User talk:Lil-unique1/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
Notable song?
Hey. What do you think of the article X Moves? It appears to be the final single released during DMX's life as he coincidentally died the next day. It didn't chart, even after his other songs surged in streams after his death, but I'm not sure whether his death being so soon after and the few sources there seem to be on it make it notable. Ss112 23:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ss112: My suggestion for this one is Draftify. It doesn't inherit notability just because DMX died. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, while I'm here, what about Off the Yak? One review, didn't chart (as Young M.A was a one-hit wonder), and the only other sources are basically saying "she released an album". Ss112 23:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ss112: as for this one, I think merge to discog? Deletion discussion if contested? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'd feel a bit weird draftifying an article that's over a year old like it could be improved in draftspace. I feel like as the article's been around for a bit either it would've been expanded or it's just never going to be, so I redirected both. Ss112 00:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yeah, fair that's a good point.
- I'm concerned about the notability of Rina Sawayama song articles like "This Hell" and "Catch Me in the Air", created recently by the user VersaceSpace, who also created the above articles I mentioned. I tagged the latter for notability and have dropped the user a line about notability on their talk page, but I'm not sure they'll really care based on my recent interactions with them . It's not a good sign when anybody needs to start using cheap-looking blog-websites like this "Music Times" for news sources on song articles. They didn't chart and there's no extensive commentary (obviously excluding "Rina Sawayama released this song") on them that I can find. What do you think? Ss112 05:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, there's a certain sense of entitlement amongst "fans" of certain artists. I always though WP:NSONGS was really unequivocal about it. Charting doesn't = notability. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 14:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call myself a fan of Sawayama. Yes the song(s) did chart (in Japan; somebody else updated it). Yes there are multiple reputable sources talking about the songs (CMITA: RS, Pitchfork, Consequence, NME, Music Times [Not a blog], Hypebae, tons more, literally just Google it) (This Hell is a clear GNG pass Pitchfork REVIEW, The Fader, Spin, RS, Louder, if you don't think it's a GNG pass, it's definitely a BASIC pass) —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about the notability of Rina Sawayama song articles like "This Hell" and "Catch Me in the Air", created recently by the user VersaceSpace, who also created the above articles I mentioned. I tagged the latter for notability and have dropped the user a line about notability on their talk page, but I'm not sure they'll really care based on my recent interactions with them . It's not a good sign when anybody needs to start using cheap-looking blog-websites like this "Music Times" for news sources on song articles. They didn't chart and there's no extensive commentary (obviously excluding "Rina Sawayama released this song") on them that I can find. What do you think? Ss112 05:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yeah, fair that's a good point.
- Thanks for that. I'd feel a bit weird draftifying an article that's over a year old like it could be improved in draftspace. I feel like as the article's been around for a bit either it would've been expanded or it's just never going to be, so I redirected both. Ss112 00:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ss112: as for this one, I think merge to discog? Deletion discussion if contested? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
VersaceSpace I suspected this might be the case hence I opened merge discussions instead of AfD. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- @VersaceSpace: I find it amusing that you told me to stop posting on your talk page, then you come here to Lil-unique1's talk page and respond in a thread I started. "Not a fan of Sawayama" yet you so happened to make two articles for her songs in the past few days that barely pass any sort of notability. You should be demonstrating the notability of articles by including sources that go in-depth about them when you make them. Then I won't have to come to your talk page trying to ask you to do the bare minimum in future. Ss112 23:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ss112: Not sure why you think this kind of behavior is acceptable. If you think any topic with an article here is not notable, the onus is on you to perform at the very minimum a quick search of Google; if you had done so you would have found ample sources as I did. Instead you've decided to question my motives, talk down to me, you're actually borderline bullying me. The redirection of X Moves and Off the Yak were objectively good edits, but these new topics are giving me the impression that you're hounding. You should read the room and realize that when I asked you not to post on my talk page, that also meant to cease interaction with me because it's not been constructive whatsoever! Lastly, if you mention me anywhere, expect a response from me. I'd rather not ever have to think about you, but that's difficult to keep up with if I'm the topic of your conversations. Thank you —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- @VersaceSpace: You invited yourself