Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:42, 19 February 2021

Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to bring discussions here from other pages, but please use a diff or quote. Please use diffs when talking about edits. If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will reply on my talk page, so you may want to watch this page. I check my watchlist regularly. I usually add talk pages to my watchlist if I comment on them. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Thank you.

Archives

2009, 2010, 2011

Re: Talk Page

To respond to your question about the lists, they are not used for discussion and I did not realize how long they were getting, so I deleted what I think is unnecessary (almost everything). However I do use the Top 40 so I can update it when I am using a computer that is not my own because it is only stored in my Word documents. I understand that there are other ways to do this such as using a flash drive, but I find this the easiest and I figured it will not bother anyone if I leave one list there. I have also removed links that involve voting for songs or things like that, so it will not seem like I am "promoting myself" MuSiClOvEr (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bolding

Thank you John for the feedback! I now know when to properly use bolding and I will no longer make some of the mistakes that I previously did. Hosobel (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Discography

I'd like to know if you still can see any problem about the refs or the tables now.Rodrigo18 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at List of castles in England

A consensus is taking place at Talk:List of castles in England. You are invited to participate.Ma®©usBritish  21:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Only Girl

I didn't have a problem with the caption change, it was the one before that I wanted to restore, thus subsequent edits were also reverted in the process. Calvin • 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool; that's what I was hoping when I partially reverted your double-revert. I can flex. Take care, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving "Cheers" BB page

Could you archive it please? Calvin • 20:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No need, is there? Having reached 8, it should still show up on Billboard's pages for "Cheers" (while it's still charting, at least) and/or Rihanna's singles (beginning next week) or (failing those) at Allmusic. And if it moves further up, we'd need to re-do the archive. Doesn't seem necessary here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

JLO discography

Just thought it would easier to comment here as I'm currently working on the refs, and you'd get the nice little orange notification. Is this what you mean? — Status {_contribs  02:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright. :) Sorry I'm such a bother with this, and thanks for going into more detail. I'm not the best with refs. Tomica was the one who dealt with the refs in the first place, while I did everything else on the article. Checking all the titles and works out now. It may take me a bit, since I have school, but in the next 40 mins (that I'll be online) I'll go through as much as I can. :) Really improving my ref skills with this article. I literally sucked at it before this. I just couldn't grasp it AT ALL. — Status {_contribs  02:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this work need to be changed to charts.de? — Status {_contribs  02:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes. The domain is charts.de (which is already the clincher for me), and there's a great big "charts.de" near the top of the page, so there doesn't appear to be some other, friendlier name for the resource/site. The "media control" at the upper right (with logo) looks like the publisher, confirmed when I scroll to the bottom of the page and see "© 2011 media control" down there.

That leaves us needing a title. The web page uses "charts.de" as its <title>, which makes it the same as the work, but there's not much we can do about that. There's that word "Suche" (German for "Search") also near the top, but (a) that doesn't narrow things down for Web searchers very much, and (b) it is not marked up as an <h1> or <h2> element in the HTML of the page (sorry if that's too technical, but I happen to have experience with HTML mark-up). So I'm not inclined to call "Suche" the title, and the <title> (seen in the browser's window frame) is "charts.de". That's what I'd use for the title parameter then. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have experience in HTML as well, so I get what you're talking about. :) Yeah, charts.de seems fine for the title. What the publisher and work of this be? I'm thinking "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" for the publisher, and ifpi.se for the work? But I'm not sure if this website is official or not. — Status {_contribs  02:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at The Marshall Mathers LP for an example of how I've done this in the past. It seems I didn't provide both a work and a publisher. Ultimately it's just a PDF file we got from here, so it's hard to specify a "work" beyond that terse little title (ÅR 2003) it's got. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna

Hi there, Thank you for your comments, it's nice to get one which is constructive. I have added some notes to my page regarding the date format. Darkieboy236 (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Pinckney man. Why do you reverted some of the archive. I have done them per this.— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with you man? I have done per this comment: All you need to do in the citations is add |archiveurl= |archivedate= to the templates if you use them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC) — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I thought I'd indicated in my edit summaries, because they're not really archives. Where Melicans wrote, "All you need to do in the citations is add |archiveurl= |archivedate= to the templates if you use them," it came across as oversimplified. That's not all you have to do. You also (first) have to take the URL to be archived over to WebCite, as Melicans pointed to in the previous sentence on the FLC page. Then, the URLs you get back from WebCite can go in the archiveurl parameters. Hope this clears things up, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahaaaa ... Ok, it's clear now. I never worked with this before. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

JLO

He actually nominated it with barely doing any edits to it, and after I talked to him about it, I got myself added onto it, as I had been working on it for months on end. Seeing as how he hasn't touched it in almost a month, and I've been doing most of the work anyway, I removed his name. — Status {_contribs 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

FLC of K-Ci & JoJo discography

Hello John,

I appreciate your comments and I just wanted to let you know that I have addressed all but two of them.
—Michael Jester (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

MusicNotes

MusicNotes (the website) is not considered a reliable source by the community. But just like IMDb, it can be used within Misplaced Pages. Now, the sheet they sell is what is considered a reliable source, because those sheets are provided from record labels. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez discography

Sony Music's page is not unreliable. Valid source. Please do not make changes.Alptns90(talk) 16:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus among knowledgable Misplaced Pages editors is to disregard sales claims by record labels, artists, and fansites. Sony, as I understand it, is one of the more notorious inflators of sales figures. (And anyway, why are you using an Austrian page?) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think should necessarily be a page from USA. I got the source as Sony Music's official website.Alptns90(talk) 16:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, doesn't have to be USian, but sources in English are preferred here, which is all I was getting at.

It's only a tiny side issue, though, as the figures (in whatever language) aren't from a reliable source. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sony is not reliable, please explain what the source is reliable source? Alptns90(talk) 08:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We usually accept Billboard as a source for sales, and any serious newspaper like the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal, although they write about pop stars' sales figures only infrequently. Some Web sites (like MTV's, and Yahoo! Chart Watch) are also accepted for sales, although some are pretty shaky, too. I look for a source with some history (not just popped up new this month), ideally with a reporter's name attached (Paul Grein is better than Cheezer888 or iLuvJLo) and some indication of the independence and reliability of the figures. If it's just someone regurgitating a Sony press release, it doesn't help us; if a professional journalist from the WSJ is willing to report the same things as are in the press release, then I'd assume the reporter checked it out and found it to be true.

I hope that helps. It's essentially still a case-by-case thing, but labels and artists are generally given a blanket dismissal (for sales and certs, that is; details about release dates and titles are cool), while big news organisations (Gannett, NBC, Reuters, AP, Fox, etc.) are generally automatically accepted. It's the sources in-between that make it difficult sometimes. I'm sorry I can't point to anything more definitive than Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Where I Got 7,000,000 copies from

Where did I get 7,000,000? 3:31: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw9vkW4YevM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you're writing about these edits to Lady Gaga discography and my message on your Talk page. I still stand by my comments there, and it doesn't address the fact that you changed sales numbers without adding appropriate references. I don't imagine Gaga's interview will yield usable figures (I'm not going to sit through the whole thing) anyway, as she's hardly a reliable source in reporting her own sales. And lastly, none of this has any visible connection to your edit summaries, which read, "Poker Face has sold 6.4 Million is the US, therefore it's 6x Platinum". That's not a true statement anyway, but it's totally unrelated to your change to 7,000,000. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Discography

Please don't remove the ITA singles section. It's more official than Austria was. You could be blocked from editing if you continue to remove things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, although you seem to be missing my point, and I guess I'm missing yours. I don't have a problem with replacing Austria with Italy on Lady Gaga discography, as Italy is a much more populous country, and also has reliable archives of music performance. However:

1. You didn't actually add references to those reliable archives, you merely changed the named ref "AUTCharts" to "ITACharts", which doesn't do anything useful.
2. Because you refer to non-existent references, there's a big, ugly, red note down in the references list. I wish you had noticed this, but it seems you didn't even check your work. Twice.
3. The charts should be in alphabetical order following the artist's home country, but you left Italy where Austria was, right between Australia and Canada. It doesn't belong there, and should have been moved.
4. For the Italian certifications, you added multiple instances of the full reference citations for some PDF file(s). I don't know if the same file actually supports all the claims you added, but you don't need to repeat the full citations, The thing to do is described in my edit summary, namely, to see WP:NAMEDREFS on how to re-use citations. You seem to have ignored my tip.
5. If you had done all of the above, I might have left it all, except I would necessarily have checked every last change of yours, because you have sort of a bad track record. But that's okay, because a change from Austria to Italy makes good sense and could be an improvement to the article. However doing so would take me time, and doing items 1 through 3 above for you too would take more time. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much time to invest.

