User talk:ResolutionsPerMinute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Orphaned non-free image File:The Wallflowers Heroes cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Wallflowers Heroes cover.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) 17:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. () Hi ResolutionsPerMinute, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 00:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thank you for the kind offer, but I'd prefer to remain a casual editor. In addition to being unusually preoccupied with other matters IRL lately, I'm not that interested in anything that doesn't involve expanding music articles. Reverting vandals and creating articles from time to time is the best work I can do for the encyclopedia at this stage of my editing career. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Help with editing

Hi, do you think you could add some sources to article for me? I have a lot of editing to do and could really use some help with it and would be very thankful to get some help. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been busy lately, but it depends. What articles do you have in mind? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 18:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add some more sources to this article John Sackville Labatt for starters would be good. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

An article about a Canadian businessperson from the early 20th century? Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not a biographer. I work mostly on song articles, as it clearly states on my user page. Anything outside music, Nintendo, and television is completely out of my interest, so I'm not going to be able to work on this topic without losing all my motivation halfway through an edit, even if it's something as trivial as adding a citation. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Finland sales only?

Hey. Sorry to also raise this here (I didn't want you to think my reply on the record charts talk was only directed at HumanxAnthro), but you've also claimed that Finland's chart is sales only. Where is this from? Are you just taking what HumanxAnthro has claimed as fact? There's no chance that the current chart is sales only. The current chart published by ifpi.fi (week 24) [1] pretty closely matches what's popular on Spotify [2]. I'm not doubting it could have once been true, but HumanxAnthro is not just replacing the Finnish chart from the 2000s or 1990s. They've also been replacing artists whose careers began in the 2010s (like Alma) with the three metrics from the PDF, claiming that the sales chart from the PDF "perfectly" matches what finnishcharts.com archives, which is clearly untrue. Ss112 05:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: Yes, I do realize they are adding these charts to recent-music articles, but I was speaking strictly 90s/00s when I posted my message, before digital/streaming figures came along. I obviously know that IFPI has changed their methodology since then (who hasn't?), but focusing on my range of interest just makes it easier to communicate. I apologize if gave you the impression that I think Finland's chart is sales only; I was mostly just paraphrasing what HumanxAnthro said, and whenever I used the term "sales", it was loosely. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox listing

Hi RPM. I'm quite confused regarding this edit of yours. You do know the current standards of Template:Infobox song (and album) recommend the listing of names and items in the infobox with bullet points, right? The documentation for one or both of the infoboxes states commas are acceptable for a couple of items, but not when we have more than that, like four names. I was modernising the formatting on that article and I'm surprised to see you "restore" something the infobox no longer recommends doing. Ss112 11:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112: To clarify, I was restoring the Certifications subsection header for Akon's version since someone removed it. As for your concern, the original infobox uses commas, so I was keeping them consistent. If you have a problem with this, change them. It's not like I'll protest. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Already done. Ss112 11:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Re:Unsourced track listings

Hello, Thank you for your edits to "Don't Hold Your Breath". I made one small change to your edit(s), namely removing the unsourced tag. At a number of good article and featured article reviews, it has been deemed that where there is a phsyical copy of the a song or album, said release serves as the source and an online retail source is not required. This is backed up by WP:VENDOR which discourages the inclusion of retail/e-commerce sources. As a lot of songs and singles are only issued digitally this excludes huge amounts of potential songs from ever having a "reliably sourced" track listing section. Plus the action release is a medium of its own and therefore self-sourced. Hope that makes sense! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Franky, this makes zero sense to me, but for songs released during the digital age (usually 2007 onward), I could care less. Just keep in mind that I follow the philosophy of "all controversial material on Wikipedia must be cited" to the letter, so I recommend keeping an eye on this vulnerable content. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean I just go off what is best practice. It appears that WP:VENDOR discourages links to detail sites. Given that this song was released digitally and can be easily verified by anyone I don't have an issue with it. It's hardly controversial just an statement of being or fact. That said I will note if it means said content is "verifiable". I mean WP:VENDOR is flawed, there's no affiliation between Wiki and online retails - we don't get any fees or commission just because someone clicks on a retail link from wikipedia. Its daft - its not a WP:COPYVIO but we are where we are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying when digital TLs can be found around almost every corner, but they do tend to change and disappear without explanation, which tends to throw verifiability into question. Being a person who grew up around CDs and never understood the zeitgeist of digital downloading, I have a different set of beliefs. That's all I'm saying. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

LP3

Hi ResolutionsPerMinute, hope you're doing well, I've seen that reverted my edit for a chart in the Somewhere I Belong article, and u said the LP3 chart is compiled through votes not sales/airplay/etc. But isn't it through those votes the songs would air in the radio? At least that what it said in the LP3 article. And to my knowledge that's how the methodology of airplay works, or is there something else I don't know? Moh8213 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If LP3 is airing a chart that it compiled using information it gathered itself, then that also makes it WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Additionally, the second criterion of Wikipedia:Record charts#Suitable charts states that a usable chart covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources. LP3 is not compiling its chart through multiple sources; it is compiling information based on the opinions of a limited group of people. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing things up. Moh8213 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Broken // Seether

