User talk:Ss112/Archive 16

Archives

IP 174.105.229.205

There are a couple problems here. First, the two warnings are stale. The most recent is over a year old. That said, IMO they have evinced a pattern of disruptive editing that is enough for an immediate block. Secondly, you note that they are using multiple IP addresses which suggests the block is likely to be ineffective unless it's a rangeblock. I'd need a few of the other IPs to be able to gauge whether that would be possible. I took a look at the/24 range on this IP and didn't see anything outside of the specific IP that was likely connected. If we are talking about a handful of pages that are being routinely targeted I might consider protecting them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Yeah, they've used a variety of IP addresses, not all within 174.xxx.xxx.xxx. Last week they used 2607:FCC8:FA06:5700:FDFB:ADD5:5A39:7F66, and there have been others that are IPv6 as well. And there'd be far too many articles to protect, they're all country artists' pages and discography articles or whoever happens to chart on the country charts. Ss112 01:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in all Billboard chart history pages

hi! Ss112, Could you explain why is nothing in all Billboard chart history pages ?? Recently I found all artists's chart history disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.26.153.24 (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@114.26.153.24: We (meaning I and other users I've informed on Wikipedia talk:Record charts) don't know why. Billboard did this a few months ago too. It might have something to do with the paywall they've put up on their site. Ss112 15:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okey,and now chart history pages have recovered ,thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.26.167.92 (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@114.26.167.92: Not fully, Billboard is still claiming another chart is being shown, for example Madonna's Billboard 200 chart history (https://www.billboard.com/music/madonna/chart-history/billboard-200) says it's the "Hot 100" chart at the top when it's clearly not, and clicking "More Chart History" at the bottom leads to Hot 100 peaks or whatever "HSI" (as shown in the URL) is/stands for. Ss112 01:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check in the revision of 10,000 Hours (song)? Tim96144 ignored the hidden notes and added unsourced genre and saying "Add genre". 2402:1980:243:6419:3AC4:31FA:73DA:E50C (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amaral reverted edit

I’m sorry for reverting your edit on the Amaral page! I didn’t mean anything shady by it, it just seemed like the quickest way to put the link back once I had gotten around to making the article. I don’t do that many edits to Wikipedia, so I don’t always know the right way of doing things, but I should have realised that it would come across as rude to ‘undo’ you. Sorry again! - Morgan The Professor (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just noticed that the edit I reverted also undid the removal of brackets which you had to redo, so that was extra stupid of me. The Professor (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your promptly and correctly reporting a potentially serious situation. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly create song single/song articles

Just curious, is there some template/script that quickly fills the templates in for articles on songs/singles? I wanted to expand the redirects to Astroworld (album). Thanks, 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Money emoji: None that I know of. Even if there were, I don't use scripts to edit and never have so I'd be quite uninformed in that department. Ss112 18:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

The Boxmasters, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested at a move request here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and a couple more GARs: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/You Ain't Goin' Nowhere/1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roger Miller/1. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Billboard Japan

Hi Ss112. I just created a new page over at Cyber (Japanese idol group). While I was able to find Oricon's weekly peak positions for each single, I couldn't find Billboard Japan's rankings, which is why they are blank right now. Would you happen to know where they are? ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 09:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: The Japan Hot 100 can be found at http://www.billboard-japan.com/charts/detail?a=hot100, and you can select the chart dates (which mirror Oricon's) from the bar at the top. Of course, as Oricon's main charts don't take digital sales into account, you might find this group have not charted (with all the acts incorporated) on the all-format Japan Hot 100, as I've found with several acts I've gone looking for after having seen them on Oricon's charts. Also, I noticed there is no other group called Cyber (at least, with an article)—you could move the article to "Cyber (group)" if you wanted. Ss112 09:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I looked through the lists and didn't find CY8ER in them, like you said. As for the article title, I think I'll keep it as is, since "group" is a little vague to disambituate . ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 20:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: Per WP:NCMDAB, it will be moved sooner or later by somebody whether you do it or not. We don't add unnecessary descriptions like "American" to a disambiguator if there's no reason for it/our personal feelings on the matter/no other group with that name with an article. Ss112 02:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they have never charted on the Hot 100. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2607:FCC8:FA06:5700:0:0:0:0/64

Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the /64 contrib log and reverted all of their live edits. It was pretty much straight vandalism. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Hey AO, a Spanish IP address (who's now used at least two unique ones) keeps coming back to spam me with gibberish and now Spanish insults because I asked for Memories (Maroon 5 song) to be protected and they're upset that they can't edit it. Is there anything you can do? Looks like they don't care that I reverted them multiple times yesterday asking them to not post here. Ss112 16:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the most recent IP and the 88.5.45.0/24 range x 1 week. If this continues let me know and I will protect your page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re. October 2019

Hi,

Thanks for your message re. my edit. I think everything is looking good now. :-)

Take care,

Sfinn85 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Story of Me

Hey! I was wondering, is it possible to do a chart section on Story of Me? Like the chart section on Thank U, Next, for example? – DarkGlow (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkGlow: Yep, done. Ss112 18:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't 100% sure if it could be done considering it didn't chart on the mainstream charts, so thank you! – DarkGlow (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to be a pain – would you be able to add a cover art to Megan's version of "It Must Have Been Love", if possible? Thank you – DarkGlow (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkGlow: I don't think that subsection satisfies WP:SONGCOVER, so I'm a bit reluctant to do that as it will probably be deleted. Ss112 03:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor Latino

Hello,

So I have encountered several chart positions under the Monitor Latino umbrella, I have seen on wiki template single charts the ones that are okay to use are the Colombia, Venezuela and mexico ones. Nevertheless, how about other countries such as Paraguay, Argentina, Panama and others? On the same note, are their year-end-lists reliable? I'm asking you as you are always editing charts and top postions so you many be more familiar with this matter.

Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Well, I see that WP:OKAYCHARTS does point out Monitor Latino's Mexican charts are allowed, but I don't see why this wouldn't apply to all charts Monitor Latino publishes. If the chart for Mexico published by Monitor Latino is acceptable to use, I assume the rest are too, and I've yet to see a compelling reason as to why not. While I don't personally add or really take much notice of the Latin American charts Monitor Latino publishes, and I think their use is sloppy across most chart articles, I haven't seen any real objections to their use. Ss112 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the info. I do agree with you. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM/TR requests

Howdy,

I did the page swap of The Dream Chapter: MAGIC → The Dream Chapter: Magic at your request, but you do realize you have page mover rights too right? You can do exactly what I did with a script like this one: User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap — IVORK _Talk 07:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IVORK: I know how to conduct a page swap, as I do it myself when I'm not involved, but given past incidents I have witnessed in the music sphere of Wikipedia, it is considered improper for a user to move pages if they have created them themselves. I am sure there are certain users who would object to my moving their redirect out of the way if I had just started an article myself. So I ask an admin or request at RM/TR to have it "approved" per se. Regardless, thank you for moving the page. Ss112 07:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, a decent fair point for sure — IVORK _Talk 08:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

75.118.34.55

Sorry, CUs can't run checks on IPs. We are dependent on behavioral evidence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I thought they do run checks on IPs, but just do not disclose the results because they don't want to tie an IP address to an editor for privacy reasons? Ss112 04:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience CUs don't run requested checks on specific IPs. W/o some idea of who they are supposed to be it would look like a fishing expedition. And if we have an idea of who they are then they couldn't act w/o compromising the user's IP which is a no no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I Feel Love"

Is an promo single.. HengeBoy (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HengeBoy: Promo for what, exactly? Ss112 16:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the upcoming album that soon to be announced in the coming weeks and also part of an two month campaign for Target, it’s not even being sent to radio or least getting pushed HengeBoy (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HengeBoy: You don't know an album is going to be announced; nobody does, as there has been no news of this. There's also no confirmation of it being on this album you're referring to. It's too early to say if it's going to be pushed to radio or not. Most of the time, radio releases are not announced the day the song is released. Please take these concerns to Talk:I Feel Love and make sure to back up what you're saying with sources. Thank you. Ss112 16:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The covers are literally like the DWAS & HDYS covers.. it’s gonna be in the album, HDYS is still being heavily pushed on Radio and other streaming platforms and it’s not in Spotify’s TTH playlist right now, it really not going to be sent to radio.. - HengeBoy (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HengeBoy: That's literally speculation. Please discuss it at Talk:I Feel Love, as you're not convincing me of anything here. Thank you. Ss112 17:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as you can see from it’s charting it’s a promo single.. it literally hasn’t been pushed at all in Spotify or in radio HengeBoy (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HengeBoy: I just said above I'm not convinced. Either go to the article talk page about it or don't. There is no point in attempting to continue this conversation here. Ss112 06:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo (Russ album)

Hi, don't know if you'd be interested in adding the chart box to this new article. If not i'll have a go at it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Just added it! Ss112 21:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks, great work Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Moroder

I agree with your revert on the more recent work, but overall the article has a lot of puffery, which is where I was coming from. The article is a bit listly, treats the new stuff with equal weight as the old stuff, and don't think it does justice to such a seminal composer/producer. Anyway, thats my take. Hello from Ireland, otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Ss112. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. -- Lk95 14:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne (Arizona Zervas song)

Give Cambridge a little time to think this over. But if nothing happens in an hour or so, go ahead and open a discussion at DelRev. Or I may do it myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Thanks for that. I might not be able to get to opening a discussion at DelRev for a while, as I'm a bit busy with chart updates. If you were going to, it'd be much appreciated. I would comment later. Ss112 17:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have some personal business to attend to and I don't think Cambridge is online as he hasn't edited since early in the discussion. I will check back on this a little later and see where things are. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Gray UK Chart History

Hi there. Is there an easy way to tell exactly where, when and how Conan Gray has charted in the UK? He has his own artist page on OCC which must mean he has made a presence on the charts but clearly not very high up. heyitsben!! ^talk 15:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "Everything is Love"

Hello,

I have recently oppened a talk section on Beyoncé and Jay-Z's collaborative album "Everything is Love" to clarify if the project should be labeled as a joint album or a debut album by "The Carters". Can you help me to clarify this matter, please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Everything_Is_Love

Jimoincolor (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is correct?

Hi again Ss112, someone changed this redirect [1], Emerging Artists. What do you think? The chart was originally a BB-Twitter chart, Billboard Twitter Real-Time [2] and was revamped, [3]. Why redirect to Artist 100? Thanks as always,--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonnielou2013: I'm not sure myself. You might want to ask Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars on their talk page. Ss112 07:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Creation

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible for you to create a page for the new Christmas single, ‘One I’ve Been Missing’ being released by Little Mix. I don’t feel that I personally have the best skills for this so I decided to contact you. Obviously it’s no problem if not, I understand that you contribute a lot so may not have the time.

Let me know, Lmarmy (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmarmy: Done. One I've Been Missing. Ss112 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Lmarmy (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheatCodes4ever Page Creation

Could you create a page for Mason Ramsey’s EP Famous? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: Sorry, no, I don't think it's notable. The song is, but the EP isn't. There are barely any reliable sources on it, and it didn't chart. It would fail WP:NALBUMS. Ss112 06:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what about Jessica Mauboy’s Selfish? I heard it on the radio recently and most songs on radio are notable. I remember the reason the page was deleted was only because it had horrible sources. Would that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheatCodes4ever (talk • contribs) 06:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: Again, not really notable. It hasn't charted and probably won't, and I don't see really any sources for it from a search, so would most likely fail WP:NSONGS. Not every song played on the radio is notable, and it depends what radio station you're listening to anyway. For instance, BBC Radio 1 plays a bunch of dance and electronic songs that I quite like but haven't charted and haven't received much coverage despite them playing the songs multiple times. It doesn't make them notable. Ss112 06:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing. If Cheat Codes’s debut EP, Level 1 is notable enough, I’d suggest that. If not, I’d also suggest their song “I Love It” because it charted in US Dance and peaked at number 40. If either of those work, I’d like you to try them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheatCodes4ever (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: Please remember to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Also, to be quite blunt, my talk page is not an article creation service. I rarely, if ever, would start an article just because somebody asked me to here; only if I had thought about it already and thought it was notable would I do so, hence the thread above this, as I had thought about making that article already. I don't think Cheat Codes' debut EP is notable, and number 40 on a 50-place component US dance chart is nothing major. That song doesn't have much news coverage on it either. Sorry, I just don't think most of these ideas you have are for substantial releases. Ss112 07:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One question, can you create a page for Real Blondes? She released a hit in 2000 “I Won’t Let Go” and I know it’s a hit because it’s in So Fresh: The Hits of Spring 2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheatCodes4ever (talk • contribs) 03:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the editing correct?

I honestly thought on Wikipedia you were supposed to write the single date on the infobox but in Camila Cabello’s Never Be The Same, I wrote the single date for the second time after someone changed it, and someone changed it back to the other thing and said what I’m doing is “vandalism”. I don’t believe this. The user is being blocked but not for that reason, for sockpuppeting Reasons. I want to know if this user is wrong or not. Also, I request the page for DNCE’s Body Moves should be deleted because it failed to reach the Billboard Hot 100. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also by the way, I don’t know how to do that thing you told me to do without signing. I don’t think it’s on the device I’m using, I’m using an iPad.