It's easier to just revert your change to a broken page back to one which has no technical errors and on which the Austrian peaks have presumably been thoroughly checked. So that's what I did, and it's what I'll do again if you leave the page in such poor condition. I hope you now get my point.

Now, about your points: here on this page, you say " more official than Austria was". What in the world is that supposed to mean? "More official" how? And removing unsourced data does not usually lead automatically to a block, especially relative to adding unsourced data, as you repeatedly have (at this and other articles). So please consider how further disruptive edits such as yours might be blocked before you make them again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

10/16/11

Please stop removing the Italian charts from Lady Gaga's Discography. Instead of removing it, fix it make it better instead of just moving all my hard work!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to replace them. Could you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Jennifer Lopez discography/archive1

Are you going to follow up with anything? Do you think it would be alright if I asked a few people to take part in the discussion? Nobody is like commenting on it. Obviously I wouldn't ask my friends on here, I'd just go through some previous FLs and ask for comments? — Status {_contribs 14:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were waiting for me. (I thought I was waiting for you...) I don't know about asking other editors to review stuff; it's a bit sticky. One or two of the directors will probably look it over, though (without you asking). I often see The Rambling Man come by after one or two other reviewers are satisfied, and throw in a few remarks and questions. Maybe when they see how much I put you through the wringer before finally supporting the nom, they'll pass it with just two or three of us.

Anyway, I'm looking at it again now. We're probably not too far from done. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I'm gonna ask the editiors who were involved with it before it was restarted to comment. Surely that's okay. I've also had school and other things, so it's not like I was waiting by the keyboard. xD — Status {_contribs 10:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything has been resolved, as well. Unsure why you didn't cross ref 11 and 15 out, as they were fixed to the specifications. — Status {_contribs 10:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mostly just to leave them readable, although I was afraid it might be confusing. Looking again later today. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping! :) — Status {_contribs 21:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pong! I'm afraid you have forced me to support your FL nom for Jennifer Lopez discography through your unfair habit of working hard and responding quickly and seriously to my criticisms. Good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Birdman discography

Just a note on your edits: according to what User: Wikipedian Penguin told me, the publisher for Billboard pages can remain Nielsen if the page only refers to a single chart week before the ownership of Billboard changed (such as ). This doesn't apply to many, but I have changed a few back. Your kudos is much appreciated, though - some aspects of the page took ages to sort out, especially combining the guest appearance and remix tables and reformatting them. Work still ongoing... I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did look at the dates and, I thought, made my decision appropriately. For me, if we go to the Billboard site today (or anytime after mid-October 2010) to verify a claim, then the publisher of the source we're using is Prometheus Global Media. Seeing all the refs you added with accessdate=October 16, 2011 made me feel confident about changing the publisher to the later name. (I don't know what to say about BB ref citations on WP from the December 2009 – October 2010 timespan, when the company was named e5 Global Media.) But it's all cool; I don't feel strongly enough about it to change it again, nor even to argue further about it. I just wanted to explain my reasoning. Again, cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I suppose, although obviously consistency is ideal, it depends on your personal choice which one you choose, as either seem to be fine. Remember, I'm only working on what I was told by someone else, as I wasn't sure either. Nice to see that someone else is bothering to edit Birdman discography. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Electoral Calculus

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Electoral Calculus#Italic title. Trevj (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Wiki-bro

Wow, you called me bro. Thank you wholeheartedly. That really touched my heart. So from today, you are also my elder Wiki-bro (I think you are older than me, right?). And thanks for your comprehension as well. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Loud

You've done something which has mucked up the release history table. Calvin • 00:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, friend, I haven't. I believe it was you. It was screwed up before I started working on it. Please read WP:AGF. I hope you can fix that table, by the way, because I don't know what dates are right. Try going through the Edit history. It was already leaking here. Now follow the edits to yours here. Happy editing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Loud

1. Raining Men IS sourced, it is information displayed which shows every song, no matter where it charted in the UK top 200 singles, which comes from The Official Charts Company.
2. No other chart position in that table on Loud has a reference next to a chart position, why should Raining Men be any different?
3. I removed Sweden from the release history because it was a dead link.

Calvin • 12:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Calvin. You seem to be consistently misunderstanding some fundamental points. I hope I can explain:

1. "Raining Men" at 142 in the UK on Loud is not sourced, at least not as of 22:58, 20 October 2011. If you look at the article (at least in the 22:58 diff), you'll see that the UK column has one ref (#239). Ref 239 gives us two sources, and the second is for "What's My Name?" only. So we look at the first one, which is "Chart Stats – Rihanna". Chart Stats only covers 1 to 75 on the UK charts so I already know it won't show a 142, but we can look and see... that it doesn't. There's no interim inline ref next the 142 (even before I deleted it earlier), so the 142 for "Raining Men" is unsourced.
2. When discussing and making edits to Loud, it does not matter what's on some other article. The readers of Misplaced Pages aren't going to go look at every potentially related article to verify facts claimed on the page they were reading; they should be able to assess our sources from the page they're on.
3. When somebody adds a peak (or other claim) to an article, they have an obligation to add new references to sources supporting the claim, or to check that the existing refs on the page already do support it.
4. Now, even if I do decide to leave the Loud page and go look at the "Raining Men" page (which I did, by the way, several times, even before your edit summary which assumed I "couldn't be bothered"), then according to your repeated assertions in your edit summaries and again here above, I ought to expect to find a good reference for 142 in the UK, which I can then copy and reuse over at Loud. That was my plan, anyway, although I don't always (or even usually) do that. But at "Raining Men", there is no adequate reference. As of this diff, the only source for the 142 is a link to the Zobbel Home page. There should be a page which actually contains the actual claim I'm trying to verify, but that Home page does not contain the word "Raining" nor the number 142 (and doesn't seem to even have a search function). So I have no idea where to start looking, and I'm way over the limits of my interest by now, so I simply revert the 142 at Loud, pretend not to have seen the sourcing failure at "Raining Men", and hope that either the song zooms up above 75 to make it onto Chart Stats or somebody with more time and interest will fix the ref for the UK peak.
5. As far as I know, none of the other peaks shown in the Loud table are unverified by the refs provided at the tops of the columns, so they don't need the (ugly, temporary) inline refs next to the peaks in the cells. I just checked through the whole lower part of that table a couple of days ago and updated some peaks for "Cheers" so I hope the whole table's well-sourced.

I hope that clears things up for you. I hope you see why I revert things when they're not adequately sourced on the same page, and why I'll keep doing it with this one particular case. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried putting a note parameter in the reference on Raining Men explaining the search function, because the url stays the same on every page, I can't help that. Calvin • 13:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Zobbel refs with a page of (say) C–Csz (1971 – 1990) or some such. I went right to the page from whatever article has the ref on it. Of course, even then you still have to search through the page to find the peak you're looking for, but at least it's on there somewhere.

