Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.
Category:NSYNC album covers
I should just point out that you have mixed up both album covers and single covers in this category – you should probably create a second category for the singles, and move the relevant covers there. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several artist categories have singles contained within the album cover category. I had to put every cover on the category in order to be included in the list of artist album covers. Angryjoe1111 (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Angryjoe1111! You created a thread called Draft:Chances (Backstreet Boys song) submission rejection assistance at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
Hi, thank you very much for your extensions to the voice. However, I wanted to ask you something about your intervention: how does Kings & Queens be the lead single of the album if Sweet but Psycho is actually the true lead single of the album since it was released before and has also been confirmed as such ? Thanks and good job!--Lrt000 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lrt000: I don't think this has been common in too many albums; the only album I can currently think of is Camila Cabello's Romance, which consists of two album lead singles: "Shameless" and "Liar", as well as the Billboard Hot 100 number-one single, "Señorita", which was released a few months prior. In this case however, I would compare Max's current situation to that of Cabello's first self-titled debut album, where "Crying in the Club" was originally set to be the lead single, accompanied by promotional singles "I Have Questions", "OMG", and "Havana". However, due to the success of "Havana", Cabello scrapped the previous songs and basically started the album from scratch. In Max's situation, "Sweet but Psycho" was presumably released as her initial album's first single, followed by the songs released after. However, she confirmed that the album was delayed in several interviews, some of which do not meet WP:RS. In this case, three notable publications stated that "Kings & Queens" is the lead single from the track. Although this may be clarified in the future, my assumption is that "Sweet but Psycho" will be a bonus track in the album, even though it will not be officially credited as one. I am not allowed to state my personal opinions or speculation about this in any articles due to WP:NOT, so I will try and maintain a WP:NPOV environment within her articles in the future, as I know that there will be increased edit-warring from various users and IPs during the upcoming release of Max's album. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, then I would say to wait for the evolution of the situation to give more precise information! Thank you very much!--Lrt000 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Really Matter GAN
Hi there,
Just wanted to drop you a quick note about some changes that I made to the article. I tidied up the syntax in the infobox per Template:Infobox album (Hlist is now built into the fields), I also removed {{small}} per MOS:SMALLFONT and left a note on the talkpage about genres as these need addressing for the GAN. Furthermore I did remove references to Discogs as this not a reliable source (see WP:RSN). I hope that these changes are viewed positively, they should help with your GA nomination. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 09:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retail sources are fine but liner notes suffice too. Its important to check that the listing isn't a bootleg. Promo releases are sent to radio and the media. They're not commercial releases so you have to be really careful about including them on wikipedia. Many songs never released as singles are given "promo" CD/vinyl releases. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doesn't Really Matter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coolmarc -- Coolmarc (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting at FFD about music video screenshots. Now what about other ones (page 1, page 2)? If you feel that any of your uploads don't comply with NFCC, especially criterion #8, you may want to insert the {{db-g7}} tag into a file page, preferably at the top of a page, only if no one else made substantial changes to the uploads or the pages. Alternatively, you can add {{subst:prod}} into a file page. --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have removed some files which would potentially violate NFCC#8, as well as keeping the remaining files which I have seen critically sourced information about and will eventually include on the caption itself. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sweet but Psycho you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Sweet but Psycho you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sweet but Psycho for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Sweet but Psycho
On 17 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sweet but Psycho, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the title of Ava Max's song "Sweet but Psycho" was inspired by her parents telling her "you're sweet, but you're a little psycho" when she was younger? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sweet but Psycho. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sweet but Psycho), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi Angryjoe1111, I've added a {{what}} template to the first paragraph of "Composition and lyrical content"; a decision is mentioned but is not explained. You'll probably want to fix this before your planned GA nomination. Cheers, Baffle☿gab11:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doggy54321: There were three WikiProjects listed on the talk page; WP:POPMUSIC, WP:EM and WP:SONG. In this edit, you only changed one parameter for the WikiProject songs parameter but left out the other two WikiProjects. The article currently barely scrapes C-Class per WP:ASSESS stating that it cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but I am fine with it temporarily being Start-Class until more sections are expanded such as Commercial performance. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Angryjoe1111: I thought I saw a rule somewhere where you can only assess articles in the WikiProjects you are a part of. I am a part of WikiProject Songs, so that’s why I edited that one and that one only. If this is incorrect, please do say so. Furthermore, can we both agree that the article is still Start-class? Thanks! Doggy54321 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doggy54321: I believe anyone can assess the article as long as they have read the class criteria. Based on the criteria from WP:ASSESS, the article contains adequate reliable sources that are better structured than a particular Start-Class article. However, it still falls in the C-Class range of WP:SCOPE, which should be addressed if the Background and Music video sections are expanded, in addition to a Commercial performance section in prose once we begin to see chart information. Overall, I personally believe that it barely scrapes a C-Class rating, but should easily warrant it if another reliable source can expand on any of the three sections stated above. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Celebrity (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Celebrity (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Celebrity (album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Hey Angryjoe. Letting you know since you filed the initial report on Tbone49's use of IP addresses geolocating to Canada (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbone49/Archive): Tefjohn Don is another obvious sockpuppet of Tbone49/Thatboi99. Have you seen them editing pages on your radar or come across them in any other capacity? I've sent an email to an admin in hopes of having them blocked. Not sure if the administrator(s) are willing to block based on my convictions, though. (I may have to file an SPI, which I loathe doing.) Thanks. Ss11215:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: I have seen the user edit several modern artist discography pages based on new chart peaks and releases. I suspected that the account was from a blocked user but was too hesitant to act on it. Their edit history seems to indicate that the blocked accounts seem to come from the same region as their edits immediately follow up with Canadian IP addresses after being blocked. Maybe a WP:RANGEBLOCK should be issued from their WP:TENDENTIOUS edit history. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I believe now that I've left Tefjohn Don a talk page message saying I know they are a sock account that they may stop editing and may have already moved onto another account. Perhaps another Canadian IP address, perhaps Newcheck who appears to have just registered and is editing from a mobile device on articles I would expect Tbone49/Tefjohn Don to. But then again, I suspected they wouldn't give up just because I asked them to. Maybe it is worth filing an SPI to uncover any socks. Ss11205:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Angryjoe1111 / Ava Max Profile Photo - Request
Hi Angryjoe1111, further to your helpful guidance, have now uploaded the following photograph as a new file: [2] Ava's management request that it is uploaded as the new Wikipedia profile photo for her Wikipedia page and under Creative Commons License 4.0 (photographer credits are Charlotte Rutherford / Ava Max). Thanks Again & All Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebSheriff2020 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Angryjoe1111, thanks for your swift response and kind assistance. I can confirm that I have taken the requested steps and, as such, would much appreciate your updating of the new Ava Max profile photo. Thanks Again & Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebSheriff2020 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My Head & My Heart
Hi Angryjoe, excuse me I see you changed what I wrote in the page. I wanted to tell you that the songwriters list of MH&MH only credit Aleksey Potekhin and Sergey Zhukov, the authors of "Pesenka". If the song really interpolates "Around the World" by ATC the song should be also credited to Alex Christensen and Peter Könemann, but in reality they are not present, so it should be written that the song interpolates "Pesenka" and not "Around the World". --37.161.24.113 (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@37.161.24.113: Several sources have solely stated "Around the World (La La La La La)" as the only interpolated song; see Rolling Stone, Billboard, and Virgin Radio France. Only The Music Network acknowledges "Pesenka" as the original song, though they insist that "Around the World" is the most notable version. In addition, the album's liner notes do not credit Christensen or Könemann as songwriters, which their inclusion would be considered as original research since it is unsourced. As much as we want to state that "Pesenka" is the primary interpolated song, Wikipedia mostly follows a truth, not verifiability system, which relies on reliable sources which are considered "incorrect" over user-added content seen as "accurate". — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that, even though the article is on hold, it looks like it is well on its way to "Good" status! I don't think the changes I recommended should be very time-consuming, and I fully expect this article to be able to reach "Good" status. Overall, great work, and I look forward to continuing to help you through this review! Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd06:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about alt-pop or bedroom pop?