@CheatCodes4ever: I'm quite sure iPads would have tildes somewhere. Anyway, Camila Cabello's "Never Be the Same" was digitally released as a single in December 2017; you changed it to the date of radio release, which does not (always) mark the earliest date of release, which should be shown in the infobox per Template:Infobox song. I wouldn't particularly pay much attention to what Billiekhalidfan says anyway, because as you pointed out, they have been indefinitely blocked now for using multiple accounts while blocked. Some editors use "vandalism" as a catch-all term to describe changes they don't agree with despite the edits not being vandalism; we can point out that this is incorrect, but can't stop them from doing so. These editors are usually not very productive editors anyway.

Also, Body Moves is quite clearly a notable song. A song not reaching the main US chart does not mean it isn't notable. It charted quite substantially in a multitude of other countries. If our standards for song articles were "it didn't reach the US Hot 100", a hell of a lot of song articles would not exist. Songs can be substantial hits in other countries and/or be notable for different reasons. Ss112 08:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So should I revert that edit or not? And to let you know, the fact it being something to do with US and not just Billboard Hot 100, I don’t remember reading that when I read the DNCE album page were it noted that. And I hope this is it: CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article, "The Gloucestershire Wassail"

I stumbled upon your page by coincidence as I was messaging you about user Myxxd's erroneous edits and behavior relating to articles about the band Westlife. I happened to see you specialize in music pages. I was wondering if you wanted to review, and if good, approve, a draft article I've been waiting to be approved for several weeks. I don't know if asking for something like this is against Wikipedia's guidelines, and if it is, I assure you it is unintentional. I'm not impatient and I don't mind waiting the 3 months or more that it says. But if you are interested, it is ready to be reviewed: YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Gloucestershire_Wassail

Edit: If you have questions about the song or anything, let me know.

Edit 2: Just for fun, this is my favorite version of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO1qGUdnOvQ

@YouarelovedSOmuch: I've approved your draft. It's quite well sourced for what it is. You might want to add links to it on other articles if you can. Also, consider moving the article to just Gloucestershire Wassail if that is the more common name for it. Ss112 12:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I was going to ask you about moving the article. I just finished doing that. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by linking other articles to it but I know there are some pages that have Gloucestershire Wassail without hyperlinks, and I will be hyperlinks there. By the way, I tried pinging you on the talk page for user Myxxd. I'm not sure if you saw my message there or not. I had replied to you there about some important issues there that I think need addressing. Again, thank you very much. YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@YouarelovedSOmuch: Yes, I meant add hyperlinks to the article on other articles where "Gloucestershire Wassail" is mentioned. As for Myxxd, they have at least started to add sources with each of their edits. I have kept up removing trivial factoids from the article for Westlife's latest album. I'll keep an eye on Westlife, which as you note, is already clogged with far too much WP:FANCRUFT. I'll ask somebody if they can go through and remove the swathes of unsourced and irrelevant information. If their unsourced additions resume, I will inform an administrator, and they may decide Myxxd is incapable of editing neutrally. Ss112 14:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Regarding Myxxd, I am mostly concerned with them adding trivial information, not so much references. It's any page related to the band, such as the band page, band members, albums, etc. They are using Wikipedia for their personal fan page. The person has been adding trivial information for months. Some of the pages are unreadable, re: The main band page for example. Thank you all you have done YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(What you just removed)

Sorry to bring it up almost immediately, Ss112, but to answer your edit-summary, suggest maybe this IP has just made an account? Since you reverted a bunch of IPs on that page, and there seems to be an on-going bizarro about whether a single is not a single or vice versa :) All the best! ——SN 54129 17:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Except I didn't revert IPs on Look at Her Now at all. I reverted one editor. Ss112 18:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I didn't want to make the connection, but-! ——SN 54129 14:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Sorry, I didn't even really read the first sentence you wrote. No, the IP couldn't probably isn't CountyCountry, the user I reverted, because CountyCountry registered quite a while ago. At any rate, I'm not particularly suspicious. Ss112 10:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all—thanks for looking into it though, its appreciated. All the best! ——SN 54129 10:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revivaloutsold

Their last block and next to last warning are all stale, being more than a year old. There is is not enough recent disruptive behavior with corresponding warnings for a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on “We Fell In Love In October”

Hello Ss112, I am the original creator of “We Fell In Love In October”. Not the new creator, the old one. I just need to mention the reason why the page exists is because it peaked at number 14 on US Rock. That’s it’s Notability. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: I noted that in my edit summary when tagging it. That's nothing major. That appears to be its only chart position, and the article has not demonstrated any coverage or notability besides one chart position on a component chart. Ss112 01:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well can we keep the page for it’s notability on Spotify? Plus, that’s basically the reason Girl In Red’s Wikipedia page exists. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: There is significantly more news coverage on Girl in Red as an artist than on that one song. If all there is about a song is a peak of No. 14 on a US Rock chart and the article is a stub besides listing that, it shouldn't really have an article. Ss112 01:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CheatCodes4ever, I agree with Ss112. No. 14 on a "sub-chart" is really not that much. There have only been one or two news articles on the song itself (The405; FADER), however most discussion of the song occurs in interviews with Girl in Red herself (Vogue; DIY), therefore making the song fail WP:NSONG. I only intervened in editing the article in order to rescue it from the drastic state that I originally found it in. heyitsben!! ^talk 07:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, I don’t know why “Girl In Red” isn’t deleted. I don’t want it to be deleted, but can you just give me the most possible reason it exists? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: Girl in Red is an award-winning musician that has been the subject of many articles from mainstream news sources (New York Times, NME, Paper, Vogue, Billboard etc.). Her current music catalogue has gained millions and millions of streams and downloads, and she has sold out two headlining international tours since 2018. This year she has played many of Europe's big music festivals and has recently made a lot of radio airplay throughout the continent. She is also yet to make the front cover of Dork tomorrow. She is considered notable because she meets almost every clause of WP:NMUSICBIO. I suggest you research these topics before you throw out random comments. heyitsben!! ^talk 12:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wasn’t thinking about that. Sorry about that. Unless either of you want to say more, I think we should end this conversation now. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also, back when you said drastic state, if that meant it’s done wrong, I can’t help doing refs and discographies wrong. I don’t know which type of reference type to use and also I can’t do the right “ because I’m using an iPad. I can only do “ CheatCodes4ever (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Hey I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate all the work you do on this site. I feel like I see you on like 90% of the articles I edit and I have no idea how you do it. I really look up to your hard work and dedication and appreciate you calling me out when I've made a mistake. So to thank you, here's a barnstar! Gagaluv1 (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaed

Hello, I was curious why you tagged me (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaed&diff=929123850&oldid=929102557) when removing your recent addition (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaed&diff=927956839&oldid=926963054) to the Shaed page? Thanks! Happyomen (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Happyomen: Because I had seen you removing extra references on at least three different articles just prior to that when the peaks were supported by the sources in the header, and I was confused as to how you missed one you had just edited. Ss112 03:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Do you happen to have a "Billboard Pro" subscription? It's a pain checking their subscription required pages without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyomen (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Happyomen: No, I don't. It is a pain but I just stop the pages from fully loading and the "subscription required" black-out screen comes down over the page. Ss112 07:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks again for your tireless work updating chart information. It is for many a tedious job so I'm glad someone is so dedicated about it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checking on you.

