.128.174 and Alan jason 96 is exactly why we urgently need to state which sources we can use in the article and delete the non-RS ones. Richard3120 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody

Thanks for directing me to that. However, there isn't too much in it that's new - which is hardly surprising since it must be one of the most exhaustively chronicled songs ever. I notice the BBC rather lazily call it a "rock opera". Nope, that's Tommy or Jesus Christ Superstar! Rodericksilly (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Trilogy

Correct, the name of Budgie should not be mentioned. I have just seen in the talk of that article that "Happy House" was not the one and only song badly credited on the sleeve. Woovee (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of best-selling girl groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spiceworld. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Get Weird

Hey, sorry if I seemed rude when I undid your edit, it's just that I see editors disregard proper sourcing a lot and I don't know if it's intentional or not most times. About the difference between SNEP and lescharts; lescharts includes compilations by various artists and those sorts of albums whereas SNEP doesn't, so that explains why when they get published on lescharts the albums are often a few places lower. Ss112 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that, thanks for the explanation. No problem, I wasn't offended – I know you're a good faith editor and you were right to pick me up on that. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Richard3120/Archive_1&oldid=1138979530"