You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 09:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Thanks for uploading
File:Coldrain - VENA II.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 18:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Coldrain - Fateless.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Coldrain.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Since nobody has yet opposed your genre additions (except for one), I have not generally removed them. However, I would like to ask you to please stop capitalizing every word in genres. The only time you ever need to capitalize one is when referring to Southern music subgenres, Christian subgenres, and whatever the first one you list is. On another note, if your choice of genre listing is removed or it is requested you do not add unsourced genres, I would not advise adding them. I have removed your assessment of Vena II as hard rock, as I find that to be a load of garbage and we can contest it so long as no source supports it.
I hope you understand and thank you for your time. dannymusiceditor oops 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - 8AM.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) 17:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coldrain - 8AM.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The page File:Coldrain rev blaredown.jpg has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise failed some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, you can re-upload it, but you must ensure you place the correct tag on it. If no such tag exists, please add the {{ Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Rockmusicfanatic20
Thank you for creating 20180206 Live at Budokan.
User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thank you for this new article. Note that the Track Listing table is currently incomplete, with blanks in the "Length" columns.
Hi, Doomsdayer520
I couldn't find any sources for track lengths when researching for the creation of 20180206 Live at Budokan.
As a result, I just used the template I used for other pages where I have created track listings for a live album.
If there are any other templates I'm able to use that don't require me to use track lengths in a live album, then please let me know. Thank you for your feedback, it is very much appreciated.
Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 21:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rockmusicfanatic20}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Fiction (maxi-single), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk)
05:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 18:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:ColdrainTSE.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coldrain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:ColdrainTSE.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Rockmusicfanatic20!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
01:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vena (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 02:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article January 1st (Coldrain song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1st (Coldrain song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coldrain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nothing Lasts Forever ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. It is generally not considered acceptable to say a band known for being a certain genre can therefore have all their releases described, without a source, as being that genre. You will find most editors see this as going against WP:V, and there is no real excuse for being "placeholder genres" as you described it. While I'm not disputing that the EP is probably alternative rock, an editor before you already expressed a concern about an unsourced genre being there, so especially after that, it should be sourced. Bands and singers can make music in other genres while still being known for being another. It's not so important we should be adding a genre as an unsourced placeholder until there are reviews or a general description. We can wait until a source describes the EP's genre, then restore it with that source, so please do that. Thanks. Ss 112 11:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 02:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 02:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Side Effects (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fateless ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gone (Coldrain song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPM.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rockmusicfanatic20, I understand from what you coming from. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you. I just doing it how it should be on standard wiki article. I really do want to keep the links, but many other more notable users will usually undo it regardless of what you try to explain. I did the same thing as you long time ago, but the users always said that don't link the articles when it don't exist in order to minimize the overlinking.
If you want to keep the links simply just create the articles. Regardless, the links will always be removed until the article is created. But from what I see, you have bigger problems to keep the articles rather than create it. When you creating an article, especially for a person, you need a lot of reliable sources to keep the notability of the article so they don't delete it. I've seen this many times and usually it ends up to be gone. On the single's chronology, I have to edit it back because usually the chronology is based on what was previously released and what was released after that rather than what is more notable or what has an article. That's why it's called chronology.
And the reason why I am always adding to the tracklist's note the phrase "of Crystal Lake" along with the artist is because like I said previously: The artist's article doesn't exist, so you have to add the band where he is mostly known from. This is used all the time and is based on the standard wiki article for an album. At least that's I always see people do. When the artist did exist on Wikipedia, then of course there is no point to add the phrase. But because he doesn't exist, we have to add it. And also mostly those who are visiting Wikipedia to search an album, they usually want to know the genres, the singles and most importantly the tracklist. You can have the phrase in the credit section, but people won't go search the credits, they usually checking the tracklist. So that's that. I hope you understand my intentions here. Thanks. -- Tobi999tomas ( talk) 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthew Tuck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinyl.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Enemy Inside (Coldrain album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fujisawa.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Rockmusicfanatic20. Look I get that you wanna be helpful and point out the genres that summarize the sound of Coldrain's first album and EP, but they're not mentioned in any of the sources I could view in both articles. Genres should be sourced no matter what you feel. And I know from my own editing experiences, which might seem a bit hypocritical, but they're mostly mistakes and I've grown more maturely to handle them. No one likes a genre warrior, man. So please only add genres if you have the sources for them. Thank you.... SirZPthundergod9001 ( talk) 07:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Animals (Architects song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPM. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Bring Me the Horizon discography, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Ss
112
16:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Die4U, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Every Time I Die discography, you may be
blocked from editing.
Ss
112
23:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-- @ Ss112: Hi Ss112, I don't like disruptive editing as much as you do. I saw the chart peak on the UK Rock & Metal Albums Chart and added the peak based on what I saw there. To be honest, discography tables can be confusing and I don't know how to add a reference to a grouped reference. You're clearly a much more experienced editor than me as you are probably more aware of how to add a chart reference to another reference. I only want to help articles be more up to date with new peaks. If you look at examples from literally the same day from the same updated weekly UK Rock & Metal charts that I've added to album articles, I do cite the sources. I don't have experience with grouped references.
