User talk:SnapSnap/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

"World single of the year"

Thanks, Funk Junkie, for your removal of these successions. I had just gone through the whole sequence of 14 songs which had supposed won this award, and I was making sure I couldn't find some source for the (actually believable) claims. You beat me to the punch (except on "Poker Face", which is where I stumbled upon the thing in the first place).

What I'm still wondering is, where did all this come from? It can't be so old that the one Web site that conferred these honors is now defunct; the claim for "Poker Face" is only for 2009. Who invented this? Hmmm... Puzzled, but pleased with your work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please check...

Wikipedia: Record Charts discussion page a new chart macro is being intoduced. Please revert your edits it took me ages to make those changes. The reason why it's not listed on WK:CHARTS is because they're having trouble with Beyonce's macro for obvious reasons. But for now both are ok. I am just asking you restore what i did because it took so long. Thanks Jayy008 (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not compulsory and they will be added to WK:CHARTS soon. But they're not to reverted if they have already been done but if people wish to use the older one then it's still fine. Just not to revert already done work. The new chart macros are better, they find the link automatically which means it's always a reliable and stable source, what's wrong with that? Jayy008 (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to me about that. But I think it's easier to be able to click it individually if you have problem with it take it to the discussion page on Wikipedia:Record Charts and people will give there opinion. Also the macro is on WK:GOODCHARTS now so please don't revert them anymore. Jayy008 (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Chart macros

Why do you believe the charts generated by {{singlechart}} violate WP:Record charts?—Kww(talk) 02:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can work on them. The key advantage is when the site's format changes, so we need to revise all the citations at once. What makes them "unaesthetic" (especially compared to {{cite web}}, which is even more complex?—Kww(talk) 00:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I really thought about that issue. My main problem, and what pushed me over the edge, was the number of countries where it is ambiguous or meaningless, and where there is a good chart and a bad chart. Belgium has four valid charts. Holland has two good charts. Spain has a legitimate chart and a bad chart (Los 40), but Los 40 is probably more commonly used. Bulgaria is the same way, and the US situation with "Billboard" is ridiculous. I think one of the things that lead to the problem we have with fake charts it that people aren't in the habit of specifying what chart they are referring to, creating problems like the "Zimbabwean Singles Chart." I remove that one when I see it, but I can't authoratively claim it's a bad chart because I can't even precisely identify it.—Kww(talk) 17:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Billboard Charts

There is an interesting debate and discussion taking place at Record Charts/Talkpage/Billboard Chart Names which you might be interested in as a regular music article editor. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SnapSnap?

You lost your funky groove, or what?—Kww(talk) 01:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Junkie finally got clean. No more monkey. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention please

Your input is requested at WT:Record charts#Chart template formats.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Head First (Goldfrapp album)

Hello, on MOS:QUOTE under 'Allowable typographical changes' it states that "if an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization (It turned out to be true that "a penny saved is a penny earned")."

Which is why I am reverting your edits. I've never seen or done it in an academic paper, or seen it done in professional journalism. Thanks, Freshpop (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't say it works differently on Wikipedia after I've just quoted the Wikipedia rules. Clearly the person that has edited the copy on The Fame has also misunderstood this rule. And of course academic papers quote from other publications. Freshpop (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Finding a source where the artist refers to her music as electropop and using that to cite electronic is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Please find a source that explicitly refers to her as an electronic musician before adding back the genre. Thanks. –Chase (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Slow and steady edit warring on Lady Gaga

Please stop your slow and steady edit war you're currently engaged in on the Lady Gaga article. You and Chasewc91 (talk · contribs) have been at it for several days, and you have both been causing disruption to the article. Please discuss the genre issue on the talk page and gain consensus. Any further reverts will result in the temporary block of the editor(s) who persists their behavior despite this warning. — ξ^xplicit 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Body Talk Pt. 1

I provided a source for my edit, as the SoundCloud page proves the "second" version is the proper version of the cover. The first cover was the first version of the cover art, which was later replaced by the second design. Are you from Sweden so you can prove this is the real Swedish cover? I know the cover art they used in my country and it's the second design, it's apparently used in all the entire "rest of the world". Further proof: photos of cover art from eBay - you can check them out if you need any further proof wlodi (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Happiness