Okay, but then there's also this release to rock radio: [3] My apologies for missing that table. I did not know that had been added. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

So I suppose my question is how would I make another table entry to amend this? dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed something. FMQB skips the period of 19-20 April for some reason. It also lists the Darkness's "Growing on Me" as having a 12 April release date, but the song is nowhere to be seen in R&R's rock subsections until the 23 April issue, which means it was most likely released on the 19th, which the 16 April issue verifies. What do you think? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Lately (Divine song)

On 19 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lately (Divine song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Divine's song "Lately" topped the Billboard Hot 100 in 1998, it became the first number-one single for the performers, the songwriters, the producers, and the record labels? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lately (Divine song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lately (Divine song)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

All I Ever Wanted (Basshunter song)

Hello. Do not merge tables if peaks are different years. We add highest peaks by year so you know when song peaked in each country. Eurohunter (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: I see. So, what you're saying is that for articles such as "To the Moon and Back", we need to create five entirely different tables for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2017? And for articles such as "All the Things She Said", we need to make two different tables for two consecutive charting periods, making two table for countries such as Denmark and France? That's ridiculous. The same goes for "All I Ever Wanted", and doing this is even more ridiculous. Creating all these tables is redundant. I completely disagree with your logic. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Not my logic. Ask WP:Songs. Eurohunter (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank You (Dido song)

The recording date of this song can be inferred from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Angel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_Doors

The information isn't sourced there, so it isn't sourced in my edit either. BunningGrade (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@BunningGrade: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You can't justify you edit by saying it's uncited elsewhere. It'll only motivate me to remove them. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Understanding that the UK Singles Chart covers the whole of the United Kingdom

I've noticed that you've undone all my edits without any good reason, the reason why I've decided to remove the scottish charts is that because Scotland is a nation part of the United Kingdom, Scotland isn't a country and the UK Singles Chart covers the whole of the UK including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 82.19.124.151 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@82.19.124.151: Why are you complaining about this to me? I told you to go to Template talk:Single chart if you have a problem. Until then, I'm going to keeping reverting you since you are removing cited information without a valid explanation. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Revisions for lack of citation

Perhaps instead of reverting someone else's work for lack of citation, you could add the { {Citation needed} } template. That is the whole reason that template exists.

If you are concerned that it will end up never being corrected with that template, you could also reach out to the content creator and let them know it needs a citation. If they don't add a citation in a reasonable amount of time (a couple of weeks would be nice since some of us work full time), then it could be reverted.

Epolk (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Epolk: I have my own style of editing, so I don't think you should be telling me what I should be doing. You, as the editor who added this information, are responsible for citing it. It is not my duty to find citations for you, and if I feel like reverting an uncited edit, I do it. That's all there is to it. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I also have my own style of editing which is based on collaboration but I understand that not everyone works the same way. Thank you for your input.

Epolk (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The World Is Not Enough

I wanted to write to you before reverting your change about the music video upload on YouTube to give context to my choice. First, on other pages of the same artist, the date of the YouTube upload of music videos is written in the dedicated paragraph. It is fair since Garbage use YouTube (and in the past has used VEVO) to make their videos available to watch. Secondly, "The World Is Not Enough" is one of the videos that for many years has only been available on the Geffen compilation Absolute Garbage, due to legal ties. So, yes, it's pertinent to write that the video has been uploaded officially by the band on their YouTube channel for the first time, as it isn't available anywhere else. Moreover, it ties with the digital single reissue, the Royal Albert Hall performance and the promotion of the new greatest hits album Anthology. Anyway, let me know what you think about this. Vitaazerokelvin (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vitaazerokelvin: I removed this information because you didn't provide valid context for including it. The way it was, it just said, "This video was uploaded to YouTube, a single-vendor streaming site. The end." You need to provide a good reason why it was uploaded to YouTube, and if you're telling the truth about what you said above, then legal ties is a good enough reason for me. If you want to put this information back in (with a strong source that verifies it, as per FAC), please give a better explanation as to why it should be there in the body. You need to present the context as "This video was uploaded to YouTube, a single-vendor streaming site, because of this valid reason that doesn't involve a regulatory upload." "The World Is Not Enough" is a Featured Article, so adding useless trivia like, "The video was uploaded to YouTube in XXXX," doesn't exactly provide readers with the comprehensive insight they were hoping for in an article of this quality. Why was it uploaded to YouTube? Elaborate. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying the fact that it's become available officially for the first time (which happened coincidentally on YouTube, the band's main way of sharing videos) outside of a DVD collection released 15 years ago isn't relevant enough to guarantee a mention in the article? If it's so, I'm fine with it. I'm just asking out of curiosity. I've started writing on Wikipedia only a month ago or so. Vitaazerokelvin (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vitaazerokelvin: You can put it in the article, but you need to find a source that says legal ties prevented the band/label/copyright holders/etc. from uploading the video first. If they took this long to add it to YouTube, then there's bound to be a good reason. You just need to find it. That's what I'm saying. It only takes one phrase to turn trivia into merit. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Should I find a reliable source, I will add it. Vitaazerokelvin (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ashes

To answer your question, I copied the article to my sandbox back in May and must have missed your edits when I officially started expanding last week. No harm intended and I apologize if I caused annoyance. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zmbro: That's what I figured. Thanks for clearing this up and for your hard work on David Bowie articles. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hypocrisy?

