Why I edited the tracklistingsEdit

@Richard3120 With All respect about 1980/81/82, etc in British music Year-end charts Best-selling singles, the information that I'm trying fix is wrong, The charts do not match with the original countdown. I've been comparing the tapes of the shows from Radio 1 and editions of Record Mirror, Music Week and charts purchased directly to OCC. You cannot keep fake information. Thanks

because most of them were messy, unorganized, and just ugly. i don't do rap albums because as much as i like rap, i have no clue what the hell i'm talking about when i edit rap albums, but i do about rock albums. also, i thought it was obvious why i changed it; i wanted it to look appealing to others looking at the wikipedia page, not make them think it was lazily edited. i edit tracklists to make them look professional and well done, not cheaply made in five minutes. midcey (talk)

@Midcey: I understand why you are doing it, but your reasons for doing so are incorrect and against Wikipedia policy, as I explained on your talk page. You have accused Koavf of changing track listing styles on Swans' albums "for no reason", but in fact you are the one changing things for no reason, other than you like the way it looks. You cannot go around imposing your personal beliefs on Wikipedia articles, against policy guidelines. Your idea that the track listing template "looks more professional" is simply subjective – there are other editors who believe the numbered list looks cleaner, and in fact the template has limitations... for example, at Giants of All Sizes it would be impossible to note the different track lengths for the opening song if the template was used. Please stop changing track listings to the way you want them to look, otherwise it is likely that someone will bring you up at WP:ANI before too long. Richard3120 (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

kinda weird since I edited a bunch of other tracklists and albums and for some reason this one Swans' album is a problem? what's so different about this than the other many tracklists and albums I edited before? also, i'm not doing it because it looks "good", i'm doing it to make the project more appealing and not look lazily done because everyone knows what a good tracklisting looks like but then you see this tracklist that looks like a list you have written down for when you go to the grocery store, like come on. plus, it just looks lazily done and the other albums looked like it was well done so why can't this album be? please answer me that because i would GLADLY want to know why every other album by swans can have a actual tracklisting except this one for some mythical reason. oh also, i edited a bunch of john frusciante albums and give them more depth and no one had a problem with me doing that (which actually benefits it) so why are you having a problem with me doing that to one swan's album EVEN THOUGH every other Swan's project has a organized and good tracklist? that makes no fucking sense, please explain your logic to me, help me understand. midcey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Midcey: I haven't looked at all your edits, but on the ones I have seen, you didn't change the track listing style that was already in use, the other articles already used the track listing template. If you're changing it from a numbered list on other articles, then yes, that's also a problem, but it's because nobody has noticed it yet. You say that you're not doing it to make it look good, and then immediately say that it's to make it look "more appealing", i.e. look good, so you are contradicting yourself. As I said above, it's "your" idea of what a good track listing looks like, it's not an accepted fact... there is no "mythical reason", I've told you before, there is a policy in place, and if you don't understand the concept of regulations, then I can't help you. Again, it's not your decision as to what is or isn't more appealing or the correct way to write a track listing, and it's not the decision of anybody who works on album articles – it's a Wikipedia policy, and to get it changed you'll have to get consensus from a higher level to have the policy changed across all of Wikipedia, not just album articles. I'll also add that you're likely to run into opposition for changing the numbering on side two of an album so that it doesn't start at "track 1" again – this has been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 58#Inaccurate consecutive numbering of tracks across multiple LP sides or discs in track listings. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

well if you put it like that it makes sense, also i meant appealing to others, i also think it looks good but that isn't the point midcey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

GTA Do They Know It's Christmas ParodyEdit

It has been mentioned outside GTA, but not in published sources like the New York Times. If you do a search you can find blogs and video game walk throughs that talk about it. IGN.com for example. So to answer your concern, yes and no. YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


@YouarelovedSOmuch: well, yes, exactly... blogs and game walk-throughs are not considered reliable sources for use on Wikipedia – see WP:RSSELF and WP:USERG. So it hasn't gained any widespread notice outside the gaming community. Richard3120 (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I just meant to correct you that it had been mentioned outside GTA itself, just not, as you now state correctly, outside the gaming community. Perhaps that is what you meant, and you were just saying it in a simplified manner, in which case, I agree, and am not trying to nitpick. I agree with the reasons for the revision. YouarelovedSOmuch (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Viih ConkEdit

the article is under construction, i will put more information! Rangel Carregosa (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rangel Carregosa: please not that OneRPM, Portal Pop Online and Central dos Artistas are not reliable sources, so none of these websites count as references – the sources should not be blogs or YouTube. Richard3120 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!Edit


Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Invincible Concert TourEdit

<Link> Is this a reliable source to reinstate The Invincible Concert Tour? — Regards from Frontier95 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Frontier95: No, because it's just a promotional press release from the DVD company. Please read WP:NTOUR – for a tour to be notable there should be more than one independent source discussing the tour in detail. Richard3120 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Confusing editEdit

Why did you add class=Category? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Simply because I am usually copying and pasting for various categories on various pages, and sometimes the previous one gets overwritten. Yes, I know it automatically defaults to "category" if no parameter is added – feel free to revert it if you like. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Richard3120, Reverting seems silly--I was just wondering if there's something I was missing and if I should start adding this parameter. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: Ah, no, I'm sorry, you're not missing anything – I just find it easier to copy and paste sometimes than write "WikiProject Albums" over and over again every time I come across a category without any WikiProject tags attached, and sometimes they have the "class=category" parameter attached. That reminds me, about a year ago, you ran a bot to automatically tag pages without WikiProject tags... do you have any plans to run it again? Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Richard3120, Just to be clear, I didn't have a bot--it was all manual. At the moment, I'm in some hot water for mass edits, so I don't think there is much prospect of me doing that soon until I show good judgement about that sort of thing to give more confidence to others. :/ ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: that's a shame, it would be useful. The Disambiguation WikiProject asked me not to tag disambiguation pages, so I've refrained from doing that, but I pointed out to them that if an article doesn't have a talk page (no WikiProject tags, no messages, etc.) it doesn't show up in the search bar when you type it in, which seems to make the point of a disambiguation page redundant to me, if you can't find it. So yeah, I try and tag any empty talk page I can with some relevant WikiProject, just so someone can then find it when they search for it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Richard3120, " if an article doesn't have a talk page (no WikiProject tags, no messages, etc.) it doesn't show up in the search bar when you type it in" !!! Are you sure about that? That's wild. Where did you get this information? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: it looks like they fixed that now. When I mentioned it to WikiProject Disambiguation, they couldn't believe it either, but after trying it out they said they were going to put in a technical request, and it looks like it's been done. Richard3120 (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Richard3120, Score. Thanks for your insite and your work on this encyclopedia. Have a good one, Richard. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 18:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A quick requestEdit

Hey there Richard! I have a rather odd request. Could you take a look at the Latin music project's scope and see if it makes sense from an outsider's point of view? Thanks! Erick (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

February 2020Edit

With All respect about 1980/81/82, etc in British music Year-end charts Best-selling singles, the information that I'm trying fix is wrong, The charts do not match with the original countdown. I've been comparing the tapes of the shows from Radio 1 and editions of Record Mirror, Music Week and charts purchased directly to OCC. You cannot keep fake information.Thanks

Stereo195FM: it's not fake, they are the official full year-end charts, which is what I keep explaining to you but you do not seem to be able to understand. The BMRB compiled the official UK charts between 1969 and 1982. In order to have a year-end chart ready for Music Week and Radio 1 by the end of the year, they had to have a cut-off point in mid-December in order to have time to count up the sales. This means that all the year-end charts that were produced by BMRB are missing sales from the last two or three weeks of December... which is pretty important, considering it's the biggest sales period of the year. When Gallup took over the chart in 1983, they automated the system, meaning that sales were logged immediately and there was no delay in compiling the charts, which meant the year-end charts could be produced immediately.
However, from 1977 to 1982 (with the exception of 1979), BRMB would later publish updated charts that included the whole of December. These charts are not "fake" - they were published in the annual BPI Yearbook, the official publication of the British Phonographic Industry, and often in Music Week and Record Mirror as well, usually around February or March the following year. They are therefore more complete, because they don't miss out the sales from the busiest time of the year. If you look at the difference between the chart on Wikipedia and the chart counted down on Radio 1, you'll see the biggest changes in positions are for records that were in the chart in late December. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

FAN for Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)Edit

Hi Richard. I recently opened a featured-article nomination for Aftermath (Rolling Stones album). I found your name at a past FA review and wanted to let you know, in case you would be interested in offering a review, which would be much appreciated if you have the time and interest. Thanks. isento (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)