Ah, okay, here: try looking at Eminem discography, Ref 139 for example. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've followed that format in the Raining Men ref. Calvin • 14:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cool. You'll want to use a title of your own, though; the teacher will get made if she notices you copied mine.   ;-)   Also, the date on the reference (not the accessdate, today, but the date) is supposed to be the publication date of the resource you're referencing. You have used 27.11.2010, which may be a chart date or chart release date, but surely isn't the zobbel page's publication date. You'll need to change (probably remove) that. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

CHanged, the title, but that was the chart date, not the websites publication.

Exactly; that's why it needs changing. The only correct date to use there would be 2011-05-07, from the "last updated" notice at the bottom of the Zobbel page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. It chart on the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart as well but I can't find a source for it. Calvin • 14:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Neptunes discography

Any chance you can help out a The Neptunes discography? I've succeeded primarily in frustrating another editor, and it would be better if things were ... well, better.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just paging through the history when the orange "You have new messages" banner popped up. That page is a disaster (I thought it was a bad sign when I read "none of the other discographies have been written like this one" on your Talk), butI can understand the frustration of the editor. Would you like me to drop a message at hir Talk, or would you prefer I try some cleaning up at the crash site? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Use your proven diplomatic skills to the best of your ability. I'd engage with him on talk first, probably.—Kww(talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and add reliable source material for the tracks but it's not possible to get a reliable source for every added track because most of them have been confirmed by their artists blogs/twitter/facebook and they're not a reliable source material —MikaSan(talk) 23:03, 21 October 2011

Thanks for your note. It's too bad you don't have a file cabinet full of reliable sources for everything right there, but since you don't, please understand that all the other, unsourced stuff will have to go again. Painful, I know, but true. As you keep looking for sources over time, you'll find some good ones and can replace the material bit by bit. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John, thats exactly what I meant, that looks great ! —MikaSan(talk) 15:42, 10 November 2011

Hi John, on that Surrounded By Idiots sample you quoted, the reason why Michael Jackson is bold is because he's an artist, so ive started from the beginning of editing to make artists bold but if the whole song name is bold, then that means that its been released as a single, so I guess the text from the Introduction could be changed again to "song names that are bold are Singles", and about Surrounded By Idiots, before Timothy Mosley aka Timbaland and Pharrell Williams became the most sought after producers on the globe, they formed a group called Surrounded By Idiots dating back to their time in high school in 1991. S.B.I.'s 1991 recordings are said to be the first time they ever stepped foot into a recording studio. At the time, Timbaland went by the moniker DJ Timmy Tim and Pharrell called himelf Magnum. Three unreleased songs from S.B.I. have surfaced and it is definitely a rare piece of musical history. —MikaSan(talk) 19:59, 13 November 2011

What's up John, the single section at the end of the page is a list of all neptunes produced singles listed by year, but to get rid of the confusing apostrophe, I was thinking of calling it simply 'Neptunes Singles', have a nice day, —MikaSan(talk) 04:02, 19 November 2011

Yeah, thats what they are, Neptunes Produced Singles, thats what Ive meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikaSan (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Please stop changing everything i'm adding on the site, and make sure you remove every single track on there that doesn't have a source starting from 1992, ah what the hell just delete the whole thing though and don't forget to delete also other discographies such as Timbaland Production Discography because that thing doesn't have any sources of the added tracks MikaSan (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga discography Ireland,

Hey I was wondering if you and I could collaborate on replacing the Ireland chart with the Italian chart. It makes sense and Gaga has never gotten an Ireland Certification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if she ever got a certification in Ireland. However, that's not the only thing to consider. There is certainly an argument to be made in terms of relative population, as Italy (pop. 60 million) is much larger than Ireland (4.5m). But before you make such a change you should check that there is consensus for it. Present your reasons on the Discussion page; persuade other editors that this is a good idea, and I might be willing and able to help you with the technical bits if you have trouble. I wouldn't begin without knowing there's consensus for the change, though. You'd have to dig up the references to support whatever material you intend to add, of course. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Hung Medien's italiancharts.com site shows Gaga managed to chart only 9 singles and 3 albums in Italy, fewer than we currently show for Ireland. (Maybe she should change her name back to Stefani Germanotta.)— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

its not about the certifications, all lady gaga songs has charted in ireland, but in italy it hasnt, so its not logic to replace it. --Mathiassandell (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rehab

Hey Pinckney man :) How are you? We had some reverts/conflicts, but I forgot all of it. Sorry If I was rude and offended you. I actually need a favor from you. Can you create the Release history table chart in the "Rehab" article per WP:ACCESS please? Thanks — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to look at it later. I'm into a couple of projects at the moment. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There, I finally got to it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For the finest edit summary I've seen in a long time! RexxS (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmm! Thanks! That hits the spot. Speaking of drinking lots (and lots) of beer (ahem), I almost added a "crikey!" or a "G'day, mate!" for a real authentic Aussie finish, but then I thought, "naawww, let's avoid rude stereotypes." — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits against policy

While I don't mind you changing some of the table formatting back please don't go against policies such as WP:NUMERO and remove completed references in favour of bare URLs as you did in this edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Walter. I've just re-read the guideline (not actually a policy) at WP:NUMERO, where I see Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No.". I still do not see where I violated policy (or guidelines/rules/etc.).

As for the bare URL thing, I was in the process of fixing that while you you were reverting and then writing me here. I had an edit conflict but overrode it, brutally replacing your last reversion. Sorry about that. I spent quite some time on that dead link at the end but I couldn't find an alternate URL at the Owl City site. So we're stuck (for now) with a bare-URL dead link. And a tag at the top. That marvelous tool Reflinks, BTW, gave us the ref title it gleaned from the ARIA page's <title> element, which happens to be the big, ugly URL itself. So I wanted to fix that (and did so in my last edit).

I see now that a lot of my edit summary got clipped, thanks to limitations in Twinkle (I don't mind a limit on summary length, I'd just like to know when I hit it). The idea of similar-widths for similar columns in similar tables is part of the accessibility initiate, worked up in some examples at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. The specific widths aren't set in stone, but they should be consistent on any one page.

Lastly, I don't understand your suggestion to delete the article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You're using number instead of No. Fine. You're using one instead of 1. Not so fine. It's better to use No. 1.

Barelinks did its job correctly, but I made additional edits along with it.

You're showing page ownership. Stop. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait until you're done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I should explain the "one" v "1" comment better. WP:ORDINAL

*Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.

So that means either always write out the chart positions or use the numeral. It's mixed. Ergo, better to use No. 1 ... No. 12 ... etc. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. How would you feel about going with written-out numbers on that article? The "twelve" and "thirteen" shouldn't be much of a problem; the worst (that I see) would be "number ninety-five". What do you think? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My preference, would be No. 1, for the simple reason is it stands out when scanning, but if you're in favour of writing "number" I have no problems with writing out larger values. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to make the "last edit(s)" as I seem to have unkowingly stepped on some of your earlier attempts, and I explained properly as I worked. All that bugs me about "No. 1" is the uppercase letter in the middle of the sentence. (I just tend toward "number" because "no. 1" doesn't seem good either.) I can certainly live with it, too. Your choice. The runway is cleared for you. Happy editing and thanks for talking with me. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen your edit summaries here and noticed that you were also editing while I was doing my table thing at Owl City discography. I think worse than edit-warring must be participating in an edit war and not knowing it. Sorry if it seemed I was stepping on you. Did you get a lot of edit conflicts?