This threat just feels unwarranted from my perspective but I understand why you may feel like I'm not citing sources. I do cite my sources, I just automatically go to the assumption because I see the grouped reference at the top of the discography table. That this comes under that also. -- Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 14:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
-- @ Ss112: It wasn't an unsourced peak as there was already a reference in place and adding a peak to a reference column in the table. When it comes to Bring Me The Horizon's discography. I go to the edit page and it comes up with this for a reference for the rock charts: (<)>ref name="UKrocksingles"/<(>) There's no way I can add anything to that reference and I get warned for adding to that article and I felt that was unfair. I said previously that I wasn't the most experienced editor on this website. Please don't assume that I'm going to know every in and out when I only want to help out and keep things up to date. I've helped out a lot of articles, even resolving the release date for " In the End" edit conflict with solidified references for example which you thanked me for. Me adding "unsourced peaks" which is not true, because there was already a grouped reference in place for the peak. I hope you can understand. Thank you. -- Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 13:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I saw you reverted another editor on The Chapeltown Rag because they removed the duration template from the infobox. As I said in my edit summary, the purpose of Template:Duration is to emit microformats for the duration so it will display in places that collate Wikipedia's data. This function is now provided automatically for the first duration detected in the parameter (per Template:Infobox song#length), so it is redundant to use the template. The infobox says only to use the duration template for any subsequent lengths in the case of widely known edits of the song and so on. Thanks. Ss 112 11:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waiting for the End, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twitch.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey I would like to thank you once again for helping improve the Draft:So Called Life page. I've seen the changes and improvements and I could not have done it better myself. As cheesy and corny as it may sound, I still appreciate the help from a more experienced editor like you. Have a good one! - Shout4Serenity ( talk) 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I highly suggest that if you think using RMNZ's official site if the better choice, then bring this up at Template talk:Single chart. I'm getting tired of reverting you. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Please, stop. I spoke to a admin, explaining the situation and he said that McMahon should be listed as released. There is why. Per Wikipedia:Independent sources, "Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." In that case, Meltzer (an independent source) confirmed McMahon left WWE, so we don't need a confirmation by WWE, since it's not independent and has personal interest, so no mentality "WWE didn't confirm the info, it's a rumor". Then, WrestlingInc and Wrestling News aren't reliable, but also, they are making an assumption based on a picture, not a confirmation from sources. So, confirmation by reliable sources has more weight than assumption of him not being released. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
"Wrestling Inc. and Fightul are both reporting sources have noted Shane McMahon is that he is no longer involved with the company. There are, however, conflicting reports on this. Wrestling Inc. is reporting that he is no longer under contract even though WWE insists he is “still a WWE talent and under a deal.” Other reports suggest he is rarely, if ever seen at the WWE offices anymore."
This was obviously not true as he ended up returning to WWE TV at the 2022 Royal Rumble event. Days after, loads of sources again try to claim that Shane had been "let go" after a supposedly heavily criticised Rumble match that Shane was involved in the booking of. Great, so WWE would report he's left the company right? He's literally the chairman's ( Vince McMahon) son and you don't think for a second that they wouldn't announce his departure? Someone makes a claim from an "inside source." Who's the source? Who's said what? Where's the evidence for the departure? Someone can create false information to create a story by claiming it's from an inside source. Who's verified it? Dave Meltzer? That's your example? He's been publicly known for having a track record of being unreliable. Just because something is reported, doesn't make it automatically true. We should all know that if you claim something, you need to back it up with evidence. All these "reports" FAILED to do that. Mainstream outlets that are typically known as more reliable and credible, ate it up and ran with what they saw without trying to verify the story themselves.
Days after again, a tweet comes out of a New York businessman by the name of Marco Masotti, revealing he's doing a business deal with WWE and their representative is Shane McMahon meaning he NEVER departed the company. [2] People reported a false rumour as a fact and Wikipedia is doing just that also. These "journalists" couldn't admit that they lied and partially made a retraction based on something which was falsely reported in the first place just to try not to tarnish their credibility (if they even had any to begin with). I took issue with that, I cited WP:Rumour and the quotes from that article on Wikipedia guidelines.
"Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate."
"Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate."
We need to be rectifying the article based on it. You said it yourself, WrestlingInc and Wrestling News are unreliable, but they still previously reported Shane McMahon being "fired" or "let go" as fact. [3] [4] WWE or Shane McMahon himself never confirmed that Shane was let go. These independent sources you provided were running a narrative on a now disproved false story. I assume Inside the Ropes is (somewhat) more reliable? [5]. We should never be presenting rumours as facts and these "sources" should know that. Wikipedia should know that. Things like this are why people don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information either. The site's track record in pop culture is laughable.
I asked you not to add the information back in, providing hidden comments as well. You continuously ignored me about it, adding the information back in anyway. You need to learn that these supposed wrestling "journalists" are unreliable and shouldn't be trusted with sorts of information. If he actually left WWE, it was reported with proof and the company themselves didn't announce it, then fair enough. But it later came out, that the story these independent sources ran were simply not true. Thank you for reading this and I'll be pasting this exact message into the Shane McMahon talk page for everyone else to see. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 20:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:COVERSONG before adding any cover to any article. Your argument ( Respectfully, the cover itself is notable. It's by a very notable Japanese rock band on a notable EP by them that features a cover of "Stuck" and therefore we should add the information into the article. I hate this idea of discriminating against valid and sourced information. If it's by a band with 50 followers and no wiki article then the addition would be worthless to add)) completely misses the mark. It is not about a notable band or an notable EP (or album), or the lack of notability of the band or album on which it is contained, it is about at least one of the following:
The closest we have is that the reference claims the song was a hit, yet no charting is supplied to support that claim. The reference itself does not meet reliability standards as it has no author and reads like a press release. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please do not change other users' access-dates unless they are blatantly incorrect, like an impossible date or the wrong year (e.g. months, weeks or days ago). I am sure you are aware that other users live in different time zones to wherever you live, so therefore you had no reason to change the access-dates for charts you did not add to/change anything about on Pop Drunk Snot Bread. Secondly, you updated a peak on Obsidian (Northlane album). You had just demonstrated you know to update access-dates so please remember to do so everywhere. Thank you. Ss 112 19:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I apologize that you're involved with all the genre drama going on at Drive (Incubus song) and Butterfly (Crazy Town song), but now I think we might have a bigger problem on the former article. Does this look like suckpuppet behavior to you? ( 1, 2) I was going to file a sock report, but this evidence doesn't look irrefutable yet, even if they mentioned "Butterfly" on the latter edit summary. What do you think? ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 11:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I will admit that sockpuppeting could be a possibility in that case. I also acknowledge that most people who WP:GWAR either have no user page for their account or are just a straight-up IP address trying to remove stuff they blatantly disagree with. That sort of behaviour isn't new to me from what I've seen.