I am here, from what I believe to be is, an un-called comment. On Family (The Chainsmokers and Kygo song) you undid an edit by TBone49. I agree with your edit, don't get me wrong, but you made the comment "you literally removed a sourced mention of it being a single. How are you not blocked?". One edit does not mean a user should be blocked. You are one of the best editors to Wikipedia, I know that, so maybe just work on thinking before typing. This was just to alert you to an action you made, not a disagreement at all. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: Okay, then you clearly don't know about this user's history. I informed an administrator about them removing sourced information months ago. They were then blocked for sockpuppetry by another admin later on, for editing in tandem with their own IP account while logged out on another article. My comment is not "uncalled for" considering they have been making disruptive edits for months now, continuing to remove singles as they see fit and to their own unexplained criteria of what is a single and what is not, regardless of reliable news sources calling them singles. I am baffled as to how this editor is still allowed to edit, what with having been warned by multiple editors for adding unsourced information, removing sourced information according to their own whims, and sockpuppetry. Ss112 14:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. No I did not know the user's history. After clarification on that, I take back what I said was an "un-called for comment". The comment was called for. I do agree the user should be blocked from editing. I hope you can see my point of view at least without knowing the user's history. I hope you have a good day and please keep up the good work.Elijahandskip (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"P.S. I Hope You're Happy" Problem

Hello Ss112, I have to note that the reason why I redirect P.S. I Hope You're Happy is that it is not notable. Usually, one of the new singles from a Chainsmokers album like World War Joy would chart, but I highly doubt it will be the one. The actual one that The Chainsmokers are advertising like it’s the only song they released as a single is “The Reaper”. If you want these pages to still exist, I think you should create a page for “The Reaper” as it is the one that is most likely to chart. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: I didn't create the articles, Futuresay22 created them. I restored them because I believe in absence of their charting, the news articles suffice. I also restored Family (The Chainsmokers and Kygo song), which has already charted in several countries. "The Reaper" has only appeared on one chart that I know of so far. There's nothing to say "P.S. I Hope You're Happy" won't chart elsewhere or later, but that's not the only measure of notability. Ss112 18:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. But also, I believe that The Reaper will chart on other charts. You or FutureSay22 do not have to create articles for them yet, though. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Top 40

Ss112, Most singles's Constantly changing at Dutch Top 40's year-end charts 2019. Why?? https://www.top40.nl/bijzondere-lijsten/top-100-jaaroverzichten/2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim96144 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim96144: I'm not sure...that's strange. I thought they would be static like most other year-end charts. Ss112 21:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Ss112. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Rob van vee 16:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about an editor's edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There an editor who been adding content in the lead section like this in articles. Is this considered okay adding that much in the lead section or that against the guidelines? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I am almost certain that user is a sock of a blocked account. I remember you having this issue with another editor a couple years back, who would routinely rewrite the lead of articles, including to Michael Jackson articles, and I remember reverting their changes extensively. This is exactly like that. I would recommend you report them to Bbb23 on his talk page. Ss112 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I starting to think the same thing, but I forgot what the editor's name. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the blocked account you talking about is Tjdrum2000. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a second opinion might help this, administrator RoySmith don't believe that Isaacsorry might the blocked account Tjdrum2000. If you disagree with RoySmith's statements on this, feel free to respond here if you have to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still have Ss112's talk page on my watchlist from the above thread and saw this. TheAmazingPeanuts, have you analyzed this tool yet? Rob van vee 19:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robvanvee: I have not seen it until a few minutes ago. I little mixed about it, this could be Tjdrum2000 but looking at the edits by Isaacsorry compared to Tjdrum2000's edits, they could be different editors. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm really struggling to make a definite connection between the 2 based on this interaction chart. Rob van vee 19:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robvanvee: Isaacsorry could be a completely different editor for all we know, but some of the edits such as this, looks unconstructive to me and making bold edits like this don't help. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also keep an eye on them going forward. Rob van vee 20:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you guy's still debating whether I'm a sockpuppet? All because I changed Drake's occupation to "recording artist"? RoySmith looked into the investigation and rightfully does not believe that I have any connection to Tjdrum2000. Isaacsorry (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacsorry: So you blank your talk page and come here? You know quite well TheAmazingPeanuts reverted you on more articles than just one and there was no mention of you changing "rapper" to "recording artist" by anyone in this section. Your changing of "rapper" to "recording artist" is what I raised on your talk page. It's like you didn't even read the above conversation between Robvanvee and TheAmazingPeanuts, nor what RoySmith said. RoySmith said he's not seeing a connection based on the behavioural evidence provided—that doesn't mean there isn't one. I am not going to have an argument with you on my own talk page about whether or not you are a sockpuppet. Users are allowed to believe you're a sockpuppet. If you're not, that'll be found out in time and you have nothing to worry about. Life goes on. Ss112 12:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Oh, so all of a sudden I'm not allowed to blank my page, even though I have received no warning or block? You're confusing and seem irritated. "Life goes on". Isaacsorry (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacsorry: You immediately jump to the defensive, retort my own final sentence back at me, but say that I'm the one who seems irritated? Nowhere did I say you weren't allowed to blank your talk page, but if you had something to say, you should have said it there when or before you blanked it, instead of coming to my talk page three minutes later to have a go at the users who responded in this section. I'm archiving this section. There will be no further replies admitted here. Thanks. Ss112 12:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fendi

Can you please unredirect Fendi plz? Barbie Tingz (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barbie Tingz: I'm not sure what you're asking. You already unredirected the article yourself by adding content to it. That being said, I do think you should find more news sources for the article. It doesn't really satisfy WP:NSONGS in its current state (it didn't chart and I'm not sure how much coverage is out there on it). Ss112 14:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Music

Hi and thank you for letting me know about the change regarding the name iTunes to Apple Music (a few weeks back). I wasn’t aware of that change, but since then, I have been referencing the name Apple Music. I got your message today re Dune Rats (still having iTunes as the website referenced). I just wanted to let you know those references were there prior to you letting me know. I do take on your feedback 🙂. 22:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100, Billboard 200

Hi Ss112, Billboard Hot 100's and Billboard 200's weekly charts have also Pay money to see since 2020?? https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100 https://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim96144 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Singles?