How is this edit constructive? How is anything that I did "hypocritical"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: See your talk page. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Your response does not answer either of my questions and I don't see why it's better to have a conversation across two talk pages. Why is that a good thing? Please note that accessibility is important for all of the Web. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: Because even though I do understand that all the web needs accessibility, I have no accessibility problems myself. I find captions distracting and that is that. I'm not going to add captions to every table I come across just because you told me to. I have my own ways of editing, and you have yours. Therefore, telling me this is not going to change anything. You can go through my contribs and add captions to all the tables in this great land of ours, but I'm not adding them unless I feel like it. Please just let me edit the way I like to do it and don't give me advice unless it's a major screw-up. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't do it because I told you to: you should do it because you care about others. You also have now not answered three questions I have asked you. Please answer them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: See, there's the problem: I don't care about others. You don't know me. Also, I didn't feel like writing you a message on your talk page, so I decided to make a dummy edit. Also, you added captions to my added table without adding them to the other tables. I found that pretty hypocritical since you just added them to one table--one I happened to recently add--and not the others. I perceived it as some kind of attack on my editing style, and I don't take to kindly to that. Anyway, it's not like I'm totally again captions, which I've just explained. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, you have certainly made it clear that you don't care about others. Thanks for clarifying that, at least. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Radio Disney

So I should not use the Radio Disney Top 30 chart to support statements about specific chart positions or weeks-on, should not create or maintain "List of number-one hits on the Radio Disney Top 30" articles, and should not include it in discography listings as a record chart; I should use the chart solely to support statements about airplay on RD? Jamgorham (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jamgorham: Radio Disney is a WP:BADCHART, so no chart positions or statistics about songs should be used on articles or discography tables. However, if you believe a certain statistic is notable (such as breaking a record or getting notable attention online), then it might be worth a mention. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure it's because it's a chart from a countdown show and not because it's a single network chart? Jamgorham (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jamgorham: RD's chart is single-network because it's compiling information it obtained through its own research, which it then presents via a countdown. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights

Hello. In this edit of the Kate Bush song you added a reference to a Guardian article, but the link you added does not go to any article which substantiates your statement that they rated it 14th best UK no. one. Do you still have or know the actual link needed? I'm going to take out the reference as it is, but it would be nice to have the correct one to put back before removing the statement as well.... Thanks. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@LindsayH: I'm honestly not quite sure what happened there. I must have gone to another page and copied the URL without noticing, but it should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing this out. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, all good now, thank you. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Progrock70s (User)

User Progrock70s has been blocked for 1 day by user Materialscientist. When blocked, he started to use multiple Iranian IPs to do genre warring edits on Thin Lizzy albums pages. He cannot accept that genres should be discussed on the talk page first to be added later. He usually provides unreliable or poor quality sources (Discogs, Allmusic genres in the sidebar...) He was blocked by user Materialscientist on 25 December 2022, 7:52. The block lasted 31 hours. When blocked, he started using different Iranian IPs to do genre warring edits on Thin Lizzy albums pages 2804:1054:401B:E400:4CFD:1F7D:489F:3D5E (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that an initial block request has turned into a statement without purpose. I can't do anything about blocks since I'm not an admin. Please post your concern at WP:ANI or find an active admin here. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ResolutionsPerMinute!

Happy New Year!

ResolutionsPerMinute,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Heaven Help My Heart

Right, firstly I found the song which appeared on Fully Booked in 1995 on YouTube website and Tina's only appearance on Fully Booked in 1995 where she made only one appearance that year. Hope this helps. 82.19.124.151 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC) 82.19.124.151 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Allmusic as a source

Hey ya mate. Please listen: I've seen plenty of articles here which use Allmusic as a source for the genre of a song, so I don't really understand why this "rule" should apply to some cases, and to others no. Moreover, there's not a magazine article about every song ever written; and given there were, who tells us they're always more accurate and reliable than Allmusic? If tomorrow I opened a fanzine, would I be able to write whatever I want in it, list it as a source and would it be considered reliable? (I am giving an example ad absurdum just to make things clear). Other important things are listening, knowledge of contemporary music genres, using logic, and experience. And sometimes, that's enough to figure out a song's genre; listening to the songs I added genres to, you can usually recognize that the genres listed on Allmusic mostly correspond. But even putting this aside, please let me say again: why are Allmusic et similia considered reliable sometimes, and other times no? The rule does apply to all cases, or it does to none. That said, I kindly ask you not to remove the genres I added, unless you can tell they're the wrong ones, and in this case I will accept your editing with no problem at all. Have a nice day! :) 62.11.235.115 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@62.11.235.115: Yeah, you don't seem to understand. It's written plain and simple on WP:NOTRSMUSIC: AllMusic's genre sidebar should be avoided. Just because it's sourced on other articles doesn't mean it's okay to use. That's not how consensus works. Call me a square, but I follow the rules. If you don't want to follow them, that's your problem, but it's eventually going to come back to bite you. So no, if you source AllMusic's sidebar, I will revert it. You can guarantee that! :) ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Heyyy, as you want it: but I hope you're ready to look for every single Allmusic reference on Wikipedia and delete it. How I envy your spare time! Ok, so it appears that following a "rule" is more important than logic. Ok. Oh, a couple of things, just for you to know: eurodance has totally nothing to do with a song like "I know you want me", and "heavy rock" is a synonym to "hard rock". I suggest you to dedicate yourself to a hobby, you'll have more fun than keeping your eye over my edits... Bye! ;) 62.11.235.115 (talk)