I agree with you about leaving table columns unfettered. I especially try to leave right-most columns on a table unconstrained. But apparently there's been research into usability of pages with multiple tables, and users do better when similar tables have consistent widths for similar columns. I guess that's true for me, too, although I'm just the one guy. In any case, it's also true that the tables resize their columns as the browser width decreases anyway (and then we have unequal columns again), once the viewport is narrower than the content's "natural" width. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one, and then I said I'd wait. What you've done is good. I'll leave it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, did you know that Owl City is considered to be a hardcore band? See List of Christian hardcore bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know, not much interested. The band/guy doesn't hold any interest for me (except the academic concept of how a one-man "band" operates). I don't think I've ever heard any of the music. What does astonish me about that list though is: It has sources! what I'm used to seeing is something like List of New Romantics or List of acts who appeared on American Bandstand. Not a reference for miles. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hosiery

You need to learn to check out people's sock drawers.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Too often I find I've confused their sock drawer with one of their other drawers, and then I'm all nauseous-like. Anyway, you're the one who likes hanging around with this sort of hoser; how am I supposed to keep track of all the big league stars? Okay, the good part is that I've read through the SPI archive and I should be able to at least recognize the IP range if it pops up again, not so sure about named socky accounts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually recognise most socks through their edit summaries first, and then confirm them with the other stuff.—Kww(talk) 10:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And when they provide no summary...? — JohnFromPinckney (talk)

What can I say? Harder to detect.—Kww(talk) 11:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

JLO discog

Sigh. As you probably saw, I left that user a message too, and got no response. The user isn't even using edit summaries. If s/he persists, it should be reported. I don't see how this could effect FL, as it already passed, but a new format was also just put into place, so there's bound to be some people who disagree and/or think it's wrong and are trying to correct it to how it was before. (Long enough sentence?) Even if they didn't revert it, they still undid the edits, so technically are way over WP:3RR now anyway. — Status {_contribs 23:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

LOOL! Oh well. xD Ah, I never saw that. I just assumed it was changed back to the old way (yet again). Honestly, if someone keeps doing the same thing repeatedly and just doesn't get it there's nothing you can do. I've come into contact with some many people like that I have become Judge Judith "No-Nonsense" Sheindlin. xD — Status {_contribs 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	You were the first person to edit on 6th November server time. Puffin 23:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So that's why I never go to bed! But now I've achieved my goal, and can get some sleep instead of editing. Thanks! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

76.*

Not a sock that I recognize. I'll semi-protect the page for a bit.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, K. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome-to-Misplaced Pages Template

Did you see the message I left on the w2w template talk page?  Magister Scienta (10 November 2011)

List of Jennifer Lopez songs

What do you think (so far)? — Status {_contribs 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The format isn't too bad, and the tables appear to have good accessibility for screen readers (not sure about color contrast issues, though). My problem with the page is really just that I question the usefulness of this kind of article. There seems to be too great an overlap with Jennifer Lopez discography. The List of Jennifer Lopez songs only gets interesting to me down at the Unreleased songs section, and then, of course, we'd need really good sourcing (and which unreleased songs are notable enough to mention?). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you plan on taking this to FLC? Because when I took List of Rihanna songs to FLC they said that there was no point in the article. Calvin • 13:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't. In fact, I believe I mumbled some arguments of my own against that FLC nom. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How is the list of Rihanna songs any different to the list of J Lo songs? Calvin • 12:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't see any real difference. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I never saw this. I've been waiting for your reply John. :L Mind leaving me a talkback when you reply on your own talk? I watch so many pages. I honestly don't see the problem. This is what a discography is to songs. It is showing all the relevant information, in a nice little sourced list. It displays all of her known recordings, whether released or not. And believe me, when and if I bring it to FLC, I will leave a nice long statement about its relevance. I read Rihanna's FLC even before I began work on this. That's why I decided to spruce it up a bit (I was originally basing it off the Rihanna one). — Status {_contribs 12:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If J Lo songs becomes an FL, then the FLC actually have no valid reason to tell me that the Rihanna songs can't be an FL or be should be deleted. Calvin • 12:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing also seems to have been an issue, as well. If it becomes a FL, I will vouch for you in the Rihanna one. I'm not saying I can convince them otherwise, but I have some points that you didn't address in Rihanna's FL. — Status {_contribs 12:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Status. I'll try to remember a special Talkback for you. It might help to ask me for one, too, if you remember. I just prefer to keep conversations together.

As for your List article, one problem I have with it is the duplication of Discography content. That is, the overlap ... perturbs me. More, the list contains songs which are either: (1) singles, certainly covered in the discog; (2) non-single songs which charted or were otherwise notable enough to also be covered in the discog; (3) non-single songs which aren't notable enough for the discog (and so why are they in the List?); and (4) songs which weren't even released (the epitome of non-notability, generally, unless there was some lawsuit or murder case hinging upon them). Seems like Group 4 songs would be really hard to source, too, but why do we need them? I mean, I've got an unreleased song right here on my desk, next to my unpublished novel and my published symphony (it's mostly finished; I need to tweak the piccolos). Why shouldn't we list these works in a List of unreleased works by JohnFromPinckney? See what I mean? Okay, I admit I'm no Jennifer Lopez. But still. I could be Malia Obama or Abe Vigoda in real life, you don't know. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but I still don't see how it duplicates her discography. It is a discography, for album and single releases. This is more of a songography, which shows all of the songs she is known to have recorded. If you were famous enough, why not? ;) Michael and Britney (for example) have FL unreleased songs articles. — Status {_contribs 20:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Chart templates

Hello, JohnFromPinckney. Your revert of my recent and faulty edits on Love the Way You Lie was indeed the right thing to do; surely I would have done the same. I should have explained my edits better, sorry. The reason I replaced them was that Template:Singlechart has a tendency to link the ref publishers on every occurence, which disrupts my consistent wikilinking for publishers and works. I had a discussion with Nikkimaria, who said that this inconsistent linking will be raised as an issue during FAC, to which I plan to take this article. She said there is no workaround other than replacing the template, I believe. I do not plan to revert your revert at the moment (or ever, maybe), but do you believe there is anything I can do to deal with the linking issue? Thanks! —WP:PENGUIN · 10:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignore it?

I'm sorry if that comes across as smart-alecky, because it's certainly not meant to be. And I've never in all my time here used WP:IAR in any discussion, until now. But the linking of works and publishers in the refs seems to me a very minor issue, and it really doesn't upset me much. If links are repeated in the body of an article, it can be annoying, I agree absolutely, but I assume nobody is reading just the references, so if they see The Official Charts Company in Ref 43, they won't mind being able to click right there rather than scanning backwards through smallish ref citations to find where it was linked in Ref 8.

Surely the worst case for music articles will be the repetition of Billboard and Prometheus Global Media repeated in maybe 6 or 7 refs in a row, with a few (max 4) other Prometheus links higher up. I truly don't think that that's so bad, and should not keep the list/article from becoming n FL/FA. Especially when the alternative is to have (after a lot of tedious work) more complicated code in the article with potentially several errors (as we saw in the "Love the Way You Lie" edits). A page with error-ridden (or error-prone) refs doesn't fit my idea of a featured list, either; it's worth the trade-off to me of having repeated links within a long list of refs (and Dude: Love the Way You Lie has 211 refs).