... On further inspection, I notice that on revision [12] by IP 178.176.219.45 and user SlamDunk1997 on revision [13] both cite WP:Extraordinary and WP:Bold which indicates that this person is familiar with these guidelines and try to use them as a crutch to justify removing reliably sourced genres, which I heavily disagree with. This behaviour is suspicious to me, for which I am convinced both are the same person. I however am not so sure about SlytheWarrior's edit on 10 May 2022 which I feel is more likely to be a different person, though I could be wrong about this. I've had a look at contributions for SlytheWarrior and have noticed a pattern of removing content related to nu metal and have now gone ahead and removed nu metal as a genre at " Butterfly", though I previously used that as an example in my edit summary which they have gone and removed that as a result. I will apply for page protection on " Drive" as this is needed with all this vandalism and if you can report a suspected sock puppet would be a good idea. Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 16:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have to intervene: even though our edits are similar, I have nothing to do with SlytheWarrior, so a report would be an unfair decision. Thank you. SlamDunk1997 ( talk) 16:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this, directed at @ Lk95:, the Official Charts Company publishes an article around 45 minutes earlier on their website containing the debuts in the top 40 of the UK Albums Chart. That's where Lk95 got it from. He wasn't "assuming". Was it properly sourced? No, but he wasn't assuming either. You might want to familiarise yourself with how the OCC updates and when before claiming somebody's being "bold in assuming" something. Thanks. Ss 112 16:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Edits adding charts like this are pointless when it will just be replaced when the final chart comes out. If it's not where the song will end up (because it never is the final chart peak), this doesn't tell readers anything meaningful. For the same reason while the US Rolling Stone Top 100 songs chart was running we did not add it before it was "final" ( WP:RSCHART), the same logic applies here. Thank you. Ss 112 01:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Please don't add "eponymous" to an album article if the title of the album and the name of the artist(s) are in the first sentence. The issue isn't whether it's eponymous. The problem is that it is redundant and very bad writing. "Eponymous" means "named for". It's unnecessary to say "Korn is an album named for Korn by Korn". Adding it just creates a problem that others have to fix. I understand that it is often added to articles, but most of the time it is done incorrectly and then copied from one article to another. Over a period of years I have removed it from hundreds of album articles. So far, only you and two other editors have reverted it. And all three have been immediately reverted back by another editor. Several editors have thanked me, including two on my talk page, which you can see now if you look. Please don't revert again before carefully reading WP:BRD. When someone removes something from an article for good reason that is explained in an edit summary, it is inappropriate for you to revert it back without first discussing and getting consensus on the article's talk page. That is disruptive editing. If it happens repeatedly it can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose ( talk) 13:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't remove table captions, as you did at Chop Suey! (song). I didn't add them to this article, but they have been required on Wikipedia for the last two years per MOS:TABLECAPTION, as well as a consensus that was reached at an RfC at WT:ACCESS in 2020, both of which are part of Wikimedia's policy on WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Even where they are considered redundant for readers who are not visually impaired. Thank you. Ss 112 23:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SigridxBMTH - Bad Life.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) 17:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, the view counts from music videos are considered a trivial detail that is not of encyclopedic value. You will not find them in any of the featured articles about songs on Wikipedia. This kind of detail is only notable if the video breaks some record, after which reliable secondary sources report on it. Since the view-count reflected on YouTube will always increase, the one add you add to the article will quickly become outdated, so it can not be sourced to it. Thank you for your contributions but please take note of this. Regards.-- N Ø 13:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 17:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi RMF,
I have removed your addition of Sid Wilson's birth date. The blog post given cites Kelly Osbourne's Instagram post as proof of birthday. Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, self-published sources may not be used if they contain claims about third parties. If you can find an Instagram post made by Wilson himself citing his birthday, for example, feel free to add it. Rift ( talk) 19:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Bring Me to Life shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet ( talk) 18:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
You've been warned and reverted multiple times for WP:GWAR and not seeking consensus on these articles (that I'm aware of). If you continue genre warring, edit warring, and violating other WP policies and guidelines, such as WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, it will be reported to WP:ANI. Lapadite ( talk) 03:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Halestorm discography.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at
User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks!