Hey there! So, since I know you're familiar with the band Theory of a Deadman and you're very well-versed in all things music, I wanted to grab your opinion regarding whether you would call Theory's latest two songs "singles". The band released "Strangers" and "Say Nothing" to the public on November 8 and December 13, respectively. Neither song has a music video (only "official visualizers") nor have they charted. Although I'm aware that songs don't need either of these to be considered a single, it makes the definition a little murky for me. I'd greatly appreciate your expertise on this whenever you have a moment. — Miss Sarita 05:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miss Sarita: Given those circumstances, and if they have not been sent to radio or been promoted extensively by the band or their label, I'd probably classify them as promotional singles. Ss112 10:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your advice. I will remove any mention of these from discographies and infoboxes and keep this in mind for the future. Happy New Year to you! — Miss Sarita 16:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

It’s very random to choose you to talk about this, but since you’ve heard about me creating articles for non-notable artists, I think you’re a good person to talk to about this. Would it be acceptable to create a draft article of a non-notable artist, but not submit it for review unless the artist becomes famous? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: Drafts don't stay around forever (if they're not worked on for several months, they are deleted), so you're taking a chance in hoping the artist becomes notable enough for it to be accepted/moved into mainspace as an article. I probably wouldn't start it in the draftspace—maybe create it in your own userspace. But if there's a significant chance the artist may not become notable, then I would think more about it. Either way, it's ultimately up to you. Ss112 05:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably update it a lot - such as when the artist’s songs became popular, when new songs are released, when new infomation about songs is released - so I’ll try creating a draft. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cover for Did You See (song)

Hi, the J Hus single has its own cover seperate from the album. Could you please add it.

Done Ss112 18:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Hello Ss112, there is currently a disruptive editor on Wikipedia called Ariolagranolaaaaa how is doing disruptive edits on Wikipedia, on pages such as Yummy (Justin Bieber song). I do not think they are here to build an encyclopedia. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: I'm not an administrator, so I can't block users. However, I've reported them at WP:ANV as they are WP:NOTHERE. Ss112 05:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Monkey

Hi. I'm wondering where you found Dance Monkey at No.7 on the Billboard Hot 100 (US chart). I have edited back to no.9 as per the latest Billboard chart. Here's hoping after the Christmas songs leave on tomorrow's chart that she IS no.7 or higher :-) Cheers, Pete Peterschinkel (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterschinkel: I included the source stating the new peak in the note= parameter of the Billboard Hot 100 single chart entry, if you had looked. It's right there on the article. I am confused as to how you could entirely miss that. Your edits have been reverted. Ss112 02:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ss112, sorry about that. I still don't quite know how to check that. Will not correct you again! Meanwhile, Djole 555 and others are often changing chart positions incorrectly on the Tones and I page. Is there a way to report such vandalism? Peterschinkel (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TXT Dream Chapter: magic

Hi. I was wondering whether the "Personnel and Credits" for this album found on the AllMusic website (here) is alright and could be used as a source for the same? Thanks.Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: Yes, so long as you don't copy it exactly and adapt it to suit MOS:ALBUM standards. Ss112 14:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Thank you for this information. The credits in AllMusic are a bit confusing, so I'm asking for a clarification. Does "Vocals (Background)" refer to "chorus"? Thanks.Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CheatCodes4ever Page Creation #2

Could you create a page for the upcoming ABBA song Don’t Shut Me Down? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this editor has been indeffed. Unfortunately, I have a strong suspicion that they will be back. If you see anything that looks like them kindly drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond White

Hey, I was about to clean up the discography of Diamond White into a formatted table, but I'm unsure on the chart history – would you be able to take a look for me? Thank you! – DarkGlow (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkGlow: Sorry for the late reply. I can't really find much evidence of Diamond White having charted on any more than say, one Billboard chart: [4] (and I'm not even sure what chart that is, as it's not named). Ss112 22:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hey, so I feel like we got off on the wrong foot mainly because of my fault. There’s been a lot of dispute over constant revisions and edits and mainly over which songs from Halsey’s album, Manic, are singles which caused the constant revisions and editing wars. I don’t want to continue on wikipedia having any bad blood with anyone or lose any privileges so I just wanted to say I’m sorry for all of my constant revisions and engaging in an edit war and being disruptive. I realize that undoing the same edits 50 times a day can be exhausting but I don’t see there being that problem with me again and Im working to get better with edit mistakes. Obviously I’m new to wikipedia so I’m still kind of getting the hang of it but I used to be big on fanon wikis so bad habits might have followed me from there. But I admit I am in the wrong and should’ve just taken it to the talk page to begin with but all the damage had been done so I don’t blame your comment you left on the talk page. I don’t mean any harm I’m just a fan of Halsey and am starting to get back into wiki plus I can just be stubborn at times. and besides the revisions, I have made good and appropriate edits and I would like to continue to do so with no problem. I would just like to get on good terms and have a fresh start, life’s too short to hold grudges over something so simple and I do realize it’s my fault and have been pretty obnoxious you could say but now I know better going into the future and thank you for helping me see that and helping me be better with wikipedia. Again, I am sorry. (also pages that were the main disputes over edits need some clean up from all of it so at the very least I would like to fix them back to normal) Have a nice day. Anon023409 (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Start Now

Hi, I read your edit summary in regards to me removing the full year in the charts table on the Don't Start Now article. I apologise for the mistake, I followed suit from other articles and I wasn't aware of this exception per MOS:DATERANGE. I hold my hands up to any mistakes I make; no doubt I am learning along the way, so thank you for letting me know. However, I couldn't help but notice your edit summary seemed a little hostile and I'd just like to clear some things up.

As for the "great upkeep" of the article, I'm quite busy with exams all-round, so I admit that my commitment to Wikipedia isn't the best it can be. Having said that, I contribute information that I think is relevant and helpful to articles as and when I can find the time to edit, whether that be almost 'fleeting' edits (like the one in question) or more in-depth expansions. I do have other priorities as of now. I didn't realise the extent of the poor utility that the Venezuelan component charts had, and the wrong date formatting from another user wasn't obvious to me at the time I edited the article. I'm not really understanding the "any new little disco queen's articles" remark either.