Not sure what the IP is upto, also trying to remove Q magazine for some non-notable blog. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Janet Discography

Hello, SnapSnap, seeing that you are a part of the Janet Jackson WikiProject, I just wanted your input on this discussion, Thanks! Ga Be 19 04:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool

I asked protection was denied. Also you are deniyng to use the talkpage, and according to some comments above, you like to edit war. I do not understand why users get mad when this Allmusic. Rovi Corporation. is changed to Allmusic. Rovi Corporation. Those are changed for a reason, does not matter if are online sources, the italic is for distinguish who make the work and who published it. If you will waste your time reverting and edit warring with users that use automated tools for the rest of your life, OK, but do not do it in pages nominated for GAN FAC or FLC. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because it is in another article does not means that it must be followed in all articles. Second most of the articles about Gaga were written by the same editors, and if those are in this way is because consistency s requeired in good topics. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Gold/Platin-Datenbank

Hi there. I noticed that in two different cases, while doing general cleanup you reverted my usage of {{cite gold platin}}. Is there something wrong with that template? As the website changed and there were hundreds of dead links, I took the opportunity to standardize referencing that website, and provided a very simple and intuitive way to specify the artist, title, and type. I've been applying it to hundreds of articles so far, and there is usually no problem. I'd be very appreciative of any feedback. --Muhandes (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for SnapSnap, and it's his Talk page, but if you'd like the feedback from a talk page stalker, I think the template is a great initiative. It's only a pity it wasn't done before the BVMI jumped unannounced to a beta version, or before they jumped unannounced (though not too surprisingly) to a non-beta version (with different parameters than their original). Fine work, Muhandes! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. --Muhandes (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry if I took a while to answer – as you can prolly see, I've been on an off-and-on wikibreak. I'm not at all opposed to the template you created, and I'm sorry if that's what seemed to you, I had no intention to fault your work. Since I had never come across templates for sales certifications before, I thought that was just a temporary solution so as to fix the whole BVMI website mess, so I took the liberty of manually changing it back to the sourcing pattern I had previously familiarised myself with. But I second what my dear stalker said, it is indeed a great initiative. SnapSnap 12:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm happy you also like it. I'm considering this one a test case, and if reception is positive I might try providing an even more general certification citation mechanism. But this is something in the future. --Muhandes (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song)

I have nominated Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Xwomanizerx (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Song

You've now twice reverted my edits at Your Song. Why? Where does it say anywhere in the guidelines that the download chart should not be used? Why have you removed the use of the {{tracklisting}} and {{singlechart}} templates? And why have you changed the |type= parameter in the {{Extra track listing}} template to be "studio" instead of "single". This governs the colour of the infobox so that it shows as yellow instead of blue. Thanks. Mhiji (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See here. Mhiji (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, SnapSnap. You have new messages at Mhiji's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

How to prevent redirected pages from being created

{{help me}} A few users have been persistently attempting to create a page for Bright Lights, a re-release of Lights (Ellie Goulding album). Re-releases are not supposed to have articles on their own unless they are notable enough, which is not the case here. Yesterday I requested create-protection for this and other pages I redirected to the main article to prevent them from being created, but I was told I should go to AfD first so as to get a consensus to delete or redirect the articles, and I'm not sure how to get started. SnapSnap 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you need? WP:AFD has instructions for starting an AfD manually or you can use Twinkle to do it automatically. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If it persists, I'll protect the redirect. A bit of WP:IAR at play, but you are correct that the precedent is quite strong in this regard.—Kww(talk) 19:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was about to start an AfD, but I you could protect the redirect, I'd really appreciate it. Others include Bright Lights (Ellie Goulding Album), Bright Lights (Ellie Goulding Re-Release), Bright Lights (Ellie Goulding's Re-Release) and Bright Lights (Ellie Goulding Re-Release)). SnapSnap 19:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)