Doubt it. Bye. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, bye! :) 62.11.235.115 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Creeps (Get on the Dancefloor)

I know this is a minor issue, but I have 2 questions:

1. Why is having no citations better than citing Discogs? I understand that Discogs is considered 'unreliable', and I don't think I've cited it directly in the time since then (I have occasionally used "cite AV media notes" with a URL to the images on Discogs, like on citation [1] on So Fresh), but the Discogs citations at least provided some form of evidence for the song's original title, original album appearance and the track listings, whereas now there's nothing. In fact, you added extra pieces of uncited information with the "3:41 (radio edit)" and the 2003 German release in the release history table.

2. Can you show me where Zobbel is considered unreliable, if it is? I've searched and haven't found anything conclusive. The closest I found was this discussion on your talk page: User talk:ResolutionsPerMinute/Archive 1#There are Template:Single chart and Template:Album chart entries for zobbel.de, yet you're telling users not to use it?, which sounds like it's just your preference against the site, not a consensus, which I wouldn't think is grounds for removing it. Regarding the discrepancy you mentioned there with "Real World" though, I'm pretty sure the reason is that there are 2 versions of the UK singles chart from 1994 to 2001 - a "compressed" one which removed singles below #75 after they'd dropped at a certain rate, and an "uncompressed" one that included all of them - and Zobbel uses the "uncompressed" version whereas the OCC, when they added full top 100s to their website, decided to use the "compressed" version. Zobbel explains it here (in points 1 and 2): https://zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_00F.HTM

Thanks in advance. I do really appreciate your work on here, particularly with compiling US radio release dates from Radio & Records and the like which I find very useful. Exallonyx (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Exallonyx:

1. Discogs is user-generated, which means data on the site can change in a moment's notice by anyone. In a sense, it's no different than including uncited info on Wikipedia. I've encountered several instances of incorrect information. One case I can remember is when the European CD of "What's Luv?" was once listed as a US CD even though no such format was issued in the US. I can't prove it now since the Discogs page wasn't archived, but you can see on the article's revision history when I connected the dots. If you want to cite an album's track listing, use AllMusic, where the information is more static. Regarding your concern with the German information, I obtained all that strictly from the liner notes of the German 2003 12-inch single but did not add citations since release years and durations aren't normally something we see cited in articles except in controversial cases. You can change the duration to the one listed on AllMusic if you want and maybe remove the German date if you think it's fake. As long as there is a cited date to use.

2. My distaste for Zobbel stems from several archived discussions at Wikipedia talk:Record charts where several editors bemoaned their usage in articles, and the popular conclusion is that its reliability is "questionable". I'm afraid I don't have a valid reason for disliking this site, but no matter how hard I try, I can't bring myself to trust it. I don't understand how "Real World" could have been at two different positions during the same chart week unless the two charts were compiled differently. This is somewhat biased, but I also can't trust a source that claims "Can We Fix It?" wasn't the number-one singles of 2000. Music Week says so ([4]). The BPI says so ([5]). Zobbel doesn't ([6]). There's something "off" about that. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I certainly have seen incorrect information on Discogs too, but only in the user-inputted text fields, not the images of the physical item itself; when I cited Discogs my intention was to cite the latter, but I realised later that it would be better to cite liner notes directly with a link to the images page - which I think is what you do, minus the link. Nonetheless, I was mainly confused about why you replaced the Discogs citations with nothing, rather than liner notes citations, "citation needed", or removing the information altogether. I've rarely used AllMusic and didn't think it was more reliable than Discogs but that page for the Freaks album looks fairly good, particularly since it has an image of the back cover. I do find it strange for durations to be an exception to the need to cite all information, though, and I'm not even sure which release you found the 3:41 duration from. I have no reason to disbelieve the German date so I won't touch it, but I'll add the AllMusic reference for the album at least.

As I said, the reason for "Real World" being at 2 different positions is (most likely; I can't be 100% sure without having the full charts in question) because they are 2 different versions of the charts, with different inclusion/exclusion rules. "Real World" was presumably the 119th best-selling single of the week, but placed at #92 on the "compressed" version because 27 singles above it were excluded. As an example, you can see a chart from 1987 posted here: https://www.ukmix.org/forum/chart-discussion/chart-analysis/11092579-uk-singles-charts-1987-including-chart-panel-sales?p=11096653#post11096653 , where there are many "starred out" singles below #75.