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{
bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)
01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please be aware that WP:USCHARTS applies to all types of charts, weekly and year-end charts. If a song did not chart on the year-end Hot Rock & Alternative Songs and Rock Airplay charts, only then can the other year-end rock charts can be added. Also, if the charts are already linked in the weekly charts section directly across/above, the charts should not be linked again. Please also decapitalise any all-caps words in citation titles. Thanks. Ss 112 07:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I'm confused as to why as recently as last month you were still changing/using hardcoded flatlists in the infobox on articles. Bowling is life informed you in July of last year that interpuncts display correctly on mobile now ( which I pushed for after Bowling is life reverted me on the issue, by the way, so it was a little funny you were manually reverting me on Post Human: Survival Horror when I asked for the change), so if that was your initial reason, you can see for yourself they display correctly on mobile now and there is no need to hardcode list formatting in the infoboxes any longer. Simply listing with bullet points displays correctly in most parameters. Thanks. Ss 112 12:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding this edit (and the subsequent one you made) to This Is Why, Billboard Japan is not the same as Billboard. By piping the link to just say Billboard, you're implying it's the American publisher when it is not so please don't do this. Also, there are plenty of redirects for component album charts. It's not helpful to have a link pointing to Billboard Japan Hot Albums when it doesn't have an article, nor point the Oricon rock and international charts to just the Oricon Albums Chart article, which doesn't have any information about those charts. This is why linking component charts is not common practice. Thanks. Ss 112 11:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I am not going to fight over
this, since I don't care enough, but you should know that you are editing against consensus.
WP:DISCOGSTYLE represents the community consensus and it says very clearly
here: we want to list only those certifications which were earned in the countries for which we're showing chart peaks.
. This makes perfect sence since otherwise the discographies will go out of hand - there are songs and albums with dozens of certifications - you will always see just the ones for which there are peaks. So know that you are choosing to go against the community, and that you are doing so knowingly. Have fun editing. --
Muhandes (
talk)
20:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I'm writing this message regarding your comments in retaliation to my edits removing the view counts on three articles. I do not recall making any "compromises" with you about what information should be retained in said articles as you stated in all three of your edit summaries, [14] [15] [16] I was cleaning up a bunch of information that isn't notable enough for article inclusion since it wasn't covered by a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:INDISCRIMINATE clearly states "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." which also applies to view counts. This is not a matter of making compromises, if it goes against guidelines, it's not suitable for notation. Furthermore, direct links to YouTube cannot be used as a source as it does not explain how it is a significant milestone; the type of sources that should be used are music press articles with titles such as "X song has reached X views on YouTube". Just because something is true, it doesn't automatically make it significant enough to be noted in an encyclopedic article.
Also, regarding another comment you made about these view counts being "significant" for them, the whole INDISCRIMINATE rule applies to all bands, so regardless of whether you think this doesn't apply exclusively to bands that you like, your preference is irrelevant if it is not in compliance with the guidelines. Put simply, I'm on board with what User:MaranoFan stated a few discussions above "Inserting "[XYZ] has 290 million views on YouTube" does not add anything to the reader's understanding as there is nothing to put that number into context." along with everything else he said about your opinion on what view count is considered "significant"; If I'm being honest, I don't know what else to tell you since he has gone over every single reason as to why your editing style is not acceptable. And side note: I will continue to remove information that does not meet the notability guidelines in articles if I come across it. Quite frankly, I (and numerous others) are getting sick and tired of having to explain why your edits are not complicit with Wikipedia's guidelines. If you continue editing in a way that only you seem to think is acceptable and work against the guidelines, I will take up a discussion at the noticeboard. Magatta ( talk) 19:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Drive (Incubus song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet ( talk) 15:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Binksternet (
talk)
16:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Aoidh (
talk)
16:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Drive (Incubus song). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet ( talk) 04:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Aoidh (
talk)
13:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Removing this only harms that and doesn't let people come to their own opinion firsthowever, that's not how an RfC works and proposed content can be discussed without it actively being included in the article. If necessary to view how it would appear in the article diffs can be provided, like the one I just linked. - Aoidh ( talk) 13:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.The section on WP:3RR also notes about 3RR that
The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.As for the president and impeachment, it would be a good idea to reread WP:ONUS (
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., meaning you need a consensus if you're going to include it) and WP:STATUSQUO (
To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion...Ultimately, the responsibility to achieve consensus on disputed contents falls on the editors wishing to include the material.) This is not a president, it is content on a Wikipedia article that was added and removed, so consensus should be reached before reinserting it. Continuously adding the content when it's known that there is a disagreement about its inclusion and no consensus to include it is not keeping the peace, it is edit warring. As for the way previous RfCs have worked, without knowing what RfC you're referring to I can't comment on that, but it's likely that it was an RfC to change existing content, which is why the content was in the article for the duration of the RfC. - Aoidh ( talk) 14:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
as that renders the point of the RFC pointlessis reasoning that I don't understand. How does that render the RfC pointless? "Should X be included" is a valid discussion whether or not X is presently in the article. Why would it being in the article or not affect the RfC? The question and discussion are on the talk page. There also are standards for RfCs, but disputed content being included in an article until its conclusion is not part of that standard, as there are other ways to determine whether content should be in the article while the RfC is ongoing (e.g., WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:STATUSQUO) because that's not an RfC-specific issue but a dispute resolution issue in general. The president analogy is a fairly apples-to-oranges comparison, but to use your president analogy (while keeping in mind that consensus is not determined by vote), this isn't an impeachment since the content is not in the article and no consensus for it exists (meaning this "president" in your analogy isn't in office as they have not been elected), but more analogous to an election to see if the president should be in office in the first place. A president typically doesn't hold the office until after the conclusion of the election, and such disputed content is typically not included until consensus for its inclusion has been established. There's no inconsistency here that I see since each RfC is about a different issue with different circumstances. Let the RfC run its course before trying to reinsert the disputed content. - Aoidh ( talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 09:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Thanks for uploading
File:Coldrain - VENA II.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 18:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Coldrain - Fateless.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
File:Coldrain.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Since nobody has yet opposed your genre additions (except for one), I have not generally removed them. However, I would like to ask you to please stop capitalizing every word in genres. The only time you ever need to capitalize one is when referring to Southern music subgenres, Christian subgenres, and whatever the first one you list is. On another note, if your choice of genre listing is removed or it is requested you do not add unsourced genres, I would not advise adding them. I have removed your assessment of Vena II as hard rock, as I find that to be a load of garbage and we can contest it so long as no source supports it.
