User talk:Rockmusicfanatic20

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Article changing

Please do not edit or change articles as you did in Points of Authority. See WP:SECONDARY SOURCE 86.17.231.129 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"Bloat the chart box"

WP:BRD applies to your reverts, by the way, so don't edit war, and please be realistic. Two extra characters is not "bloating" anything by any definition. MOS:DATERANGE says it is "generally preferred" to keep the years full. We are not short of space considering chart names are always longer than any year span is going to be, e.g. "Chart (2023–2024)", and I've made sure sets of music articles are consistent in this regard. You don't need to make unnecessary changes because you prefer "2023–24". Ss112 04:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ss112, thanks for coming to my talk page. Perhaps "bloat" wasn't the right word to say, but I think you get what I'm trying to say. Personally, I would say that having it has "Chart (2023–24)" looks more concise, and if they aren't separated by decade or century or whatnot, then it looks better that way because I honestly think it looks more ugly otherwise when a full year doesn't need to be stated when you already have the full previous year stated. Kind of like how the English Premier League (or any other sports league for that matter) does it by seasons in "2023/24", I haven't seen it when it's "2023-2024". It is very worth noting that this isn't a Wikipedia mandate or rule to adhere to it, but rather a preference and we are arguing over a presentation issue as the same guideline literally says it doesn't mind it as long as the two years are consecutive to each other. I don't think I'm being unreasonable with what I'm saying, so I honestly think this is nonsensical and silly to want to fight over. You mention consistency, I generally haven't seen this outside of the music scope on Wikipedia at all, so would it not make more sense to do it that way anyway? At the end of the day, Wikipedia literally says this is merely down to preference, and you clearly prefer it the other way which is fine so maybe it would be great to have a conversation surrounding this with other editors in the music scope to see what they think also. I hope you had a fantastic New Year's and I wish you the best for the rest of the year. Kind regards. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs recorded by Bring Me the Horizon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halsey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of {{Certification Table Bottom}}

I had to correct four of your edits in a row (1, 2, 3, 4) so I thought I'll leave you a message. The footnotes on the bottom of the certification table, specified by {{Certification Table Bottom}}, must match the ones actually being used in the table itself. If you need help, I'd be happy to assist. Please {{ping}} me or leave a message at my talk page. --Muhandes (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Muhandes: I always got confused by this to be honest, as I can't actually work it out. I use all the modern bottom template for the certifications, on those templates there are no issues but when I apply it for the early Sum 41 albums and 30 Seconds to Mars (album) for example, the proper way of the certification key never appears on the bottom notes section of the table. Safe to say, I probably need a little bit of a guide. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's quite simple really. The bottom should match the table. There are four types of footnotes, namely sales (*), shipments (^) sales+streaming (‡) and streaming-only (†). The default for {{Certification Table Bottom}} is to show sales (*) and shipments (^). Let's take 30 Seconds to Mars (album) as an example. If you look at the table itself, only sales (*) is used. Therefore, we need to remove shipments, hence, |noshipments=true is the correct usage. If we look at something like Die a Happy Man, the table uses sales (*) and streaming (‡), so we need to remove shipments (^) and add streaming (‡). Hence we use |noshipments=true and |streaming=true. If we look at Sex on the Radio, only shipments (^) are used by the table, hence we need |nosales=true, which removes sales (*). Finally, Addicted to You (Avicii song), the tables uses sales (*), sales+streaming (‡) and streaming-only (†). We therefore remove shipments (^, |noshipments=true) add streaming (‡, |streaming=true) and lastly, we add straming-only (†), which is |streamsonly=true. As a final note, if the table does not use any of the four footnotes, use can replace {{Certification Table Bottom}} with {{table end}}. I hope this short tutorial is helpful. Muhandes (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a massive help, and I shall incorporate this to the best of my ability in future. Many thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Leave a Light On - Papa Roach.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Leave a Light On - Papa Roach.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia standard?