Penguin, my serious suggestion is to present that argument at FAC, even pointing to the situation at the outset right in your nom. I like to think the FAC reviewers are reasonable people ready to enter into discussions and will negotiate what's best for an article and WP in general. It needn't be supplicating nominators scurrying to blindly enact the commands handed down from the reviewers on high. Nikkimaria seems to be particularly sensitive to this issue; I don't see that other reviewers are as concerned about it. Maybe they'll see the problem and accept the compromise when you explain it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like an assuring rationale, definitely. Thank you for your time. I am hoping this article will not grow anymore than it already has. I have enough to worry about. :) —WP:PENGUIN · 16:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty in being reassured; I seem to have forgotten something (although it doesn't completely change my recommendation for FAC, just deflates the reasoning for it a little). Read on...

I was thinking about this some more, and there may be a technical solution that could satisfy many folks. The problem is that, if it's even possible, it would mean making complex code even more complex. And that's sure to be something that Kww, main caretaker of {{singlechart}}, would like to avoid. But maybe he could be persauded.

The (still half-baked) idea is the addition of a new parameter to the template, maybe noreflink, which, if present and set to yes, would leave everything except the ref title (linked to URL for verification) as unlinked text. The default would therefore be standard complete linkage, but editors could turn it off to avoid the dreaded OVERLINK in the refs section. So instead of

1. "Alicia Keys Album & Song Chart History" Billboard Hot 100 for Alicia Keys. Prometheus Global Media.

we would get

1. "Alicia Keys Album & Song Chart History" Billboard Hot 100 for Alicia Keys. Prometheus Global Media.

In my earlier comments, I concentrated on the refs list, stupidly ignoring that a song article typically has a table of charts with peaks, and that these would have (Billboard) repeated in it multiple times. (And so much for my only-in-the-refs argument.) But if the extra parameter idea is doable, then we could throw on another one, maybe noproviderlink, which suppresses the linkage in the Charts table. So instead of

US Alternative Songs (Billboard)

we'd see

US Alternative Songs (Billboard)

The chart title would remain linked, on the premise that it's earlier linked use, if any, is farther away and outside the table.

Again, this would be a mess of work (and maybe a mess), so would need to be well thought through (looking at Belgium, UK, Australian cases, e.g.) in advance. It might be a worthwhile idea, though, when it's fully baked. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I too was thinking of bringing this up, but thought it would be too cumbersome of a task. I see your point; however, this would not happen at all before weeks (or months) of sandbox work. And then there is the question if it would be worth all the work. —WP:PENGUIN · 18:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hill Street Blues

Thanks! Good job with the schedule chart, it's a start anyway. Later, I intend to do some rearranging with cast (actor's name first, etc.), but it's better than it was. With some work, we can get that article in shape. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. We've currently got two "Other characters" sections, but I was afraid you were still working on that area so I decided to stay away for a while. I'm out for now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about...

I know you aren't exactly a fan of List of Jennifer Lopez songs being an article, but do you think List of songs recorded by Jennifer Lopez would be a more appropriate title for it? As it's mostly focused on recordings she has done? (Both released and unreleased) — Status {_contribs 03:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think there's much of a difference (although there might be if she were actively writing a lot of songs for other people, like a Carole King or a Kris Kristofferson). Otherwise I'd take the titles to be equivalent, as I know Lopez only as a singer (and actress, I guess, and maybe kisser after that one party when she spent the night here after my party, but I guess that doesn't count). I don't think I'd have a preference for either, except maybe that the former title is a bit shorter (and therefore has an edge). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as she doesn't write very many of her songs, I think List of songs recorded by Jennifer Lopez would be a more accurate title. And it definitely strays a bit away from just the article just being a list of songs. Shorter titles aren't always better. ;) — Status {_contribs 04:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD Template

Thanks for spotting that error in the template. The old saying is true, it's the little that get you. Cheers, Magister Scienta (Editor Review) 05:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Birdman discography

Thanks for your edits on Birdman discography. I changed the column widths because I read an edit summary you'd written recently on Gucci Mane discography that said that the featured artists in the notes under the song titles should only take up one line. However, this is clearly an issue on many rapper discographies, as loads of rap songs have tons of guests (can you imagine this one in a table with only one line?). But yes, I did think it was far too wide. Perhaps I should write something about this at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember ever saying they had to be on one line (although if it was just an edit summary it would have been a page-specific approach.) Man, with all the "featuring" that goes on, some songs would never fit. Usually, I'm happy when the actual title fits without breaking (and of course, that's using my default font size, in my usual browser width, on my usual display, ...). If all the "withs" don't fit neatly, I'm not too concerned. I probably wouldn't change anything unless just adding 1 or 2 em to all the tables would mean a title fits okay, without doing more damage elsewhere. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My mistake - for the edit (viewable here) you did, in your edit summary you wrote, "Equal-width (Title) columns per WP:DISCOGSTYLE.", which I must have misinterpreted. Well, I know now. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds more like me (terseness obscured in verbosity). :-)   Best regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The One That Got Away

Tell me what sense it makes to follow a source by a "citation needed". It looks stupid. If you have an issue with the source, a.) remove the source and replace it with a citation needed, or b.) use {{verify credibility}} instead. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ookay, I agree about the stupid-looking part. Thanks for the usage advice. Maybe somebody can find an actual news story somewhere. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jennifer Lopez filmography/archive1

Care to comment? :) — Status {_contribs 01:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Indosiar, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages SCTV, Kediri and Boys Before Flowers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you're review

Thanks for you're review on the List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s. I've fixed some errors, but many more exist. Could you, let's say, "expand" you're review a bit? Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, at least I think so.... --TIAYN (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to be rude, but are you still opposing the FL nom or havn't you been able to take a look at it yet? --TIAYN (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be rude by ignoring you. I think I assumed you were still working on it. Will look now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I ment, my apologies.. Anyhow, I'm finished. --TIAYN (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Eric B. & Rakim discography

Hello, John. You're one of the few people I know who work well with discography articles. Firstly, I want to thank you on commenting/supporting K-Ci & JoJo discography.

Also, I have been working on Eric B. & Rakim discography, and I wish to submit it to FL. I was wondering if you could do a quick peek over the article to see if there are any problems? If not, I can understand. Have a great day.
—Michael Jester (Talk) 00:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you make it hard, really hard, to find anything to complain about.

The biggest thing I can come up with is the big red swath of unborn article links. Since the titles are so long, the redlinks really catch the eye (in two places). So, considering that those three compilation albums didn't chart, maybe it's not likely that they will have WP articles soon, and you could quietly delink them. (I see them glaring from the nav template down below, too.)

Um, I think that's also the smallest thing I can come up with. Nicely done. Go for it! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I lied. I think there's something wrong with "Eric B. & Rakim formed and signed by Zakia Records in 1985". I think the word "were" right before "signed" would satisfy me nicely. You? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it; I appreciate it! I un-linked the compilation albums. I guess you're right; they don't seem to be that worthy of an article. I also added the "were". I'm going to submit it to FL tonight. Once again, thanks, John.
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna Discography Edit

Hey John, there was a source saying that Rihanna's new album had gone double platinum in the UK, meaning the album has had over 600,000 sales. Sorry for forgetting to change the source! Jewls1993 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

access

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Record_charts&diff=465988830&oldid=465987488 —Kww(talk) 12:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Smarty. (For some reason I thought we were sort of waiting to start using that. Maybe I've confused it with a comment you once made about changing the default some day after wide acceptance. I confuse a lot of things these days.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can change the default in a flash, but I'm worried people have already started to add the !scope="row" stuff manually and I'm not sure what will happen. Guess I'll go see.—Kww(talk) 12:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Doubling it up is harmless, so it doesn't hurt to have !scope="row" and rowheader=true, but unless the plainrowheaders option is specified in the table you get centered bold headers. I won't be flipping the default any day soon.—Kww(talk) 12:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Two things...