I hope you understand and thank you for your time. dannymusiceditor oops 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - 8AM.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) 17:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coldrain - 8AM.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The page File:Coldrain rev blaredown.jpg has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise failed some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, you can re-upload it, but you must ensure you place the correct tag on it. If no such tag exists, please add the {{ Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Rockmusicfanatic20
Thank you for creating 20180206 Live at Budokan.
User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thank you for this new article. Note that the Track Listing table is currently incomplete, with blanks in the "Length" columns.
Hi, Doomsdayer520
I couldn't find any sources for track lengths when researching for the creation of 20180206 Live at Budokan.
As a result, I just used the template I used for other pages where I have created track listings for a live album.
If there are any other templates I'm able to use that don't require me to use track lengths in a live album, then please let me know. Thank you for your feedback, it is very much appreciated.
Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 21:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rockmusicfanatic20}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
--- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Fiction (maxi-single), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk)
05:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 18:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:ColdrainTSE.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coldrain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:ColdrainTSE.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Rockmusicfanatic20!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
01:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vena (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 02:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article January 1st (Coldrain song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1st (Coldrain song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coldrain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nothing Lasts Forever ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 12:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. It is generally not considered acceptable to say a band known for being a certain genre can therefore have all their releases described, without a source, as being that genre. You will find most editors see this as going against WP:V, and there is no real excuse for being "placeholder genres" as you described it. While I'm not disputing that the EP is probably alternative rock, an editor before you already expressed a concern about an unsourced genre being there, so especially after that, it should be sourced. Bands and singers can make music in other genres while still being known for being another. It's not so important we should be adding a genre as an unsourced placeholder until there are reviews or a general description. We can wait until a source describes the EP's genre, then restore it with that source, so please do that. Thanks. Ss 112 11:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 02:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 02:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Side Effects (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fateless ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gone (Coldrain song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPM.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello Rockmusicfanatic20, I understand from what you coming from. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you. I just doing it how it should be on standard wiki article. I really do want to keep the links, but many other more notable users will usually undo it regardless of what you try to explain. I did the same thing as you long time ago, but the users always said that don't link the articles when it don't exist in order to minimize the overlinking.
If you want to keep the links simply just create the articles. Regardless, the links will always be removed until the article is created. But from what I see, you have bigger problems to keep the articles rather than create it. When you creating an article, especially for a person, you need a lot of reliable sources to keep the notability of the article so they don't delete it. I've seen this many times and usually it ends up to be gone. On the single's chronology, I have to edit it back because usually the chronology is based on what was previously released and what was released after that rather than what is more notable or what has an article. That's why it's called chronology.
And the reason why I am always adding to the tracklist's note the phrase "of Crystal Lake" along with the artist is because like I said previously: The artist's article doesn't exist, so you have to add the band where he is mostly known from. This is used all the time and is based on the standard wiki article for an album. At least that's I always see people do. When the artist did exist on Wikipedia, then of course there is no point to add the phrase. But because he doesn't exist, we have to add it. And also mostly those who are visiting Wikipedia to search an album, they usually want to know the genres, the singles and most importantly the tracklist. You can have the phrase in the credit section, but people won't go search the credits, they usually checking the tracklist. So that's that. I hope you understand my intentions here. Thanks. -- Tobi999tomas ( talk) 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matthew Tuck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinyl.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Enemy Inside (Coldrain album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fujisawa.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Rockmusicfanatic20. Look I get that you wanna be helpful and point out the genres that summarize the sound of Coldrain's first album and EP, but they're not mentioned in any of the sources I could view in both articles. Genres should be sourced no matter what you feel. And I know from my own editing experiences, which might seem a bit hypocritical, but they're mostly mistakes and I've grown more maturely to handle them. No one likes a genre warrior, man. So please only add genres if you have the sources for them. Thank you.... SirZPthundergod9001 ( talk) 07:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Animals (Architects song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BPM. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at
Bring Me the Horizon discography, without citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Ss
112
16:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Die4U, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Every Time I Die discography, you may be
blocked from editing.
Ss
112
23:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
-- @ Ss112: Hi Ss112, I don't like disruptive editing as much as you do. I saw the chart peak on the UK Rock & Metal Albums Chart and added the peak based on what I saw there. To be honest, discography tables can be confusing and I don't know how to add a reference to a grouped reference. You're clearly a much more experienced editor than me as you are probably more aware of how to add a chart reference to another reference. I only want to help articles be more up to date with new peaks. If you look at examples from literally the same day from the same updated weekly UK Rock & Metal charts that I've added to album articles, I do cite the sources. I don't have experience with grouped references.