As for the 2000 year-end chart, that looks like one Zobbel compiled himself via his own points system - see how the ranks are in the same order as the "Pts" column on the right, but not the "Sales" column. The "CIN" column on the left matches the official ranks from Music Week and the BPI (except for Black Legend, who's #35 in the "CIN" column but #40 officially - that could be an error, or perhaps it could be a discrepancy with counting its sales as an import which reached #52 before its official release). That said, I don't recall ever having seen Zobbel cited for year-end charts anyway. Exallonyx (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Exallonyx: The reason I replaced the citation with nothing was because that's what I felt like doing at the time. Sometimes I add an "unreliable source" tag. Sometimes I add a "citation needed" tag. Sometimes I remove the citation. Sometimes I delete the info altogether. It depends on the situation, and this was a "remove" situation, particularly because I knew a better source existed out there but was too preoccupied with other matters to look around myself. Not to be that guy, but I wasn't the one who added this information, so it wasn't my responsibility. As for Zobbel, you're making a lot of good points, but with opinions divided, I don't like citing it, even if I once used to. It's nowhere to be found on WP:Record charts, so the only thing I can do is follow my own rules. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I suppose I'll add liner notes citations myself for the track listings. I checked and Zobbel actually is linked on WP:RECORDCHARTS - it says "Note that for the period 1994–2001 Singles positions 76–100 found on the OCC website do not match the charts published at the time in the OCC-licensed magazine Hit Music (archived at Chart Log UK)". Nonetheless, I won't argue about this one #193 peak, but I do think you probably shouldn't remove Zobbel citations until and unless you get a consensus on it. Exallonyx (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Holiday (Green Day song)

Hello, I appreciate you pointing out that the content I reintroduced was unsourced, I do apologize for putting that back in there. I have reintroduced another part of my edit (it doesn't involve sources, however: see my edit summary and the revision itself for specifics), but I do thank you for undoing the rest of my edit. I didn't see an edit summary about the removal of that specific content (when you moved the IPC content to its own section), so I thought it would be OK to reintroduce it. I now see that I was mistaken, and I thank you for correcting my error. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Undefined sfn reference

Hi in this edit to No Distance Left to Run, and again in this edit to Tender (song), you introduced an sfn reference "Power 2013". Unfortunately you did not define the reference. This means that nobody can look it up, and adds the articles to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you coul dfix them that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: My bad. I've added the ref. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - I wish everyone else was as quick and helpful about these! DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverting My Edit?

Just Say You Didn't Played The Game. Thank You. OGBadDogg (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Can I Go Now, Re: Pro Bowl

Good day. I noticed that you reverted my edit that removed the italics for Pro Bowl on the article "Can I Go Now".

However, bowl games are not to be italicized because they are not considered major works: MOS:MAJORWORK. Furthermore, Pro Bowl is not italicized on its own article page, nor is it combined as one word.

I'm going to change it back and add a space in. Thanks for your time. Kirby777 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kirby777: I accidentally reverted your edit because an LTA vandalized the article, and your edit happened to be in the line of fire. The vandal was practically going on a bloodthirsty rampage at the time I rolled back the article, so I didn't have time to check the release history for good edits. I apologize for the inconvenience. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, and Cheers! Kirby777 (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Skyfall song.

I received message on my talk page about Skyfall (song). I don't know why you reverted the edits, the coding is incorrect on the page, perhaps take a look at the revert please and undo, because the article is now incomplete again. Cltjames (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Wanna work on some Latin crossover songs?

Hey RPM! Since we worked on Nobody Wants to Be Alone, are you interested in working on some Latin crossover songs from the late 1990s and early 2000s song? By crossover, I mean songs that have both an English and Spanish version. This is part of my personal project on working on songs that reached #1 on the Latin Pop Airplay and Tropical Airplay charts. So it would be songs like Rhythm Divine, You Sang to Me, and even Come On Over Baby (All I Want Is You). Erick (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Thanks for the offer. Truth be told, I'm not really that into Latin crossover music. I only helped with "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely" because I had already made a bunch of edits on it prior to its GA nom, and because it was a Christina article that hadn't received enough attention. Either way, I'd still be willing to lend a hand in the copyediting department. I am a fan of Enrique Iglesias, so I may be able to handle a little more work with articles involving songs from Enrique, 7, and especially Escape. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, I saw you make edits on the articles I mentioned so I figured you might be into them. lol It's nice to see another Enrique so that should make it easy. How does Rhythm Divine sound as a start? I already set up a sandbox. Erick (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll be sure check it out later. Thanks for the heads up. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the month delay, I was working on lesser-known Latin pop songs. I am going to begin working on Rhythm Divine this Sunday. Erick (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, and if you have any suggestions to improve anything I added, please let me know. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Using Template:Cite AV media notes

Hey RPM. I don't think you're aware considering your recent additions of the template, but using Template:Cite AV media notes with the others= param requires you also use the author= param, otherwise it causes a maintenance error message when previewing the page. (Generally whomever wrote the liner notes/the label itself.) Or, alternatively, you can not include the others= param and it gets rid of the maintenance error with or without an author= param present. Ss112 09:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been aware of this for a very long time, FYI, but I highly doubt the musician created the actual liner notes, so I'm not sure what else to do. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ss112: Would you consider the designer or art director of the liner notes the author? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I usually just go with the record label, as most don't say who actually worked on the liner notes. As I pointed out, you can leave out others= with the artist's name in it to avoid causing the maintenance error, then there's no need to specify the liner notes' author. Ss112 04:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Everywhere (Michelle Branch song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Everywhere (Michelle Branch song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Everywhere (Michelle Branch song)