Dunno what you were thinking with this edit but Wikipedia policy requires a source for a date of birth. You've been around long enough to know that. Toddst1 (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't exactly remember as I've had a lot going on lately, but I thought there was a source in the article for Joel Madden's Birthday at the time, and it was in the infobox, so I added it to the lead section per wikipedia standard unaware there wasn't a source for it when I thought there was. Probably just a sloppy edit from me not checking properly. Apologies. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I've gone back to the page and added Madden's birthday back in attributed to a Today.com article, which I have sourced. Apologies for my previous sloppy mistake of not checking, but have now fixed it. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"The American Dream is Killing Me"

I'm definitely a bit skeptical about the source you've included on the page for "The American Dream is Killing Me", as it says that it's a subsidiary of World-DJ.net and not of the GfK Entertainment charts as you've included in the article. Additionally, just because other users have added the chart in the past doesn't guarantee that it's fit for inclusion in this article; especially since I'm going for GA, a higher editorial standard is needed for the charts. Can you give me any insight into why specifically you find this chart reliable, or at least tell me where to look which demonstrates these charts are part of GfK? Thanks. Leafy46 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Linkin Park - From Zero.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Linkin Park - From Zero.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What I've Done

Please consider WP:SONGTRIVIA; merely being in a movie or video game soundtrack isn't inherently notable, even if the movie itself was popular. The use of the song itself needs to have gained attention and been discussed (not in a passing way) by reliable sources. I'm not going to revert you, but I don't think you are correct in applying your own opinion as to notability. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not applying any opinion, I'm applying facts to how "What I've Done" is notable in other media, like Transformers which was the fifth highest-grossing film of 2007. Because of the usage in that film, the song has now been memed to death by being used in other films such as The Amazing Spider-Man, Jurassic Park, Batman Begins, and Top Gun: Maverick which have been showcased to have over millions of views on YouTube, as a meme that was popularised in 2022. Guitar Hero World Tour is a video game that is extremely popular and influential, so the mention of the song being in the game is notable. You argued notability, and I am showing you how that's just simply not the case by showing figures and how notable it is in other forms of media. I used those rhetorical questions in my edit summary to prove that point and make it explicitly clear that notability is not the issue. These things should be mentioned, not deleted. If you take issues with how it is written, by all means, then please feel free to rewrite it in a way which it feels more appropriate, in terms of sourcing etc. but this information shouldn't be deleted under any circumstances. It's not a constructive way to help the article.

To add to it, WP:SONGTRIVIA requires these things to not be mentioned in passing, but there was literally a full in-depth article about the song's impact and usage in meme culture with "but it was made in 2007." You deleted all of that. You in the process deleted information that explicitly clears the guidelines mentioned in those terms. Please apply the guidelines to where they matter, and instead of removing information which can harm articles, it doesn't take longer than five minutes to find more appropriate sources for these sorts of information when needed to help pass these guidelines. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ratatata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saitama.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Bitter Truth. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lapadite (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This notice is pertaining to you repeatedly changing & removing the writing credits for each song, which are printed in the album liner notes: [1] Lapadite (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lapadite, respectfully, I am currently EXTREMELY confused by your edits. I don't understand this level of accusing me of me being "disruptive", for merely putting the song's writers into the writers column? Per my understanding, the notes section are always ones only meant to be used for featured musicians. I look at all recent high-standard articles, which are nominated as good articles by Wikipedia. Examples: The Tortured Poets Department by Taylor Swift, 30 by Adele, Eternal Blue by Spiritbox, The Album by Jonas Brothers and Where the Angels Fall by The Cat Empire. They all feature the notes section for featured musicians if they are a guest artist credit on the song, and the writers section is used for where the writers go. If you were to nominate The Bitter Truth for a good article, then surely you would have to make sure that the writers are credited in the writers column instead of the notes section? In my opinion, in that way currently, it looks very condensed, claustrophobic and not very presentable for readers and doesn't seem like the appropriate part of the tracklisting section to put it in at all when there's literally a writers column for well.. songwriters. Additionally, the Japanese deluxe bonus tracks of The Bitter Truth literally already have the writers in the writing column for the Fleetwood Mac and Bananarama, making it very inconsistent.