This threat just feels unwarranted from my perspective but I understand why you may feel like I'm not citing sources. I do cite my sources, I just automatically go to the assumption because I see the grouped reference at the top of the discography table. That this comes under that also. -- Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 14:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
-- @ Ss112: It wasn't an unsourced peak as there was already a reference in place and adding a peak to a reference column in the table. When it comes to Bring Me The Horizon's discography. I go to the edit page and it comes up with this for a reference for the rock charts: (<)>ref name="UKrocksingles"/<(>) There's no way I can add anything to that reference and I get warned for adding to that article and I felt that was unfair. I said previously that I wasn't the most experienced editor on this website. Please don't assume that I'm going to know every in and out when I only want to help out and keep things up to date. I've helped out a lot of articles, even resolving the release date for " In the End" edit conflict with solidified references for example which you thanked me for. Me adding "unsourced peaks" which is not true, because there was already a grouped reference in place for the peak. I hope you can understand. Thank you. -- Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 13:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I saw you reverted another editor on The Chapeltown Rag because they removed the duration template from the infobox. As I said in my edit summary, the purpose of Template:Duration is to emit microformats for the duration so it will display in places that collate Wikipedia's data. This function is now provided automatically for the first duration detected in the parameter (per Template:Infobox song#length), so it is redundant to use the template. The infobox says only to use the duration template for any subsequent lengths in the case of widely known edits of the song and so on. Thanks. Ss 112 11:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waiting for the End, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twitch.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey I would like to thank you once again for helping improve the Draft:So Called Life page. I've seen the changes and improvements and I could not have done it better myself. As cheesy and corny as it may sound, I still appreciate the help from a more experienced editor like you. Have a good one! - Shout4Serenity ( talk) 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I highly suggest that if you think using RMNZ's official site if the better choice, then bring this up at Template talk:Single chart. I'm getting tired of reverting you. ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Please, stop. I spoke to a admin, explaining the situation and he said that McMahon should be listed as released. There is why. Per Wikipedia:Independent sources, "Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." In that case, Meltzer (an independent source) confirmed McMahon left WWE, so we don't need a confirmation by WWE, since it's not independent and has personal interest, so no mentality "WWE didn't confirm the info, it's a rumor". Then, WrestlingInc and Wrestling News aren't reliable, but also, they are making an assumption based on a picture, not a confirmation from sources. So, confirmation by reliable sources has more weight than assumption of him not being released. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
"Wrestling Inc. and Fightul are both reporting sources have noted Shane McMahon is that he is no longer involved with the company. There are, however, conflicting reports on this. Wrestling Inc. is reporting that he is no longer under contract even though WWE insists he is “still a WWE talent and under a deal.” Other reports suggest he is rarely, if ever seen at the WWE offices anymore."
This was obviously not true as he ended up returning to WWE TV at the 2022 Royal Rumble event. Days after, loads of sources again try to claim that Shane had been "let go" after a supposedly heavily criticised Rumble match that Shane was involved in the booking of. Great, so WWE would report he's left the company right? He's literally the chairman's ( Vince McMahon) son and you don't think for a second that they wouldn't announce his departure? Someone makes a claim from an "inside source." Who's the source? Who's said what? Where's the evidence for the departure? Someone can create false information to create a story by claiming it's from an inside source. Who's verified it? Dave Meltzer? That's your example? He's been publicly known for having a track record of being unreliable. Just because something is reported, doesn't make it automatically true. We should all know that if you claim something, you need to back it up with evidence. All these "reports" FAILED to do that. Mainstream outlets that are typically known as more reliable and credible, ate it up and ran with what they saw without trying to verify the story themselves.
Days after again, a tweet comes out of a New York businessman by the name of Marco Masotti, revealing he's doing a business deal with WWE and their representative is Shane McMahon meaning he NEVER departed the company. [2] People reported a false rumour as a fact and Wikipedia is doing just that also. These "journalists" couldn't admit that they lied and partially made a retraction based on something which was falsely reported in the first place just to try not to tarnish their credibility (if they even had any to begin with). I took issue with that, I cited WP:Rumour and the quotes from that article on Wikipedia guidelines.
"Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate."
"Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate."
We need to be rectifying the article based on it. You said it yourself, WrestlingInc and Wrestling News are unreliable, but they still previously reported Shane McMahon being "fired" or "let go" as fact. [3] [4] WWE or Shane McMahon himself never confirmed that Shane was let go. These independent sources you provided were running a narrative on a now disproved false story. I assume Inside the Ropes is (somewhat) more reliable? [5]. We should never be presenting rumours as facts and these "sources" should know that. Wikipedia should know that. Things like this are why people don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information either. The site's track record in pop culture is laughable.
I asked you not to add the information back in, providing hidden comments as well. You continuously ignored me about it, adding the information back in anyway. You need to learn that these supposed wrestling "journalists" are unreliable and shouldn't be trusted with sorts of information. If he actually left WWE, it was reported with proof and the company themselves didn't announce it, then fair enough. But it later came out, that the story these independent sources ran were simply not true. Thank you for reading this and I'll be pasting this exact message into the Shane McMahon talk page for everyone else to see. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 20:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:COVERSONG before adding any cover to any article. Your argument ( Respectfully, the cover itself is notable. It's by a very notable Japanese rock band on a notable EP by them that features a cover of "Stuck" and therefore we should add the information into the article. I hate this idea of discriminating against valid and sourced information. If it's by a band with 50 followers and no wiki article then the addition would be worthless to add)) completely misses the mark. It is not about a notable band or an notable EP (or album), or the lack of notability of the band or album on which it is contained, it is about at least one of the following:
The closest we have is that the reference claims the song was a hit, yet no charting is supplied to support that claim. The reference itself does not meet reliability standards as it has no author and reads like a press release. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please do not change other users' access-dates unless they are blatantly incorrect, like an impossible date or the wrong year (e.g. months, weeks or days ago). I am sure you are aware that other users live in different time zones to wherever you live, so therefore you had no reason to change the access-dates for charts you did not add to/change anything about on Pop Drunk Snot Bread. Secondly, you updated a peak on Obsidian (Northlane album). You had just demonstrated you know to update access-dates so please remember to do so everywhere. Thank you. Ss 112 19:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I apologize that you're involved with all the genre drama going on at Drive (Incubus song) and Butterfly (Crazy Town song), but now I think we might have a bigger problem on the former article. Does this look like suckpuppet behavior to you? ( 1, 2) I was going to file a sock report, but this evidence doesn't look irrefutable yet, even if they mentioned "Butterfly" on the latter edit summary. What do you think? ResPM ( T🔈 🎵C) 11:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I will admit that sockpuppeting could be a possibility in that case. I also acknowledge that most people who WP:GWAR either have no user page for their account or are just a straight-up IP address trying to remove stuff they blatantly disagree with. That sort of behaviour isn't new to me from what I've seen.