1. Are you a subscriber of Billboard, or do you know another user who is? If so, this would be of great help to me, as there are several charts on the Billboard.biz website that I am unable to access (such as Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles), and there are several positions on these pages I could otherwise incorporate into the pages I edit. If you know anyone who is a subscriber, please tell me, but it doesn't matter if you don't.
2. On Drake discography, do you need all of the Bubbling Under positions referenced in the cells containing the positions themselves? It would make the table look far less cluttered, in my opinion, to link them into each individual footnote, as is the case on 50 Cent discography and K-Ci & JoJo discography. That's just my opinion, though.

Thanks for all of the help you have given me - discographies are looking as they have never done before thanks to you and Michael Jester (and others, of course)! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rufus.

1. No, I'm not a subscriber. That keeps me from verifying a lot of stuff I see float through here, but I must confess that I don't actually have enough interest to pay Billboard for anything. After seeing what a disaster their Billboard.com site is, I am disinclined to reward them by paying for Billboard.biz access (which indeed looks cleaner) or their magazine. You might try asking Kww (talk), though; I think he had some special programmatic access at one time, although I understood him once to say that Billboard stopped updating the database of Bubbling Unders without any notice, so I don't know what he can offer you.
2. Ooh, you're not going to like this answer, and I'm sorry, but I'd just as soon not have Bubbling Unders on these pages at all. At least, I don't like them in the Hot 100 and R&B columns, masquerading as peaks on those same charts, because we've added 100 to them. I'd accept them being in separate columns, appropriately labelled, if we had the room, but a "116" makes me all itchy. So I'm going to punt on giving you any definitive answer on this, and sorry again. I'll say this, though: The clutter of a footnote link in the peak cells doesn't bother me much personally (a lot of the hip-hop songs have a second line of "featuring Drake, Dolly Parton and Tom Jones" anyway), and I haven't yet learned to look for a in the song title field when I see a peak that doesn't verify. But don't rip the BU's out solely on the weight of my remark; I recognize that consensus is against me on this one. I believe we finally agreed to include/accept BU peaks, as long as they're properly sourced and labelled. That'd be the footnote work you're doing.

Glad to help, if you can call what I do helping. I'm really quite impressed by the work you and Michael do; you're both quite busy beavers and I appreciate your attention to detail and your willingness to do all the necessary research. Keep up the good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, can you revisit Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/50 Cent discography/archive4 and clarify that your concerns have been resolved? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up on Jennifer Lopez filmography

I would appreciate it if you were to look over the article one last time before I close the peer review. Thank you, — Status {_contribs 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC) (This message is being sent to everybody involved in the PR.)

Nag, nag, nag. ;-) I had this on my list between Watchlist-dredging and RL obligations; now I've finally had a look. Thanks to your incessant whining. Heh. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I just copied that message and sent it to everyone who commented on it. ;) I was going to close it, but I just wanted to make sure everything was fine. Really don't want a do-over of her discography. Response. — Status {_contribs 03:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Young Jeezy discography

Woops, I did accidentally switch the "F.A.M.E." and "I Do" refs. I've switched them now, thanks for the notification (and for the "Enjoy your holidays" message). Holiday56 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Birdman discography

I've pretty much finished my main redevelopments of this page: I'm hoping to take it to FLC soon, but before I do that, I wondered if you could point out anything you think is clearly wrong or that should be changed (especially in the lead, as leads have not been my strongest point historically), just to be sure I am not missing anything massively obvious. Thanks! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Phantom

Thanks for fixing the link to Chris Martin. If I can help answer your question in the edit summary: He is in the New Zealand team as bowler, but his inability at batting has made him something of a cult figure. He is often unable to defend his wicket for long making his stay at the crease so short that we say that we could barely see him at the crease (as if he were a phantom which appeared and then disappeared again quickly). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Misplaced Pages And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of [REDACTED] ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s/archive

Can you take a look this now? You still oppose it, even when I've responded to you're comments and fixed several faults with the list. --TIAYN (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's gone now. What happened? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani discography

im not done it still under constuction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathiassandell (talk • contribs) 13:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

im trying to have same chart for both singels and albums and its not done, with sources etc... --Mathiassandell (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to make 12 or 15 saves to Gwen Stefani discography and still not be done. It looks like vandalism when I see so many edits clogging up my watchlist, especially when there is no edit summary and the page is broken when I look at it.

If you are doing a lot of work on an article, you can use your sandbox and copy the results over when you are done. Another option is to add {{Underconstruction}} or one of the other templates from Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Maintenance while you are working. There's also the Show preview button, which is more than a little helpful.

In any case, please remember to use an edit summary when you edit. It is the minimum communication you should be providing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Help

John are you there? I need a quick major help from you. Can you fix the Charts table in Unfaithful (song), cause I am working on the article and they are mess. I also know you are against removing the {{singlechart}} but I don't really manage to work on them. Can you help? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 21:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well on the tables should be applied WP:ACCESS, however that's not the biggest problem. Some of the references does not retrieve accessdates and stuff like that, meaning weeks of peak should be added on the template. Can you do it? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) ! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Again thanks for assistance with the tables. About the Canadian Singles Chart, do you know where I can find the source for charting? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 00:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Note on your talk. You can just Google, or try Billboard' search "feature" on their site. I didn't do either. I also did not look at Rihanna's page on AllMusic, which might be just the thing. Good luck! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Responded you on my talk page. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 01:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Jennifer Lopez filmography/archive1

Mind commenting? — Status {_contribs 01:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what (more) to say. Am I allowed to chip in after I worked on the PR? (And BTW, a happy new year to you.)— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISCOGSTYLE

Hello John, it's Michael again. I know you said about a month ago that we should try to get WP:DISCOGSTYLE a policy. I strongly agree, too. Neither of us knew how to get it started, but I recently found how—Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). I honestly believe one of us should start the proposal to make WP:DISCOGSTYLE a policy.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm keen, but I have some thoughts about it I want to share with you first. Not enough time right now, but I'm not ignoring you. Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why is this? Calvin • 02:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Calvin. I'll be glad to explain, although I don't know what else to say beyond what I mentioned in my edit summary.

For "We Found Love", three US charts had peak changes this week: Adult Pop Songs, Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, and Latin Pop Songs. All three of these Billboard charts are dated January 7, 2012, so we make a new table for the 2012 peaks. I just moved them down from the 2011 table; I didn't change the peaks themselves (they verified alright).

The guidance for making a separate table is at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Record charts. I used WP:MUSIC/CHARTS as a shortcut, but I guess I could start using MOS:CHARTS instead, since it's shorter, and makes clearer that it is part of the Manual of Style.

Does that clarify things for you? There were a couple of other minor things in that diff (accessdate update, unneeded alignment removal), but I assume you were wondering about the table split. All clear now? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I just didn't get what you had done. So how come the 2011 peaks can't stay? Calvin • 15:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The peaks are still the peaks from the same trajectory, they're just listed in separate tables, depending on the year they occurred. If we tried listing peaks during 2011 and peaks during 2012, we'd have three problems:

1. the articles would be even longer, loaded down with a rather INDISCRIMINATE load of data;
2. we'd be giving a somewhat distorted picture for works which have a single, smooth chart trajectory, as e.g. a song released in mid-December that starts climbing to its eventual peak at #2 on February 8. Listing its peak of #22 on December's last chart doesn't help anyone; and
3. we'd have a referencing nightmare. The Hung Medien sites are pretty good at providing trajectories, but think about keeping track of separate peaks for two years with only Billboard and AllMusic to help us. Ick!

Of course, for re-releases, we ought to (and do) repeat charts in separate tables, as for "Billie Jean". This makes sense, because we're talking about separate peaks (separate trajectories) on the same chart(s).