As for the other edit, I'm even more confused. The only reason I then removed the songwriters was because you literally told me in your edit summary: "Not the writing credits stated on the album liner notes." By that, you literally say that they are NOT the writing credits stated on the album liner notes, by your own admission. I am then confused, as to why you wouldn't remove these even though you said these writing credits WEREN'T in the liner notes and not referenced anywhere else either. Dumbfounded, I was like "Okay, if that is the case then I guess I'll have to remove these if they are unsourced." As by your own edit summary, you told me that these WEREN'T in the liner notes... to then turn around to me and say they were in the liner notes all along? To me, I am baffled and confused, and it seems like you lied to my face to begin with about these writing credits NOT being in the liner notes? Why are you then turning around and telling me to not remove writing credits in the liner notes if they were actually then there to begin with all along? Tell me what I'm missing. Is there something I'm just not understanding? I see at face value that you lie to me about these writing credits not being in the liner notes, which I TOOK YOUR WORD ON, and then you revert your stance and say that they were actually always in the liner notes? You are leaving me confused, and baffled and accuse me of disrupting articles and threatening me with losing editing privileges? All over me just moving the writers of these songs to the writers column and removing seemingly unsourced album writers? I really don't understand, and I'd like a serious explanation for this please, if you were so kind to do so. Thanks. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. You changed the names on the writing credits and then removed the writing credits. Both incorrect, disruptive edits. Why did you change the names, when the correct credits are already present per the album liner notes? My comment did not mention you moving the credits to the writer parameter, which is fine; you can move the writing credits to the parameter and not change or remove the credits. My edit summary "Not the writing credits stated on the album liner notes" refers to your edit that I reverted, apologies if that was confusing; an edit summary for a revert will nearly always address the edit that was reverted. Btw, the note parameter can be used for exceptions to the all_writing parameter: Template:Track listing#Parameters. Lapadite (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this about me using all of the band members individually as co-songwriters? There's nothing incorrect about that or inherently wrong with it, so I completely fail to see how that can be labelled as "disruptive." If the entire band are stated as writers, it means every single member would be credited as songwriters otherwise there would be members emitted from the credits if they weren't. The only reason I even removed them in the first place was because I had interpreted your comments in your edit summary as the writing credits being incorrect, to which I was confused as to why you hadn't already removed them if that was the case. You never clarified what it was that you meant, as removing the credits that were inherently correct indicated to me that they were false to begin with. For consistency, I believe every songwriter should be mentioned, and not one as just a whole band contribution otherwise a song writers column can become rather messy when using both units and individuals. If there was nothing wrong with the edit, then I don't see why you had to move it back to the notes section instead of just changing all the individual members back to the band name? As for the "can", doesn't mean that it "should" if the standard is already upheld.

All the examples above which are good nominated articles, have shown to use the writers for the writers column as per what seems to be a high standard, so there was no need for you to change that back, of which one could also be argued by some to be a "disruptive edit." All that needed to be done, even if I disagreed, was to just change all the band members into one singular unit under the band. All I see is all of this being made out of nothing, when this really could have just been as a simple edit to correct as what you saw to be what should be used as the whole band being credited in a grouped way rather than an individual way. I will ask you to please keep this in mind for future edits as to not to quickly and unfairly use Wikipedia buzzwords and warnings when they aren't warranted, as well as make things explicitly clear so things can't be misinterpreted as me thinking you were lying about writing credits to begin with so such a miscommunication can array in the first place. Wikipedia is about assuming good faith, and sending warnings to me assumes the opposite. You promote good faith on your own userpage, and I think this is a good conversation to keep in mind in the future. You should have just came to my talk page about using grouped writers vs individual writers which could have prompted a good discussion, instead of what you actually came with, which was a warning for "disruptive edits" due to my misinterpreted edits from your edit summaries. Please be careful how you phrase things. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We note the credits as they are stated in the album's liner notes, not how we think they should be. If the liner notes just state the band name in the writing credits, we just state the band name in the article. That album's liner notes specify the band name and/or the individual name(s) involved in the writing for each song. Just stick to the source (the liner notes). There's nothing more to it. Lapadite (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)