into this discussion. A discussion about another editor and what they do on this site does not have to involve them, but now that you're here, I'm talking to you directly. Don't claim you're being "bullied" or "hounded" then follow me to a discussion I never tagged you in until after you invited yourself to it. What hypocrisy. Now, back to the topic: the burden of proving notability lies with the creator, not somebody who doubts it. Anybody can boldly redirect or nominate a topic for deletion if they doubt its notability. The editor doubting that notability has been sufficiently demonstrated don't have to "prove" it's notable—what nonsense. Where did you get this from? It's not reflected in our policies or guidelines. The creator should be the one doing so because then there wouldn't be doubts. The logic of WP:BURDEN and specifically WP:N expand on this, and I suggest familiarising yourself with our policies and guidelines before rambling on. You did not sufficiently demonstrate notability on either of these Sawayama song articles. "I'd rather not ever have to think about you" etc...good Lord, you're one with the overstatements and dramatics, it seems. You're still a fairly new editor and I've barely spoken to you at all. A few threads on your talk page (image guidelines, about a comment in an edit summary, then notability) and a tag in an edit summary to alphabetise reviews you add and you act like that's bullying. Finally, an editor cannot just demand somebody else "cease interaction" with them go about their business creating non- or barely notable song articles or whatever other issues they bring to this site. Demonstrate notability on articles you create in future: that's the message here. Any editor here would tell you to do the same. It's not hard. Thank you very much. Ss112 05:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Invited myself into this discussion? If you're talking about my actions on Wikipedia, for the most obvious reasons that's gonna be a conversation I'm a part of. Wikipedia is a large community, but the community of music editors with thousands of edits is smaller; I have had Lil-Unique's talk page watchlisted since I GA reviewed B7 over a year ago. And you've posted at least three tsunamis of text on my talk page - hardly what i'd call barely speaking to me. Your corrections of my edits are obviously not what I'm talking about when I said you were hounding me. Moreso it's the redirecting of my articles after I deleted your statements from my talk page, which as I explained before, were previously good redirections but these two are not, as I've evidenced. And no, making sure a topic is not notable is not optional. It's common sense to at least google the subjects, which you clearly did not do. It's outlined at WP:BEFORE for deletion nominations; for reasons I could imagine are obvious it's good practice to follow that for redirects and merges too. —VersaceSpace 🌃 12:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, whatever, "reformed vandal". You can't shift claims of notability from the creator onto other editors, but nice try. I don't care what you have watchlisted. You weren't invited to this discussion, which I started a week ago and you only invited yourself to yesterday. A discussion about an editor does not need to involve them and neither I nor Lil-unique1 asked for your input. I already directly confronted you about it, you removed my messages, then I asked another editor's opinion. What an utter load of BS when you say you want nothing to do with me then comment in a thread I started. Thank you for disproving any future claims you might make to anybody that I'm hounding you or that you tried to avoid me when you find this and invite yourself to it. If you want nothing to do with me, don't reply to me or in threads I start, whether or not they're about you. Time to learn you can't control what people say about you, online or offline, nor when they will talk about you. Pretty simple to ignore pings and extricate yourself from a non-essential discussion. Ss112 13:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody's "shift[ing] claims of notability". I believed the added references demonstrated that when I published the article. If you disagree, that's fine, but you should and are supposed to do a search before considering the topic "not notable" - again, common sense. And yes, I'm aware that I can't control discussion about myself, but it would be nice if you could let someone else deal with me if you think I'm a problem; this, your insults toward me, and your xenophobia accusations don't make a great case for civility. I also fail to see how this is a non-essential discussion since it concerns an article I created. I'm autopatrolled so if there's an actual problem with my creation, I want to know. —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- You want to know what's common sense? Keeping the thread I started on your talk page, not removing it and then involving yourself on another editor's talk page when I ask their opinion on a couple of articles. What isn't common sense: inviting yourself to places the editor you claim you "don't want to have to even think about" is talking to somebody else. Please actually display some common sense before trying to preach to me about what it is. Ss112 13:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I told you, I do not want to interact with you, but if you're going to speak about me in a negative light, expect a response. Not that unreasonable. And you're conveniently leaving out that you were talking about me, which is largely different than say, if you were talking about the weather, a new policy, an RfA, but no. After a highly unproductive discussion on my talk page the first order