I hope that helps. I also hope you have a good jump into the new year. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. So does that mean We Ride should have three separate tables? Calvin • 15:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (I have to confess I don't always actually split them myself when I see them; it actually depends on how much time and energy I have at the moment. But since we're just at the changeover, I've been watching carefully to try to keep the 2011/2012 charts straight. That "We Ride" table has been there for a little while, though. Good luck.) And now I'm off to celebrate with friends. Have a good one, Calvin. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Lol well I've just c/e the article, I did wonder if there should be three seperate ones. I am on holiday atm, so I will fix it whenever I get the time. Thanks, you too. Calvin • 16:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove

	Happy New Year!
	I wish you a Happy New Year and hope that everything goes swimmingly for you in 2012 :). Calvin • 00:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This

is on the Portuguese WP though. Calvin • 15:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So? We're on the English Misplaced Pages. Go take a look at some of the German WP music articles; you'll have a heart attack seeing what passes for sourcing over there. The Spanish one is worse, as far as I can tell. There's a recent discussion here on en:WP about ringtones, and a couple editors chimed in against including them. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Diff WPs have different rules?! Calvin • 15:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure! The pillars are the same, but think about how other guidelines are made: through consensus within the community. I'm not in the pt:WP community (and I don't speak Portuguese) so when there's a discussion about what charts to include on discographies, or whether references should be in columns or not, or whether aCharts.us is a reliable source, I won't be offering my invaluable advice. The Brazilians and Portuguese don't know about our discussions here on en:WP (except for those few folks who bounce back and forth).

I have edited at the German Misplaced Pages (and Spanish, I think), but it's tricky because I don't know all of their local rules and customs. It's kind of a re-learning process when I'm over there, because WP:DISCOGSTYLE and MOS:DASH are redlinks to them (probably). The es:WP folks do seem to have copied our WP:CHARTS page though.

So, Calvin, do you speak Portuguese? How is it that you were over at pt:WP — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol no I don't, but I worked out what it mean't, with regard to the chart. Calvin • 16:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Politburo FL review

I've responded to you're comments at the review page. --TIAYN (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey

You know you said that songs that chart in different years have to be in different tables now, do I have to change anything for S&M (song). Calvin • 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes! You must, must, must:

• Change the table heading to 2011 (from 2010-2011)
• Change CZE week param to 21 to support peak of 8
• Change IRL week param to 6 to support peak of 3
• Know that I can't verify Italy at all , so I don't know when it peaked. I'd be surprised if it hit big in Italy way before the rest of Europe got it, though, (and the ref points to August) so I assume it to be 2011.
• Know that the Korean source is likewise useless to me. I have to hack the page just to see under the overlay, and then it doesn't seem to give me an actual chart position. When in doubt (I guess) assume it's 2011. I can't prove it even charted there, though. :-(
• Remove NLD Single Top 100 (we've got the Dutch Top 40
• Change Scotland date param to 2011-03-12 to support peak of 3
• Change UK R&B date param to 2011-03-05 to support peak of 1
• Change the ref for Canada to something useful, like the page at http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/rihanna/chart-history/658897?f=793&g=Singles. By the way, that page says that the song that hit #1 in CAN was the remix with Britney. The regular, original song hit only #3.
• Think about changing the "Charts" sub-section heading to "Weekly charts", since there's a "Year-end charts" sub-section, too.
• Look on the page for duplicate refs. I see several, as refs 31 to about 45 seem to overlap with the refs 96 to 124 or so. Check into reusing the named singlechart refs up in the article body.

It appears that on all of the charts where "S&M" appeared in 2010, the song later moved up at least a little during 2011. So no table splitting necessary. The stuff I mentioned above is a bit of work itself, but that needs to be done either way. Sorry you asked? Cheers (and good luck; lemme know if you want help) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Okay thanks. I'll do it tomorrow. Calvin • 00:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DSTM

Hey Pickney. Should I separate this into three charts? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 08:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, er, no: There should be five tables: three for the weekly charts, and two for the year-end charts (plus Decade-end and certs). If you don't split them, look what happens to the middle headings when you sort. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RIAA down?

Is the RIAA site working for you? I know it was hacked and taken down the other day, but reports I've read say that the site should be back up now: however, I can't access it. If it is genuinely down everywhere, this is massively incovenient. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, no, it's not up for me at the moment, either. I've tried http://riaa.com/ and http://www.riaa.com/ both but they just time out. I hadn't heard about them getting hacked (although I can imagine the RIAA receives such attempts regularly). It would be nice if somebody would hack the site to allow title and artist parameter passing in the URLs, but leave the site up and running. I guess that'd be too much to hope for though. ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

re: Proposed deletion of Rebelle

Ever head of Google? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Before I added the PROD to the article I made sure to search for other indications of notability outside the single, inadequate reference that was provided. I did indeed use Google as my search engine. I did not find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (phrase used at WP:GNG). In fact, I found almost nothing about this unfinished film. No critics have written articles about it. It isn't historically notable. It has not been widely distributed. It fetures not one single notable actor. In fact, even the director is a redlink on the article page. This is why my PROD mentioned that it failed bot WP:GNG and WP:NF.

I hope you will reread the PROD notice you deleted (I left a copy on your Talk page) and follow the links to the notability guidelines I provided. This film is not currently worth its own WP article. Now, if it wins an award at te Berlinale, then we've got something, but we don't even know if the film will be finished by then.

Finally, I'd like to say I don't appreciate your characterization of my PROD as "idiotic" in your edit summary. It feels like a personal attack to me and I hope you'll be more courteous in dealing with your fellow Wikipedians in the future.

Your question about whether I have heard of Google is hardly helpful, by the way. And if you have heard of Google you could surely use it to whip up a couple of example of notable critics' reviews of the work, or reliable, independent examination of the work underlining its notability. Currently, the article lacks this (even after your snide note here) and so you haven't dealt fulfilled what I consider your responsibility to prove notability. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's super! Lugnuts (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s/archive1

Can you take a look at the review page now? I've addressed you're comments. --TIAYN (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please take a look now? --TIAYN (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Does the weekly charts table need to be changed to separate year ones on Loud (Rihanna album)? Aaron • 16:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If the peaks came in separate years (as the combined heading now claims) then yes. (And sorry for the long absence.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Production discographies, and ringtones

Having looked through the generally sprawling, untidy and very-difficult-to-follow The Neptunes discography, I think that it may be an idea to establish some sort of design guidelines for production discographies as well, similar to WP:DISCOGSTYLE: apart from a few exceptions, most of them are simply written as plain lists, and are completely unsourced. I'm thinking of some ideas, but if you have any suggestions, they would be appreciated.
Also, I am aware that we don't list US ringtone certifications in discographies currently. I can see why people wouldn't want them included, as it is unclear whether buying a ringtone is the same as buying an actual single, but I actually think they should be. The way I see it, a ringtone is just another format that music can be purchased as: besides, we list the "Standard" and "Digital" certifications under the same "RIAA" heading, as if they're the same sort of certification, when they're two completely different formats. UPDATE: Please ignore the crossed out bit: have read about this at the talk page of WP:DISCOGSTYLE. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That's just what I think, anyway. If I've missed some obvious logic here, please tell me. Thanks! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

How can I lock an Article Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelove (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Only editors with administrator rights can change page protection. See WP:PP for details. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

FL Thanks

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial efforts that has contributed to the recent WP:FL promotion of Kanye West discography

This user helped promote Kanye West discography to featured list status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)FL Thanks

You're still here!