I only ever edit with good intentions when I can and I appreciate any feedback given, but I wouldn't like to think that I am coming across negatively to other editors like yourself because of honest mistakes. I apologise if this comes across as exaggerated in any way, but I just want to ensure that I am on good terms with everybody. Thank you. KHBritish (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KHBritish: Don't worry, I don't have an issue with you. I think I was just annoyed in that moment, or in a bad mood, and said that. Not an excuse though. Sorry. Ss112 22:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: No problem, happens to the best of us, just checking! Many thanks for your response. KHBritish (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Selena

Hi, sorry if I bothered you, I thought I did the right thing with my editions, since several sources and the same artist confirmed that LAHN is a promo single, but I won't do it anymore if you wish. I just don't see so much hate necessary, sorry again. damntcsarg (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ss112. You have new messages at Talk:The Boxmasters/GA2.
Message added 08:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your tireless improvement of music articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Thomson200 and User:7&6=thirteen submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

We nominate Editor Ss112 to be Editor of the Week for 14 years of contributions and over 400,000 edits, many of them dedicated to improving music articles. He is a solid long term contributor, who does quiet gnomish, tedious and important work with music lists, such as making sure peak chart positions are correct or that the list of number one singles/albums for a particular country are up to date. He has also been great at thwarting vandalism and making sure citations are reputable. He has created numerous redirect pages and uploaded hundreds of images of album art. His edits certainly are not the flashiest, but someone needs to be around to keep those tables updated and well cited. That is why we believe Ss112 deserves this recognition.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Ss112 lives in Australia

Ss112

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning January 19, 2020

14 years and more than 400,000 edits mostly dedicated to music articles. Does quiet gnomish work behind the scenes. Thwarts vandalism and makes sure citations are reputable. Has created numerous redirect pages and uploaded hundreds of images of album art.

Recognized for

his primarily focus on music articles and chart information

Notable work(s)

Hundreds of music and album articles. Prince is a favorite

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buster7, Thomson200, and 7&6=thirteen: Thanks a lot for the recognition and nomination! Unexpected, but a very nice surprise. It's great to know when your edits are seen and appreciated :) Ss112 17:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belated felicitations on a well deserved honor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Truely impressive and thoroughly deserved, for the wonderful work you do in music articles. werldwayd (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tones and I

Thanks for fixing my ref moves at Tones and I. Your direction to WP:CITEVAR was helpful: I'll try to be more cautious about this in future.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manic (Halsey album)

Hi there, my apologies, I thought I had used em dash and I couldn't tell the difference between the two dashes. About the A&R and legal thing, I thought that that was what you were supposed to do, because I looked at her last album's page and copied the formatting for Personnel to get formatting for Manic right. Sawhitney36 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking your opinion

I've just obtained an artist chart history for Madonna from ARIA. Listed on it is a certification for the album True Blue, which received its highest-certification of 4× platinum in 1996, pre-dating the period ARIA have archived certifications on their website. However, currently, the Madonna albums discography page has this, and a few other earlier album, certifications credited to David Kent's 1993 chart book. David Kent's books do not contain ARIA certifications, so I will soon be removing these fictitious references. As True Blue did not enter the ARIA top 100 albums chart during the period covered by Gavin Ryans 1988-2010 book, its certification does not appear in the book, either. I have thought that I might add an upload of the chart history as a reference for the True Blue album certification, as the level stated is correct, and there is no other source I am aware of that could be used to support it. However, some editors, primarily IndianBio (who has not been an active editor here for some months), have taken issue with me using Imgur.com references before on the Madonna pages, stating it is not a reliable source (regardless of whether the information is accurate or not - as he also took issue with me uploading a scan of an ARIA top 50 printed chart to correct the debut position for "Dress You Up"). What are your thoughts on this, if any? I asked you as I saw you had edited the Madonna albums discography page recently.Nqr9 (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nqr9: I have no issue with that, if it's scans of official charts and the like. I only have reservations when it's email correspondence (as you know). Ss112 05:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: But the chart history is email correspondence; well it would be an image from the Excel spreadsheet I was sent.Nqr9 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nqr9: Sorry, I misunderstood. Can we cite documents instead instead of email correspondence? I don't know, but I just get the feeling if we start allowing email correspondence for some things than it's like why not other things and it's just a big nope area to me. Ss112 00:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

The placement of the footnotes in the certification table is confusing - some are in different places. Can you please help me to fix this?- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese Album Chart (Five Music)

Hi, I’ve noticed that there’s a chart with this name on a few pages so added it myself to a couple pages a while ago. Recently you removed it whilst making an edit on the LM5 album page, is this chart not permitted or was it a mistake? I don’t want to re-add it or add it to any future pages if it shouldn’t be there.

Appreciate your input Lmarmy (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmarmy: It's a WP:SINGLEVENDOR chart that reports limited statistics from several interconnected retail stores in Taiwan. As far as I'm aware, Taiwan does not have an official chart. Ss112 00:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling it was something like that but wanted to double check.

Thanks for getting back to me Lmarmy (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help on importance scale

Hey @Ss112:, I had few concerns about important scales.

Fine Line has been given low importance by WP:WikiProject Albums. But as per importance scale on low importance is for Albums with low sales, those that did not chart, or were released only in small numbers. As Fine Line does not satisfy any of this thing but on contrary it's a chart topper, 3rd highest sales of 2019 in USA with worldwide notability.

For me it should be at least in mid- importance catagory. But I feel that I am going wrong somewhere in understanding. Can you please explain me about importance scale or where I am going wrong? Cheers!! Brown Chocolate (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brown Chocolate: Most albums are ranked with low importance when they come out as they have not yet attained any kind of cultural significance due to being a new release. It could probably safely be reclassified as mid-importance now. Ss112 18:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Apologies if I hacked you off regarding the redirect of Church (Galantis album) – I was simply asking for the redirect to point to the correct name per disambiguation, and never meant for it to get so convoluted.

In light of the above, I'll leave you to decide whether High Risk Behavior should be redirected to High Risk Behaviour, which is already a redirect for the same album – the former name appears to be deliberately spelled wrongly in order to avoid the redirect for the latter, but it's debatable whether there are enough sources yet to create an article anyway, so maybe it's not worth redirecting to the correct name, but maybe back to the band instead. Smoko (The Chats song), which also should be just Smoko (song), and Get This in Ya!! are also lacking sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: That's alright, I didn't think it was your doing anyway. I've moved those two articles you named. As for High Risk Behaviour, I think the tag is fine for now. Ss112 01:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Noodle Soup

Hello, this is in regards to your update on Chicken Noodle Soup (J-Hope song)

Please recheck the reference link for Australian Digital Tracks (ARIA) because the song is nowhere to be seen in the PDF file you have added. I don't know why this song is not in the PDF file. Maybe there was a mistake from ARIA's side.