of business is to keep going on about me. Let it go! Let somebody else deal with things because the way you've gone about me is disastrous, and you could really just go do anything else. —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're just not getting it. Don't claim you don't want to talk to me then find other places to talk to me. Perhaps learn to take your own advice before offering it to others. You could have done anything else and just let it go! instead of continuing to involve yourself in places you weren't pinged. It's just common sense. Ss112 13:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I told you, I do not want to interact with you, but if you're going to speak about me in a negative light, expect a response. Not that unreasonable. And you're conveniently leaving out that you were talking about me, which is largely different than say, if you were talking about the weather, a new policy, an RfA, but no. After a highly unproductive discussion on my talk page the first order of business is to keep going on about me. Let it go! Let somebody else deal with things because the way you've gone about me is disastrous, and you could really just go do anything else. —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- You want to know what's common sense? Keeping the thread I started on your talk page, not removing it and then involving yourself on another editor's talk page when I ask their opinion on a couple of articles. What isn't common sense: inviting yourself to places the editor you claim you "don't want to have to even think about" is talking to somebody else. Please actually display some common sense before trying to preach to me about what it is. Ss112 13:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody's "shift[ing] claims of notability". I believed the added references demonstrated that when I published the article. If you disagree, that's fine, but you should and are supposed to do a search before considering the topic "not notable" - again, common sense. And yes, I'm aware that I can't control discussion about myself, but it would be nice if you could let someone else deal with me if you think I'm a problem; this, your insults toward me, and your xenophobia accusations don't make a great case for civility. I also fail to see how this is a non-essential discussion since it concerns an article I created. I'm autopatrolled so if there's an actual problem with my creation, I want to know. —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, whatever, "reformed vandal". You can't shift claims of notability from the creator onto other editors, but nice try. I don't care what you have watchlisted. You weren't invited to this discussion, which I started a week ago and you only invited yourself to yesterday. A discussion about an editor does not need to involve them and neither I nor Lil-unique1 asked for your input. I already directly confronted you about it, you removed my messages, then I asked another editor's opinion. What an utter load of BS when you say you want nothing to do with me then comment in a thread I started. Thank you for disproving any future claims you might make to anybody that I'm hounding you or that you tried to avoid me when you find this and invite yourself to it. If you want nothing to do with me, don't reply to me or in threads I start, whether or not they're about you. Time to learn you can't control what people say about you, online or offline, nor when they will talk about you. Pretty simple to ignore pings and extricate yourself from a non-essential discussion. Ss112 13:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Invited myself into this discussion? If you're talking about my actions on Wikipedia, for the most obvious reasons that's gonna be a conversation I'm a part of. Wikipedia is a large community, but the community of music editors with thousands of edits is smaller; I have had Lil-Unique's talk page watchlisted since I GA reviewed B7 over a year ago. And you've posted at least three tsunamis of text on my talk page - hardly what i'd call barely speaking to me. Your corrections of my edits are obviously not what I'm talking about when I said you were hounding me. Moreso it's the redirecting of my articles after I deleted your statements from my talk page, which as I explained before, were previously good redirections but these two are not, as I've evidenced. And no, making sure a topic is not notable is not optional. It's common sense to at least google the subjects, which you clearly did not do. It's outlined at WP:BEFORE for deletion nominations; for reasons I could imagine are obvious it's good practice to follow that for redirects and merges too. —VersaceSpace 🌃 12:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- @VersaceSpace: You invited yourself into this discussion. A discussion about another editor and what they do on this site does not have to involve them, but now that you're here, I'm talking to you directly. Don't claim you're being "bullied" or "hounded" then follow me to a discussion I never tagged you in until after you invited yourself to it. What hypocrisy. Now, back to the topic: the burden of proving notability lies with the creator, not somebody who doubts it. Anybody can boldly redirect or nominate a topic for deletion if they doubt its notability. The editor doubting that notability has been sufficiently demonstrated don't have to "prove" it's notable—what nonsense. Where did you get this from? It's not reflected in our policies or guidelines. The creator should be the one doing so because then there wouldn't be doubts. The logic of WP:BURDEN and specifically WP:N expand on this, and I suggest familiarising yourself with our policies and guidelines before rambling on. You did