I haven't crossed paths with you for a while. Thought you might want to be a guinea pig for {{BillboardURLbyName}}. While working my way through the last Billboard change, I figured that a couple of templates to help discography editors could be useful. {{BillboardChartNum|chart name}} will return the integer number associated with that BillboardChart, and {{BillboardURLbyName}} will return a URL for that chart for that artist, i.e. {{BillboardURLbyName|artist=Shakira|chart=Hot 100}} will generate https://www.billboard.com/artist/shakira/chart-history/hot-100. The chart name mapping is documented at {{BillboardChartNum}}. If you want to have real fun, peek under the hood of {{BillboardID}}: I'm truly ashamed of myself.

There's no fancy ref formatting or anything: just the raw URL. That way there shouldn't be any arguments about appearance to keep people from using them, and I can get them all to autoupdate the next time Billboard changes everything.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Santana

Hello JohnFromPinchney,

since you commented at the lists's first nomination I thought you might be interested in reviewing it again against the criteria. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JohnFromPinckney. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JohnFromPinckney. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JohnFromPinckney. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Latin artists certifications.

Hi JohnFromPinckney,

I saw that you erase the info about Paulina Rubio's certifications, but I think that the infos/sources were not unreliable. Since organizations like IFPI and RIAA didn't exist in most of latin countries, some wikipedian users add links from reputable magazines and journals to latin artists articles. It's that way for most of them and till now we didn't have problem with that, and that's why all that info you erase was there.--88marcus (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michigan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (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) 06:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Misplaced Pages from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Misplaced Pages. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow! I feel there must have been a mistake in the Academy's voting, but thank you very much! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility

Thanks for your efforts at Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country. Unfortunately, it will be overwritten tomorrow. I wrote a demo modification to Magnus' tab2wiki at http://ivydene1.co.uk/demo/tab2wiki.php that adds headers and scopes, but it doesn't get used. --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Rexx, I hadn't noticed that. <sarcasm>Fortunately, it's a small table and didn't take any time at all to modify.</sarcasm>. Best regards,— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I did the same thing on the original article with the same result. Although it was somewhat easier using an external text editor to do the find-and-replace using regular expressions. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Roger Moore Edit.

Hello. No; but I've the record itself, in my hand, right now. A Google search should easily authenticate it, if you were to use 'Images'. Sorry, I don't have Editorial abilities enough to add it any other way, into the History. If you know how, and should care too, fine, please go ahead. If not, it's a great pity that others shall be deprived of the information. Ah well, I've tried. At least it's now in the Editorial History, should somebody stumble across it. I hope you do know how too,though. Thanks anyway. Heath St John (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Heath St John: You can usually find a release on Discogs and that shows Moore's release. The picture sleeve can be attested by looking at a sites offering vinyl for sale. I've restored your addition and added two references. The second one shows an image with the "Louisa" misspelling. --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the interest, and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.43.239 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, thanks to that reinstatement you made, taking the Reader to Discogs, and the Roger Moore pictures, I noticed the two on there, a few minutes ago, I'd not seen, yesterday: I've., 'Snow White's, and 'Aladdin'. I added those on the R. Moore Page, just now, but don't have the knowledge to give a Reference No., doing for them, what you did for the other single, yesterday; that is, taking people to the Discogs' Site, and the pictures of them, there; could you do that for everyone, please ? Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please don't trouble to try and help me, with that favour I hoped you might do, as expressed, above. I'm afraid your flattering reinstatement of my research on Discogs, re. Roger Moore's Recording History, was removed again. Anyway, I've added a Discussion in the matter, in the Section about how the Page could be improved, at the bottom, by Edit History; perhaps you;d like to visit that, and add some comments of your own ? I hope so. Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania

Could you please advise OneMoreByte about the issue with their edits? They are a new user and came to my talk page for advice, but as you reverted you're probably in a better position. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I do wish to change back two edits (1) I have found origonal evidence (and will cite) that the Penn Museum was originally founded as the Free Science and Art museum and (2) the main line Protestant organization could not have moved to Houston Hall in mid 1880s as Houston Hall was not finished being built until 1898. I will supply cite for your review. I am ry confident about item (2) and less so re item (1). I look forward to reading if you agree or disagree with me. OneMoreByte (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the url you added here specifically says that, in 1899, "The Museum opens as the Free Museum of Science and Art" after originally opening in 1887. I guess it all depends on what sources you bring. I don't know anything about the Houston Hall thing you're talking about. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been to Houston Hall literally 100s of times and know about it and know it was not built until late 1890s so the way I reported reflects such knowledge and the hyperlinks take you to Houston Hall that reflects and supports the info I wrote. OneMoreByte (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Houston Hall (University wof Pennsylvania) OneMoreByte (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Penn Museum was founded in 1887 in College Hall that was built in 1871/1872 and could not move to Houston Hall until after it was built. I did provide citations for what I wrote OneMoreByte (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you delete John Heisman (for whom the trophy for best college Football player in nation is named due to lack of cite? or for another reason? OneMoreByte (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Improper and Harassing Editing

I added truthful edits to two web sites concerning elected officials, supported by citations. JohnFromPickney improperly edited those comments. This violates the rule of consensus and this editor is exercising unilateral control. It also reflects positive political bias trying to overcome truthful content. This politicizes content - as it skews away from one political point of view to another. This, again, renders these supposedly open forums inherently corrupt and calls into question the entire nature of[REDACTED] as not being true to its own terms and conditions and advertised premise. I'd like the behavior to stop and for my edits to remain unmolested. MichaGuy (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocking for GWAR

I'm not sure why you decided an editor with four prior warnings (all of them recent) for GWAR should go from a final warning to a level 3 warning. I've asked for a block. - SummerPhD 18:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't really expect any improvement in behavior, and in fact, I'm surprised they stopped after only three articles today. I rather expected to throw more warnings, in increasing severity, at them in a short time. My impression is, when some time has passed since the last warnings (as here, from the previous month, 10 days ago), we're supposed to start at the beginning (level 1) again. I didn't start there; it was just too ridiculous. Apparently, I've misunderstood/forgotten how it's supposed to work. Thanks for arranging the block. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

OneMoreByte

You understandably deleted Susan N. Stevenson due to vite being wrong. I tried to fix the cute and provided 2. One appears broken and I ask you to help me delete or did broken cite. OneMoreByte (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't figured out what you're talking about yet, but please pay attention where you are editing on my Talk page; I pulled this text out of the end of 2011 above. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2020 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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I was editing from the article, Delta Air Lines

According to the largest airline by fleet size. The planespotter.com website is kinda confused, and some says better source needed because some of Delta Air Lines fleets has been retired now. And still, I'm confused too about the planespotter.com website and Misplaced Pages page, Delta Air Lines fleets. Which of these two are understandable or not confused? I'm from the Philippines so please understand my grammar. Thank you! Apple 3002 (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

And also, according to largest airline fleet in the world. . It's says 775, and their Delta Air Lines fleet, 779. Apple 3002 (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! As you edit in Delta Air Lines fleet size, please use the calculator and add all in service of Delta Air Lines fleets. If you have any concern, please add the discussion of User talk:Marc Lacoste. Thank you! Corner2002 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

1. It may not be equitable for you to delete only one name on a list of name for not having a ref, while leaving all the many others on the list.

2. Also, it may be more helpful to the project - especially where the underlying article clearly has supporting refs - to merely tag all (not some ) offending names. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1D36:6FB6:FDDA:9EB2 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

List of countries by intentional homicide rate

Hello, I take the dates from this site http://especiais.g1.globo.com/monitor-da-violencia/2018/mortes-violentas-no-brasil/?_ga=2.236226305.1800895286.1610505734-3509273670.1599836531#/dados-mensais-2020, sorry I dont know how if I put the site correct. Its a Brazilian site that have the numbers since 2011 and the 2020 numbers are 43.892 with the rate for 100.000 habitants is 20.89. Tobetto (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting me, you idiot.2600:1003:B02B:B502:0:56:970B:E001 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)