This is the reason why I changed the reference link and added the ARIA Charts' archived web link because it shows the correct charting list where "Chicken Noodle Soup" debuted at #27. This is why I wrote "correct reference" when I edited. I saw your edit and message so I came here to give you my side of the story on the reason of my edit. My intention is always to provide correct sources. Facts Spiller (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Facts Spiller: I have no idea why it doesn't display it either. Thanks for explaining. Apologies for the revert, I thought it was unnecessary to change as I assumed the reference displayed the data. Ss112 12:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw you being very upset over my edit, I was very confused because I was providing the correct source from my side. Please be kind to us newbies next time because we have good intentions and are trying our best to help in providing legit sources. Facts Spiller (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you the user BasedAtlas?"

Looks like you were right after all. ミラ P 04:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Hello Ss112. Sinxe you edit music articles a lot I wondered if you know what genre this song classes as? I want to search for a source to cite on the page but don't know what to search for. Probably classes broadly as pop or rock but I feel like it would belong to some specific subgenre of somesort (perhaps a musicscene in Scotland). 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:B41C:61C0:51E8:5CC5 (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request to protect Miss Americana

Hello,

Random Justin Bieber fans and other newly registered users (who've barely crossed 200 edits) have been showing up and vandalizing the page. I request you to look into this, and consider changing the protection type of the page to "extended confirmed protection". Thank you. BawinV (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BawinV: Hi. I don't know where you got the idea that I can increase a protection level for articles from(?), but only admins can do that. You should request this at WP:RFPP. Ss112 15:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ss112. You have new messages at Talk:The Boxmasters/GA2.
Message added 21:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to Meet Ya (Meghan Trainor song)

Anyway refering to this edit, there used to be the expansion template which used to notify others that further information is available and that the article can be expanded. That was my intention to say that this article could be further expanded. Also contemporary hit radio / mainstream top 40 in the US are the same thing. Its different names for the "pop" or mainstream format. For what its worth Template:Infobox_song#format doesn't say to not include radio formats - airplay isn't mentioned either way. ... meh! I'm not fussed if people don't want them included. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 16:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: I was just writing a message on your talk page. Firstly, please don't accuse me of "stalking" you—I don't come to your talk page with accusations of you following me, when despite the fact that you worked on the article years ago, the only reason you edited Louboutins (song) recently was because I did. I literally started Nice to Meet Ya (Meghan Trainor song) as a redirect and have extensively edited the chart positions on it. If you go back, you'll find pretty much all articles you've edited recently I either created as a redirect, started, or have extensively contributed to and added to my watchlist. Please, do find an article that I haven't edited at all before you, aside from React, which is a recent song that's charting, hence why I have edited it. I assume Louboutins popped up in your watchlist, so where's the WP:AGF you said I should have for you the other week and then promptly removed? You're editing recent music topics—I'm usually watching them or will get to them. Your accusation has been removed, because it is not appreciated and untrue.

I was semi joking that I often find that pages I've edited often end up being visited by you. It wasn't me having a go... you've taken my comments out of context. I wasn't referring specifically to "Louboutins" but just in general. I apologise if you have taken it that I haven't assumed good faith. You've been really helpful at explaining some of the changes to wiki since I took a break and returned. Also I went to visit "Louboutins" because I noticed it has been edited and it was a page that I visit occassionally. It has nothing to do with you being the editor of that page, I'd have visited it regardless of who had made the edit. Nor was I accusing you - certainly that wasn't my intention. I just noticed that you seem to edit a lot of the same pages I do but clearly we share similar interests which is fine. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 16:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My message was as follows: In my experience, airplay is not (commonly) placed in infoboxes. Format= should apply to the available ways one can purchase or consume a song—passive listening is generally not considered a way of doing that. Airplay is not a way of purchasing a song, and it's entirely arbitrary as to when or if a song is played after being sent to radio. It's also not listed as an example at Template:Infobox song#format, and for how common songs being serviced to radio is, one would expect it to be listed there if it were supposed to go there.

I said that was fair enough. I hadn't seen preference for either way so its a non-issue? → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 16:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I do think Nice to Meet Ya (Meghan Trainor song) is far from a great article, I don't agree with the missing information tag. It has a music video section. A section that can be filled out or have information added to it is not necessarily "missing" that information. We could literally go around to most articles on Wikipedia and use this tag. An editor could be nitpicky and use it on an article you've worked extensively on, like React (The Pussycat Dolls song), as I'm sure that article does not have every little bit of information there is on that song. I also don't see what there is to update on it. It has chart positions achieved this month and radio releases that occurred this month. I also don't understand what more context there needs to be. It's introduced as a single from Trainor's recent album. There are several sections about how it came about, its video, its charting. What more context does a reader need? A lack of context tag implies there's something missing that's detrimental to a reader's understanding the most basic aspects of a topic, and that is entirely untrue here. It is a basic article to be sure, but nothing is missing that is detrimental to a reader understanding the little there actually is to know about it. Using three big ugly tags at the start of the Nice to Meet Ya article when it in no way warrants it is overkill. Ss112 16:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for tags, clearly there is a lot more coverage available about the song - I was merely drawing attention to that fact. When articles used to be tagged for expansion they used to appear in a hidden category that you could then search for to find articles that require work. It wasn't a reflection of your work if you wrote/started the article and it isn't a personal reflection of any editor's own contributions to an article. I tagged it because when I used to edit wiki previously, tags were a good way of drawing attention to articles that were suitable for expansion. The intention hasn't been criticise anyone or upset anyone and with the greatest of respect to you (because you do contribute a lot to wiki) I didn't think this level of response was warranted. All of these points are neither here nor there are mostly about personal editing preferences rather than substantial content or policy issues so I don't think it matters either way. Again, sorry if that's not come across. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 16:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbyul charting sources

Hey there, Would you mind taking a look at the charting sources on Moonbyul? I noticed you added peaks, but (at least on my phone) something is up with the sources. Source 5 state refname is defined multiple times with different content, and source 6 seems to only include citation for one song while there are 7 songs that show a chart position. I didn’t want to mess around myself and potentially cause errors and I know charting is an area you’re very familiar with. Thanks, Alex (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexanderlee: Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Editors on K-pop articles especially need to learn to just have one definition of a source instead of repeating a reference with the same refname multiple times. It's why refnames exist; so we don't have to repeat the content of a reference multiple times. Ss112 02:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and thanks for taking a look! I agree, I find sourcing on K-pop articles to be a problem area in general, too many unsourced/poorly sourced edits and questionable notability. Alex (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Fall on Me"

