User talk:Everm4e/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Everm4e, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be Alive[edit]

The song being listed among the worst ones of the year by Rolling Stone India is a notable thing that makes the reviews for it (at least) mixed. Making it into the worst songs of the year is an accomplishment, you know? The fact that it got an oscar nomination has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the fact thatit might have received "critical acclaim", don't you know that music critics and awards (in this case movie awards) have nothing to do with each other. Please, stop reverting per WP: edit war, and if you are so sure that your edit is rightful, please contact a more experienced user and let's see what he has to say about it--MGK king (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MGK king One mixed review from a local publication with little ties to the official thing (that even notes in the piece itself that the song is not bad by any means) is simply not enough to relegate it into a song with "mixed reviews", especially when all the other reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Please refrain from making disruptive edits and vandalizing Beyoncé's Wikipedia pages. Your account has been already been blocked as sockpuppet created to violate Wikipedia policy, which says more than enough. --Everm4e (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Avril Lavigne discography, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ss112 18:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I don't know what you seem to think an access-date is, but it's what date you actually accessed a citation and added it to a page. You added Slovak charts to The Gods We Can Touch and Don't Smile at Me several days ago and put January 2022 as an access-date for the former and 2021 for the latter, which is obviously not correct. Please give accurate access-dates, because it does not mean what date the album appeared on a chart. Thank you. Ss112 19:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romandie Charts[edit]

The Romandie Chart is a component chart of the wider Swiss Charts - its a subset or regional chart of the wider Singles chart. The same way we don't allow charts for individual states in the United States, or Quebec in Canada. I know you want to include it because B's album is number one on the Romandie chart but only number three on the Swiss Chart. When someone reverts you (and you're trying to add information which is not supported e.g. its not in WP:GOODCHARTS), the onus is on you to get consensus via WP:BRD. Frankly I'm beginning to get fed-up of having to clean up constant edits without edit summaries and poorly sourced information. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please accept my apology for reverting your edit rather than starting a discussion in accordance with WP:BRD. I'll also try my best to include more edit summaries moving forward, as I completely understand your frustrations. Regardless of it being a component chart, I figured the Swiss Romandie chart would be notable enough for an inclusion since it's included in WP:GOODCHARTS and is administered by Hung Medien. It's worth mentioning that Romandy is different from the rest of Switzerland in that it's Francophone and has its own distinct cultural identity and ergo music consumption, like Wallonia in Belgium or Quebec in Canada. Regarding the latter, I have seen the ADISQ chart in use all over Wikipedia, particularly in Celine Dion's articles. A similar case is ČNS IFPI's SK Albums Top 100 chart, another seemingly component chart that is often times identical to the Czech one. So long as the Romandie chart continues to be updated with data from Hung Medien, I believe it should continue to be included. I think it would provide more insight into RENAISSANCE's worldwide performance. Everm4e (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology - not required but appreciated. Slovakia and Czech Republic are two different countries so its not the same comparison. Wallonia and Flanders do not add together to make a one Belgian Singles Chart. There is no recognised Belgian Singles Chart which covers all of Belgium. A song could chart on Wallonia without charting on Flanders and vice versa. The Romandie chart covers part of the Swiss Market. The Swiss Singles Chart covers ALL of Switzerland including the Romandie region (unlike Flanders or wallonia). The ASDIQ is a separate organisation and there is a long stated history about Quebec's cultural heritage and desire for independence. WP:OTHERSTUFF outlines a principle that what exists somewhere else is not a a valid argument for what exists here. Either way including both the Romandy and Swiss charts would need discussion at the talk page for WP:RECORDCHARTS and a consensus to be gained. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for shedding light on the differences. My argument is that, upon first glance, one wouldn't necessarily think the Schweizer Hitparade chart is that all-inclusive, considering the fact that the site is strictly in German and offers no multilingual options, which the Swiss Federal Law on National Languages clearly states that the official languages of Switzerland are German, French and Italian, as well as Romansh in dealings with people who speak this language. Therefore, German, French, and Italian maintain equal status as official languages . As far as I know hitparade.ch is the only Hung Medien site that provides no multilingual options. It would be somewhat comparable to Quebec in Canada, but not exactly. I will start a discussion in WP:RECORDCHARTS and hopefully we can gain a consensus. Everm4e (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

@Everm4e: Hi, as per WP:EXPLICITGENRE, if xyz is a genre, the album should be called "an xyz album/record/work" explicitly. You cited three sources, of which only two are reliable. Clash says "Joanne finds Gaga mostly stripped of the bombast that permeated her early work and injected with surprising but fresh shades of country and light Americana". "Injected with fresh shades of country" does not denote the album is a country record, but says it has country elements. Similarly, AV Club says "Gaga covers a lot of ground, straying heavily into country but never resting in one place for too long." This, again, is not an explicit statement. Hence, please do not repeatedly add the genres to the infobox as it's quite clear now. Infobox is for the album's core genres, not for influences or elements. If you want to discuss further, open up a discussion on the article talk page. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 14:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

She Wolf

added a link pointing to ABPD

Try Everything

added a link pointing to Gaon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oricon "component" chart[edit]

Oricon considers its main chart the physical-only chart, but by definition, the Combined Albums chart is not a component chart of that. The Combined Albums chart combines physical and digital sales, and there is absolutely no chart guideline against including a component chart of a country if it has not charted on the main chart of a country regardless (and Billboard Japan is not the main chart provider of Japan either, so the chart should not be removed for that reason either). Why does this look like you only removed it because you want a (nearly) full table of number ones for Taylor Swift? Ss112 12:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for illuminating this point for me. To explain my reasoning, I thought it would be superfluous to include all three charts on the album's page, and I've noticed the Oricon sales chart is usually given precedence over the Combined chart on Wikipedia. Everm4e (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Fvck[edit]

Anybody who understands the nuances of "stanning" can easily understand your motive here. Seriously? You (should) know better than to bring stan antics to Twitter. —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bit too worked up over a literal fact, are we? There's really no nuances, just you jumping to silly conclusions. Everm4e (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worked up? That sounds like an admission to me; you must have forgotten it was already removed when I saw it! Yes, bold edits are great when made in good faith. You expect me to believe that a person who rarely contributes to Lovato-related topics stumbled upon one of her articles and decided to label her album the lowest selling of its kind? No malicious intent at all? That's funny —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ill-informed, once again. I've made significant contributions Demi Lovato's album pages, including Tell Me You Love Me, Dancing with the Devil... the Art of Starting Over, and more recently Holy Fvck. I've updated her chart positions and certifications in all. The album being her lowest charting (not selling), and first to miss the Billboard 200 top five is a fact. I simply thought it was worthy of being mentioned; nothing more to it. Sorry you got that impression, though. Everm4e (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating chart positions and certs is hardly what anyone would consider a "significant contribution". Beyond that it's still very bizarre that someone who edits Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift articles would come along and label a Lovato album as her lowest charting —VersaceSpace 🌃 11:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bizarre in the slightest - take a look at Avril Lavigne's Head Above Water and Jennifer Lopez's A.K.A. album pages, which both express the same thing. You making that assertion based on whose artists' pages I frequently edit (not, I edit about as many Selena Gomez articles as I do Demi) is quite ironic considering you just accused me of bringing Twitter antics to Wikipedia. Let's assume good faith please. After all, this is the first such accusation being thrown at me. Everm4e (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those two additions were sourced, unlike yours. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm not seeing any source for Head Above Water, so perhaps remove that section as well? Everm4e (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did now, although I don't know why that responsibility would fall on me since I've never edited an Avril Lavigne article in my life. I assumed it was sourced since you brought it up. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]