not sufficiently demonstrate notability on either of these Sawayama song articles. "I'd rather not ever have to think about you" etc...good Lord, you're one with the overstatements and dramatics, it seems. You're still a fairly new editor and I've barely spoken to you at all. A few threads on your talk page (image guidelines, about a comment in an edit summary, then notability) and a tag in an edit summary to alphabetise reviews you add and you act like that's bullying. Finally, an editor cannot just demand somebody else "cease interaction" with them go about their business creating non- or barely notable song articles or whatever other issues they bring to this site. Demonstrate notability on articles you create in future: that's the message here. Any editor here would tell you to do the same. It's not hard. Thank you very much. Ss112 05:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ss112: Not sure why you think this kind of behavior is acceptable. If you think any topic with an article here is not notable, the onus is on you to perform at the very minimum a quick search of Google; if you had done so you would have found ample sources as I did. Instead you've decided to question my motives, talk down to me, you're actually borderline bullying me. The redirection of X Moves and Off the Yak were objectively good edits, but these new topics are giving me the impression that you're hounding. You should read the room and realize that when I asked you not to post on my talk page, that also meant to cease interaction with me because it's not been constructive whatsoever! Lastly, if you mention me anywhere, expect a response from me. I'd rather not ever have to think about you, but that's difficult to keep up with if I'm the topic of your conversations. Thank you —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not offering you advice, it's a request. I don't think so highly of myself to give advice to someone with hundreds of thousands of edits. This is not a social media platform, it's a collaborative project, so no, ignoring mentions (and full conversations) concerning yourself is not really how things happen here. Don't tell me what to do either. I did not come to this talk page expecting to find a discussion about me, so I'm not looking for "other places to talk to" you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- ...And yet you still are after saying you don't want to, I request that you follow your own request to "just go do anything else" and "let it go!" already. Ss112 14:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Ss112 and VersaceSpace honestly on this one I'm lost. All I will say is that you shouldn't create a page you know is not notable in the format it will be published in even if you know other sources exist that could make it more notable. Create the page in its best possible notability form, rather than half-baked pages that don't satisfy notability criteria and might get tagged or deleted. Admittedly some of us are lazy and click happy when it comes to AfD but IMO its almost like, if someone CBA to do the work to make the page, then why should anyone bother. Yes AfD/merge are always the last calls but let's not fall out over fairly mundane issues here. There are much bigger discussions in wiki and life than these articles. Let's agree to draw a line under this. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well...that's the thing. When I created the article I thought it met the minimum notability guidelines. And if Ss112 disagrees that's OK, but they're still supposed to do a search for sources before tagging for notability or starting a merge discussion. But I appreciate your positive direction and attitude. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Correction: If Lil-Unique disagrees*, and Ss112, obviously I already knew this and misspoke, if I thought otherwise it would've made more sense for me to express how I felt about that at a prior moment. Also you don't get to advise me as an "experienced editor" when you've made a number of personal attacks directed at me. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- The hypocrisy and complete lack of self-awareness you display is simply staggering. You have a well known history of making personal attacks against editors; it's been documented at ANI. Just like the suspicions of you being a sockpuppet that I was made aware of by another editor. Best be careful you don't quack, Versace (or should I say Billiekhalidfan?), because the truth will come out sooner or later and clearly you already have editors you've feuded with watching what you do. Do feel free to continue annoying Lil-unique1 with your inevitable inane, rambling defence to these well documented things you've been accused of, though. You're accomplishing nothing and continuing to demonstrate nobody on this website should listen to what you say because you can't do the things you "request" others to do, and can't stop replying to somebody you've insisted multiple times you want nothing to do with, yet keep finding excuses ("I'm being talked about! I'm being replied to!") to talk to. Oh, and your pings for me, don't work, so I don't know what you're accomplishing by tagging me. I turned off pings years ago, and even if I didn't, I would've muted replies from you specifically days ago. Goodbye. Ss112 02:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Correction: If Lil-Unique disagrees*, and Ss112, obviously I already knew this and misspoke, if I thought otherwise it would've made more sense for me to express how I felt about that at a prior moment. Also you don't get to advise me as an "experienced editor" when you've made a number of personal attacks directed at me. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)