Thanks for doing this – I had noticed this article and was going to do the exact same thing (Bocellis version first, AGBW/Aguilera version as a cover and subsection), but I've had a manic week and you beat me to it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey and hello, I appreciate your contributions on the Tina Turner Wiki page very much. I am curious to know, if you are interested in an addtional entry in this page. I am working for a German publisher an we just published an interesting new book on Tina with ISBN number. Would you like to contact me for further details? Cheers, Robert Rdunker72 (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARIA Charts

Hi there, since auspOp are no longer publishing chart watch, and noise11 is irregular, I was looking for other sources to find the songs 51-100 and found this website https://www.top100singles.net/2020/01/every-aria-top-100-single-in-2020.html?m=1#show I checked a sample of songs against the ARIA, including the end of year charts (from previous years) and the numbers match up. Would/could this be a source to use for singles peaking outside the top 50? Tobyjamesaus (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobyjamesaus: That's a blog hosted on Blogspot set up by a user who advertises the website and posts on australian-charts.com. They bought a .net domain not too long ago (it ued to be top100singles.blogspot). While I have consulted it to find when songs or albums charted, I don't use it as a source. It's a WP:BLOG, so unfortunately, no, we can't use it. While I don't doubt that most of its information is accurate, many blogs do post factual information, but the fact that they're blogs disqualifies them for use on Wikipedia. Ss112 12:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool, it was worth a suggestion and at least you’re across it. Thanks for the info. Tobyjamesaus (talk)

Check revision history before commenting

Hello, please take a minute to check the revision history on a page when attempting to call users out. The update to the Swedish peak on the Tame Impala discography page that you were upset about was done by 179.228.14.83, not by myself. This has happened before so I wanted to make you aware. Thank you. Happyomen (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Happyomen: I never confused you as the editor who added the Swedish peak? Precisely what is confusing about whom I'm referring to as the editor who added the chart position in "you [Happyomen] seem to be concerned with removing sources from below chart positions as soon as the header sources update, but yet you couldn't recognise an IP editor before you added an unsourced chart position?" (emphasis added, obviously). Perhaps you need to read more clearly before saying I'm accusing of you something, because anyone who read that summary in full could not construe it as referring to anyone other than the IP editor. I said you seem to be checking header sources every so often to see if they've updated with the chart positions just so you can remove the extra sources as they trouble you so, but you obviously didn't check the Swiss source to notice whether or not it had updated with the information the IP editor before you added. I do "check [the] revision history before commenting", so which other incident(s) you're referring to here I'm unaware of. Ss112 21:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: What I'm referring is the "...before you added an unsourced chart position", which is implying that I added the unsourced chart position that the IP editor added. And I'm now seeing that you are also calling out that I made an accurate update but that I didn't search for any other potential updates. Would it be better that one do nothing at all or update what they notice needs updating? It feels like getting mad at someone for picking up litter because they didn't notice another piece of litter on the floor behind them. I think we should all be picking up litter, metaphorically, regardless of how much we pick up in order to collectively clean up Wikipedia. Happyomen (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Happyomen: You're taking that out of context, and conveniently cutting out the preceding "an IP editor" part. There is no way you can take that sentence as referring to you if you read it in full. After the comma, it is "yet you couldn't recognise an IP editor before you added a chart position" (obviously, emphasis added for clarity). I am clearly referring to the IP editor who edited the page before you, whom I already warned for adding unsourced material, because otherwise, the sentence in full doesn't make any sense if I'm referring to you there. Now that I think about it after you mentioned that "this has happened before", I believe also then, you took a part of a sentence as applying to you when in full it clearly wasn't and if I had been referring to you in it, it wouldn't have made sense. That equally applies here. Do you read sentences piecemeal? I'm legitimately wondering, as I am confused. I feel like I'm having to explain basic English comprehension to somebody who already speaks it.

In regards to what else you said, I am not calling you out for not "search[ing] for any other potential updates". Besides, you didn't make any updates in that edit. Removing sources that no longer need to be there is not updating a page—it's removing extraneous material. If anything, I called you out for apparently having the time to check other sources to see if they had updated just so you could remove extra references that were in no need to be so quickly removed, but yet not recognising that an IP editor just prior to you had added a chart position not supported by the Swiss source, a source you apparently did not check. You could also add that I'm "calling you out" for getting in the way of me reverting an editor (as I'm sure if I actually reverted you, you would have been even more perturbed than you are now) that added unsourced material. You obviously frequent or have watchlisted the page; you have 22 or so recent edits to it. It's funny that you say "I think we should all be picking up litter, metaphorically, regardless of how much we pick up in order to collectively clean up Wikipedia", because in your last 500 edits, you have not reverted (as in, clicked undo on) a single edit. I think to practice what you preach here, you need to be doing a bit more reverting of editors adding unsourced chart positions on pages you have watchlisted or frequent, because this happens often yet you don't care when it does. I would call out anybody in a similar situation. It's about priorities. You're concerned about removing sources when you should be more concerned that an editor is adding unsourced material to an article you have watchlisted. If you didn't notice it, then this is a wake-up call. You can continue arguing over reading comprehension or your annoyance at being tagged by another editor in an edit summary if you really wish, I just don't see why you should. Ss112 23:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question on table size

Hi Ss112, I saw recently you reverted my edit on the Lumineers discography page. I had added another column to add in the AAA chart history for their singles. I've started editing Wikipedia just this year so I'm still getting the ropes and was just curious, are there general guidelines that editors should follow for table size, such as no more than 10 columns? And how would we determine which formats would get priority to have their columns represented versus others, is it more less first come first serve? I looked a bit into your page and you seem pretty knowledgeable on the topic and thought you could help answer my questions. Thanks --Bikingpadres (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bikingpadres: We generally follow 10 columns per WP:DISCOGSTYLE. While DISCOGSTYLE is a proposed style guide that never gained enough support to pass per se, most discographies now follow 10 columns as beyond 10 columns, the columns narrow to fit the rest in and this can become a visibility/WP:ACCESS issue due to how small the text becomes. For some readers, even on desktop devices, the columns can exceed the total amount of space there is on the screen and continue off the side (rare, but it has happened). While you can find discographies that are featured lists that do feature more than 10 columns in a wikitable, most of these were promoted to featured status years ago, before we in practice began sticking to 10 columns for the reasons mentioned. What columns take precedence is a matter of contention and is always subjective, but we should balance between charts where the artist had the most success/a variety of international markets. For example, if an artist extensively charted outside of the US, we should not have 10 columns that are just or mostly charts Billboard publishes. Ss112 00:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Great! Thanks for all the information on why we use 10 columns, makes a lot of sense. Also I figured that column choice to subjective to a point, good to confirm and hear your thoughts. Bikingpadres (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]