The article Everywhere (Michelle Branch song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Everywhere (Michelle Branch song) and Talk:Everywhere (Michelle Branch song)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Everywhere (Michelle Branch song)

The article Everywhere (Michelle Branch song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Everywhere (Michelle Branch song) for comments about the article, and Talk:Everywhere (Michelle Branch song)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft about a song

Hi ResolutionsPerMinute, I've wrote an article about the song Rain in May by Dutch singer Max Werner. It's on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rain_in_May Can you look over my Draft? My English is not so well, but I hope you can help me with the article. Best regards Backto80s (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Backto80s: I've done some copyediting to draft, and thank you for asking for my help. The only thing I had trouble understanding was the bit about Dieter Hallervorden, but I think I figured out what you were trying to write based on the context. The only advice I can offer you now is to keep looking for information about the song, as the draft looks stubby and could use more prose. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyediting. Now I have looking for more informations about the song and added them to draft. Can you please have a look on my draft again?

I have also a problem with the audio sample: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Rain_in_May%22_by_Max_Werner_of_1981_(audio_sample).ogg By Upload Wizard it's only possible to upload the file on Commons, but I want upload here in en:wikipedia und put them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_non-free_audio_samples Is is possible to move it here? I've just try it but I haven't any idea.

Best regards --Backto80s (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Backto80s: The file upload wizard has an option for non-free files as well, right below the big blue button for freely licensed files. Click on that and follow the instructions. I'll have another look at the draft in the meantime. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 14:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished. Here are some of the changes I made:

• Standard copyedit
• Topics were a bit varied, so I added more subsections
• This draft is for a topic of European origin, so be sure to use European/UK English (i.e. "programme" instead of "program")
• Remember to use West German(y) when speaking in a historical context
• You mixed up the Dutch Top 40 with the Single Top 100, so I added both charts
• Werner's Billboard page was deleted, so I replaced the template with a manual citation

Overall, the draft still has a few issues regarding original research, but that can be taken care of over time. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent IP disruption

Hi, I have made a report of that disruptive IP editor on Celine Dion song articles over at the Wikipedia edit warring noticeboard, see this thread. It focusses on the I'm Alive article where the history of disruptive edits / edit war is the most extensive. Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• I've started a talk page discussion over at Talk:I'm Alive (Celine Dion song)#External links and invited the IP editor to it on their user talk page. I encourage you to join the discussion too. Hopefully they stop edit warring and actually discuss why these links should be included. However do feel free to make an update at the ANEW thread above if they perform another round of these edits again without discussing first. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't Call Me Baby

Okay, I admit I did not see a label to confirm that they weren't. Sorry. Zigwithbag (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello ResolutionsPerMinute!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit

Hi, regarding this edit [7] a lot of times if I remove a certain chart as I previously did because a chart was WP:OVER200 the entire box will become uneven and out of place. I truly have no idea why, but once I remove the columns it’ll go back to normal. I think this is twice now that you’ve questioned this on your edit summary towards me. I’m not sure if you’re able to give some insight on this or not but I figured I’d reach out. Pillowdelight (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. I've never experienced this problem before, mostly because I remove a chart, preview my edit (90% of the time, at least), and save the page. Are you a mobile user? I'm a desktop user, so it might work differently. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m a mobile user, but I don’t think that would make a difference. After looking back at the edit I think it may have to do with me removing the very last column divide [8] Pillowdelight (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what's causing it, but I don't understand why removing all the column indicators "solves" the problem. Re-adding the col-end template if it gets deleted seems like the easier way to go. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I am still working

on Drift Away, so will you please give me 13 more minutes? Carptrash (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Just please cite the personnel at some point. I'm already dealing with a personnel-crazy user and don't need to add a second one to my list. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I guess that I am a personnel-crazy user, I like the folks who make the music to get credit for their efforts, but I am also an experienced editor, who likes to work at their own pace and following their own process. Anyway, I did get the reference up. Carptrash (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 16:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I am also working on a stub for Mike Leech, so it's okay to leave him linked. Maybe I'll post waht it have started just to get rid of the red links. Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Drive (Incubus song)

an annoying user keeps removing the same sourced genre, in this case nu metal, without starting a discussion on the talk page. Now he's questioning the reliability of the source, Metal Hammer, which is considered reliable per WP:MUSICRS. They've already been warned that they need to start a discussion first but apparently they don't respect it. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

And you've been blocked. This is why I don't mess around with genres when two registered users are involved. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maria Maria

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maria Maria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Adog -- Adog (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Rhythm Divine

This GAN you co-nominated is now on hold with comments at the review page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maria Maria

The article Maria Maria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maria Maria for comments about the article, and Talk:Maria Maria/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Adog -- Adog (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gimme More

Gimme More has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Erasure singles