... On further inspection, I notice that on revision [12] by IP 178.176.219.45 and user SlamDunk1997 on revision [13] both cite WP:Extraordinary and WP:Bold which indicates that this person is familiar with these guidelines and try to use them as a crutch to justify removing reliably sourced genres, which I heavily disagree with. This behaviour is suspicious to me, for which I am convinced both are the same person. I however am not so sure about SlytheWarrior's edit on 10 May 2022 which I feel is more likely to be a different person, though I could be wrong about this. I've had a look at contributions for SlytheWarrior and have noticed a pattern of removing content related to nu metal and have now gone ahead and removed nu metal as a genre at " Butterfly", though I previously used that as an example in my edit summary which they have gone and removed that as a result. I will apply for page protection on " Drive" as this is needed with all this vandalism and if you can report a suspected sock puppet would be a good idea. Rockmusicfanatic20 ( talk) 16:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have to intervene: even though our edits are similar, I have nothing to do with SlytheWarrior, so a report would be an unfair decision. Thank you. SlamDunk1997 ( talk) 16:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this, directed at @ Lk95:, the Official Charts Company publishes an article around 45 minutes earlier on their website containing the debuts in the top 40 of the UK Albums Chart. That's where Lk95 got it from. He wasn't "assuming". Was it properly sourced? No, but he wasn't assuming either. You might want to familiarise yourself with how the OCC updates and when before claiming somebody's being "bold in assuming" something. Thanks. Ss 112 16:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Edits adding charts like this are pointless when it will just be replaced when the final chart comes out. If it's not where the song will end up (because it never is the final chart peak), this doesn't tell readers anything meaningful. For the same reason while the US Rolling Stone Top 100 songs chart was running we did not add it before it was "final" ( WP:RSCHART), the same logic applies here. Thank you. Ss 112 01:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Please don't add "eponymous" to an album article if the title of the album and the name of the artist(s) are in the first sentence. The issue isn't whether it's eponymous. The problem is that it is redundant and very bad writing. "Eponymous" means "named for". It's unnecessary to say "Korn is an album named for Korn by Korn". Adding it just creates a problem that others have to fix. I understand that it is often added to articles, but most of the time it is done incorrectly and then copied from one article to another. Over a period of years I have removed it from hundreds of album articles. So far, only you and two other editors have reverted it. And all three have been immediately reverted back by another editor. Several editors have thanked me, including two on my talk page, which you can see now if you look. Please don't revert again before carefully reading WP:BRD. When someone removes something from an article for good reason that is explained in an edit summary, it is inappropriate for you to revert it back without first discussing and getting consensus on the article's talk page. That is disruptive editing. If it happens repeatedly it can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose ( talk) 13:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please don't remove table captions, as you did at Chop Suey! (song). I didn't add them to this article, but they have been required on Wikipedia for the last two years per MOS:TABLECAPTION, as well as a consensus that was reached at an RfC at WT:ACCESS in 2020, both of which are part of Wikimedia's policy on WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Even where they are considered redundant for readers who are not visually impaired. Thank you. Ss 112 23:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:SigridxBMTH - Bad Life.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) 17:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, the view counts from music videos are considered a trivial detail that is not of encyclopedic value. You will not find them in any of the featured articles about songs on Wikipedia. This kind of detail is only notable if the video breaks some record, after which reliable secondary sources report on it. Since the view-count reflected on YouTube will always increase, the one add you add to the article will quickly become outdated, so it can not be sourced to it. Thank you for your contributions but please take note of this. Regards.-- N Ø 13:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Coldrain - Fiction.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) 17:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi RMF,
I have removed your addition of Sid Wilson's birth date. The blog post given cites Kelly Osbourne's Instagram post as proof of birthday. Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, self-published sources may not be used if they contain claims about third parties. If you can find an Instagram post made by Wilson himself citing his birthday, for example, feel free to add it. Rift ( talk) 19:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Bring Me to Life shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet ( talk) 18:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
You've been warned and reverted multiple times for WP:GWAR and not seeking consensus on these articles (that I'm aware of). If you continue genre warring, edit warring, and violating other WP policies and guidelines, such as WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, it will be reported to WP:ANI. Lapadite ( talk) 03:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Halestorm discography.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at
User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at
User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks!