Can I ask you why did you revert my edits on the Erasure singles pages? Individual items are split using the {{hlist}} template and/or the "*" marker on most of the pages on the wiki. I also corrected the "synthpop" form to avoid redirects and somehow tried to fix the typography on some of the track listing sections, as well as removing some of the now-pointless {{DEFAULTSORT}} mark-up. At least you could have properly checked my edits before reverting them for no reason. 8086-PC (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@8086-PC: Template:Infobox song says to used bullet points, not other list templates. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: I see that now. I apologize for that and I'm going to use bullet points the next time, but that makes no difference on the fact that you didn't even try to keep some of the other changes I've done instead of just reverting the edits when you could've left me a message about it on my talk page so I could fix the issue, or you could've simply replaced the {{hlist}} template with bullet points yourself on some of the pages. I just feel that I wasted all my free time I had yesterday that I spent on trying to fix the pages at least a little bit. 8086-PC (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@8086-PC: It was the easiest solution since I kept getting "you can't undo this" errors. I did my best, and it wasn't that many pages. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: I see now, you reverted only a few pages. Sorry for the incovenience. 8086-PC (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

A Thousand Miles 2001

Bro A Thousand Miles was recorded in 2001. She originally released it but re-released it in 2002 💀 Young Chove 15 (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Young Chove 15: Prove it. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

She originally recorded it actually in the summer of 1998. Look up "When was A Thousand Miles by Vanessa Carlton" recorded Young Chove 15 (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Young Chove 15: Sure she did. Prove it. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The World Radio History lists Britney Spears song as a different date than the one listed.

I see the page which says “adds September 15” but then the date seems to have switched considering it says in another paper that it “impacts radio and top 40 on rhythm crossover September 28”. I know the Lady Marmalade one i was wrong, that definitely was April 10 but I think the Britney one is actually not September 15, It’s the 28th of September. Just checking with you and any feedback is helpful. Also didn’t realize it was Radio and Records either, which is US, I thought it was Music Week. Jjjjfghh (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jjjjfghh: Looking over the R&R issues from September, it seems highly likely that the release was delayed to the 28th, and the Chart performance says that but is incorrectly cited. If you think this is the right date, you need to replace all mentions of September 15 in the article, update the source it comes from, and leave a clear edit summary explaining why you changed it (e.g. the song was delayed since it didn't start picking up adds until October.) If someone else reverts you, then take the issue to the talk page. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ll actually leave it cause you put the correct citations. Since I don’t wanna get another warning. Why did you change push the button by Sugababes to 23rd. Island Records didn’t release it till the 26th and I believe it needs to be under the label to count as a release. I might be completely wrong though. Who knows it very well could be 23rd but that was Universal Music so I’m not sure if that counts. Once again I could be completely wrong. Jjjjfghh (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jjjjfghh: It was released in Germany on the 23rd. UK release dates do not take priority on UK articles. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have anywhere to contact you apart from Wikipedia? You know a whole lot about music. I’m asking because I know some Wikipedia editors have other forms of media they use. Not all are willing to share though and it’s totally fine if you don’t want to. Jjjjfghh (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I really love your page by the way. Jjjjfghh (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jjjjfghh: I'm resolutely not willing to share any contact info, sorry. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That’s fine. Britney article date is wrong by the way. Just letting you know cause you ended up changing it anyway to the wrong date. https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Archive-RandR/1990s/1998/RR-1998-09-25.pdf

Read the first page closely. Jjjjfghh (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jjjjfghh: It says September 29 on both pages, clear as day. September 29 was a Tuesday, when CHR/RCR usually add songs. Where exactly does it use another date? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

https://pasteboard.co/EhR8577rMORk.jpg

Maybe you might’ve missed it but there’s this full cover here where it shows the date and there is an 8 not a 9. It really doesn’t matter anyway but I do think you should check before someone else brings it up. Jjjjfghh (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jjjjfghh: See, that's the weird thing about add dates. Often, R&R's add boxes for CHR/RCR uses a Tuesday, but advertisements and the Gavin Report usually use a Monday. I don't understand that, but I don't see a problem as long as one date is used, or occasionally, both (see Bye Bye Bye, A Thousand Miles, Say What You Want). This is the part where I leave you to decide which date to use, because the Monday/Tuesday issue is a split hair. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Why don’t you edit in any LGBTQ spaces? I guess it’s not something that you are interested in? I myself am apart of it so I get that. I hope I’m also not being annoying asking you all these questions like sorry, if you want me to stop I will. Jjjjfghh (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Culture is not my field of interest. I'd rather stick with what I know. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

All that information and no cited recording dates?Wow

No need for the rudeness and abrupt nature that you attached to your reversion over at Medusa. Consider your tone and how it comes across in the future. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Goodreg3: I wasn't being rude. That wasn't even close to being rude. Learn to take a little sarcasm. Jeez. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wow" was rather rude in my opinion. Sarcasim is defined as the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say, especially in order to insult someone, or to show irritation, or just to be funny. Therefore, I don't see it as being sarcasm, rather, disparaging. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Goodreg3: Fine. I'm sorry. Just make sure the recording date is cited and/or mentioned in the article next time, because I'm tired of people adding recording dates thinking they're common knowledge. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?

Might I suggest if you have no administrator rights and have 'no intention' of gaining them, that you get off your high horse, stop sending threatening messages on people's talk pages that add up to the square root of jack shite and sit dafuque down. Don't quite know just who you think you are speaking to. 2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:31AF:B05D:CF46:AD52 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:31AF:B05D:CF46:AD52: Nice language. I'm sure a real admin would be interested in seeing this. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Seen and blocked. the wub "?!" 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@The wub: Thank you. Saved me a detailed ANI report at least. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, I noticed after I wrote this that you're a professional at pissing everyone off. Get a job.

Don't you start playing the victim with me, you're the one that started this by putting big boy templates on my page. Seems like you have a habit of putting yi high heels on and lecturing everyone all about the shop, then playing the victim, classic sort of person who can dish it out but can't take it. Get shot of yoursel ye nettie Yank. I am from Scotland, we take no shite from ne one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:31AF:B05D:CF46:AD52 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi ResolutionsPerMinute, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 18:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Whoops

You're 100% right, I skimmed and thought the chart performance was regarding Bega's song. Entirely my fault, Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 20:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Kenny G

I saw about Come In Out of the Rain (song), you are right since both Audio and Music Video are same length.

But what about Kenny G Silhouette (Kenny G instrumental) & Songbird (Kenny G composition)? Both songs the music videos are shorter than full length audio. Keep both or keep either one? --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

If it only one, then can I suggest audio (full length audio) as the only one to keep? --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cat12zu3: If it were up to me, I'd keep the video. I only add audio if I can't find an official video, and I don't believe differing lengths is a good enough reason to add two different links if the two versions sound the same and one just happens to be longer than the other. In other words, it's redundant. However, in the circumstance in which one version greatly differs from the other (see Tequila (Terrorvision song) to see what I mean), including two external links is fine. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Redundant, OK got it. Shorter music video...mmm......I agree...more lively that would match the name of audiovisual media...Thanks. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

How Am I Supposed to Live Without You

oh I see...<refname> not <ref>...I not sure/can't get to make to link reference to the hardcoded Template talk:Certification Table Entry and (initially ask about an apostrophe title search error in template talk

(Michael Bolton "something of a modern pop standard" & recorded instrumental variously by different instruments were already there before I came, and I think also could be at below section and not in intro)

well, as an ?obsolete? former HTML3/HTML 4.0 webmaster...I'm felt, not as "old" (although do have 3 health issues), but felt kinda strange feeling becuase I still have all my soft toys Hello Kitty, Ty Beanie Babies, etc and really want <<to be young>> and ?not obsoleted?. (And not very blunt like Special:Diff/1183449094 Special:Diff/1183231064 (Tsugunai (song)) (also see that word demise are used too in very recently Steampunk (comics), Naruto: Shippuden (season 18), Stefanie Sun, or the past Tsugunai (song) Amrita Chaudhry, Codex Eyckensis).

--- Cat12zu3 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Sound of Music

I see that you put back in the dead links. Can you please let me know why? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Probably because the IP removed archived links and made unsourced changes for no valid reason. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you please look again at the changes you made and see whether or not we should include those dead links? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Or maybe you could do it? Since you seem to be much more interested in The Sound of Music while I'm just fighting disruptive editing? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 19:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

RE:wp:USCHARTS

Thank you very much for your clarification as well as for your correction. It definitely helps me out to become a better editor, as well as to balance some concepts better. LaxusIRL (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Amnesia promo single

You pulled out an entry on Amnesia_(Chumbawamba_song)#Track_listings with the note "no promos"; fair enough, but that CD has two official remixes not otherwise mentioned on the page. Is there a way those could be catalogued/documented without breaking policy? Apologies if I'm not going about this the right way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.91.13.119 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@173.91.13.119: You can add this information to the Release section with the same citation you used before. If remixes were included on a promo disc and not released elsewhere, it might be worth a mention in the prose. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Zombie

I see you're the biggest contributor to Zombie (The Cranberries song). I stumbled upon the article, found it very high quality and after one edit to source unreferenced claims, nominated it for the GA. Thought would be no issue, specially considering how long people show up to review, but just as it was picked up it was erased for being a drive-by. Do you see any issue with my involvement, or find anything lacking on the page? (in any case, it could be renominated) igordebraga ≠ 00:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Thanks for asking my opinion, but I'm most definitely not the biggest contributor for this article. (Yet according to XTools, I'm somehow miraculously in second place for authorship...I'm still in disbelief 😱.) Anyway, I don't take issue in your involvement, and one thing I suggest you review are the "in popular culture" mentions. Seeing those kinds of lists in a GA puts me in a really testy mood, because only the most important appearances should be kept. Simply playing in a random episode of a random TV show borders on useless trivia, and that's better saved for Fandoms. There should be a good reason why it's there, and if there isn't any, it should go. A similar argument goes for cover versions, but that's another minefield entirely. Excluding these lists, it looks good enough IMO. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Along with thanking for the quick reply, just noting that in a hurry, forgot to put 'second' before 'biggest contributor' (was writing the same message for you and #1). Will possibly follow your suggestions and mention your input to the would-be reviewer. igordebraga ≠ 00:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)