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{
bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)
01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Please be aware that WP:USCHARTS applies to all types of charts, weekly and year-end charts. If a song did not chart on the year-end Hot Rock & Alternative Songs and Rock Airplay charts, only then can the other year-end rock charts can be added. Also, if the charts are already linked in the weekly charts section directly across/above, the charts should not be linked again. Please also decapitalise any all-caps words in citation titles. Thanks. Ss 112 07:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I'm confused as to why as recently as last month you were still changing/using hardcoded flatlists in the infobox on articles. Bowling is life informed you in July of last year that interpuncts display correctly on mobile now ( which I pushed for after Bowling is life reverted me on the issue, by the way, so it was a little funny you were manually reverting me on Post Human: Survival Horror when I asked for the change), so if that was your initial reason, you can see for yourself they display correctly on mobile now and there is no need to hardcode list formatting in the infoboxes any longer. Simply listing with bullet points displays correctly in most parameters. Thanks. Ss 112 12:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding this edit (and the subsequent one you made) to This Is Why, Billboard Japan is not the same as Billboard. By piping the link to just say Billboard, you're implying it's the American publisher when it is not so please don't do this. Also, there are plenty of redirects for component album charts. It's not helpful to have a link pointing to Billboard Japan Hot Albums when it doesn't have an article, nor point the Oricon rock and international charts to just the Oricon Albums Chart article, which doesn't have any information about those charts. This is why linking component charts is not common practice. Thanks. Ss 112 11:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I am not going to fight over
this, since I don't care enough, but you should know that you are editing against consensus.
WP:DISCOGSTYLE represents the community consensus and it says very clearly
here: we want to list only those certifications which were earned in the countries for which we're showing chart peaks.
. This makes perfect sence since otherwise the discographies will go out of hand - there are songs and albums with dozens of certifications - you will always see just the ones for which there are peaks. So know that you are choosing to go against the community, and that you are doing so knowingly. Have fun editing. --
Muhandes (
talk)
20:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I'm writing this message regarding your comments in retaliation to my edits removing the view counts on three articles. I do not recall making any "compromises" with you about what information should be retained in said articles as you stated in all three of your edit summaries, [14] [15] [16] I was cleaning up a bunch of information that isn't notable enough for article inclusion since it wasn't covered by a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:INDISCRIMINATE clearly states "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." which also applies to view counts. This is not a matter of making compromises, if it goes against guidelines, it's not suitable for notation. Furthermore, direct links to YouTube cannot be used as a source as it does not explain how it is a significant milestone; the type of sources that should be used are music press articles with titles such as "X song has reached X views on YouTube". Just because something is true, it doesn't automatically make it significant enough to be noted in an encyclopedic article.
Also, regarding another comment you made about these view counts being "significant" for them, the whole INDISCRIMINATE rule applies to all bands, so regardless of whether you think this doesn't apply exclusively to bands that you like, your preference is irrelevant if it is not in compliance with the guidelines. Put simply, I'm on board with what User:MaranoFan stated a few discussions above "Inserting "[XYZ] has 290 million views on YouTube" does not add anything to the reader's understanding as there is nothing to put that number into context." along with everything else he said about your opinion on what view count is considered "significant"; If I'm being honest, I don't know what else to tell you since he has gone over every single reason as to why your editing style is not acceptable. And side note: I will continue to remove information that does not meet the notability guidelines in articles if I come across it. Quite frankly, I (and numerous others) are getting sick and tired of having to explain why your edits are not complicit with Wikipedia's guidelines. If you continue editing in a way that only you seem to think is acceptable and work against the guidelines, I will take up a discussion at the noticeboard. Magatta ( talk) 19:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Drive (Incubus song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet ( talk) 15:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Binksternet (
talk)
16:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Aoidh (
talk)
16:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Drive (Incubus song). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet ( talk) 04:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Aoidh (
talk)
13:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Removing this only harms that and doesn't let people come to their own opinion firsthowever, that's not how an RfC works and proposed content can be discussed without it actively being included in the article. If necessary to view how it would appear in the article diffs can be provided, like the one I just linked. - Aoidh ( talk) 13:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.The section on WP:3RR also notes about 3RR that
The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.As for the president and impeachment, it would be a good idea to reread WP:ONUS (
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., meaning you need a consensus if you're going to include it) and WP:STATUSQUO (
To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion...Ultimately, the responsibility to achieve consensus on disputed contents falls on the editors wishing to include the material.) This is not a president, it is content on a Wikipedia article that was added and removed, so consensus should be reached before reinserting it. Continuously adding the content when it's known that there is a disagreement about its inclusion and no consensus to include it is not keeping the peace, it is edit warring. As for the way previous RfCs have worked, without knowing what RfC you're referring to I can't comment on that, but it's likely that it was an RfC to change existing content, which is why the content was in the article for the duration of the RfC. - Aoidh ( talk) 14:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
as that renders the point of the RFC pointlessis reasoning that I don't understand. How does that render the RfC pointless? "Should X be included" is a valid discussion whether or not X is presently in the article. Why would it being in the article or not affect the RfC? The question and discussion are on the talk page. There also are standards for RfCs, but disputed content being included in an article until its conclusion is not part of that standard, as there are other ways to determine whether content should be in the article while the RfC is ongoing (e.g., WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:STATUSQUO) because that's not an RfC-specific issue but a dispute resolution issue in general. The president analogy is a fairly apples-to-oranges comparison, but to use your president analogy (while keeping in mind that consensus is not determined by vote), this isn't an impeachment since the content is not in the article and no consensus for it exists (meaning this "president" in your analogy isn't in office as they have not been elected), but more analogous to an election to see if the president should be in office in the first place. A president typically doesn't hold the office until after the conclusion of the election, and such disputed content is typically not included until consensus for its inclusion has been established. There's no inconsistency here that I see since each RfC is about a different issue with different circumstances. Let the RfC run its course before trying to reinsert the disputed content. - Aoidh ( talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)