Hello Joe,
Now you seem to be someone who is into pop music. So do you know anything about alt-pop music or whether there is any decent references about alt-pop out there in books or online. So many people are using the term online these days but if you do a google search about 'what is alt-pop' it takes you to random info about indie rock or out-of-date stuff about indie pop in the 1980s, so I think that a line such as the following needs to be placed in one of the music genre sections (whether it would go in the teen pop, pop music, indie pop, art-pop sections I wouldn't know)
@81.152.238.125: I've done a brief search on ProQuest through the Wikipedia Library, which contains over 7,000 results. Just briefly looking through each search, there are different opinions about how specific the genre should be; Toronto singer Melanie Joy compared her music to Brian Wilson and Kate Bush, while Ottawa Citizen stated that it is a "broad non-genre" in 2007. I saw the term being blatantly used to label artists such as A-ha to Rebekah Fitch, so I would recommend finding multiple sources to confirm whether it is the case for a specific artist. If you are planning on creating an article about the genre, finding several citations for each claim should also be useful to validate the scope of what the genre encompasses. I do not have any books or encyclopedias to fall back on, but if you create a Wikipedia account and sign up to the Wikipedia Library, you may be able to find a lot of sources hidden from Google by using ProQuest and Newspapers.com, which should contain more than enough information to create an article with depending on notability. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply
Hello Joe,
Thanks for having a look for the terms in the library. No I wasn't thinking of creating an article or getting so involved, because I don't know what these terms are, but I do have an idea what twee and C86 are (even though I have not come across p!o!p before). The argument is not about the genres but the fact that if I have done a google search and its taken me to C86, then I must not be the only one who has done the same search and has been given the wrong information.
If you look at the hyperpop page and all the links for genres under Electronica and electronic-based music styles/Popular and pop music genres, then it looks like people are trying to categorise every microgenre in the world, while to read all of the art pop/art-pop/artpop talk page (none-the-wiser on the hyphen argument) in one go would probably make me more confused then I am now. So if people are trying to list every genre in the world and are trying to be up-to-date, plus spending time arguing about the tiniest of details on the arty genre talk page...then why has the site been a failure in this instance?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.125 (talk) 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not too sure about the point you are trying to suggest, or why C86 or twee pop is brought up. I am assuming that you are concerned about the various articles which constantly update different types of pop music while trying to create new sub-genres based on recent "bedroom pop artists" such as Olivia Rodrigo or Benee. Can you specify what aspects of Wikipedia are considered to be a "failure", as there are multi-faceted areas which is based on gaining consensus from different users and providing information which should "aid the reader". Not every user shares the same opinions about what constitutes as "pop" since it has stemmed over time from the rockism and poptimism debate, with various editors having various opinions across the spectrum. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the site should aid the reader, but as (to paraphrase Ilovetopaint in June 2016) "What is indie pop? What is alt-pop? I still don't really have a clue"
I brought up C86 and twee pop, because you could come to the conclusion from Wikipedia that Beren Olivia[45] must sound like The Wedding Present[46][47][48] especially if you go...
1) Look at https://www.officialcharts.com article 29 June 2021 - "One To Watch: Beren Olivia is an alt-pop superstar in the making - Fans of Tate McRae and Halsey will love this songwriter on the precipice of stardom".[49]
2) Think what is this alt-pop term that seems to be cropping up everywhere online
3) Type alt-pop into Google
4) Notice that (alongside a Spotify playlist and some questions about Billie Eilish) that the top result is the Indie pop page on Wikipedia..(Musical genre:
Indie pop is a music genre and subculture that combines guitar pop with DIY ethic in opposition to the style and tone of mainstream pop music. It originated from British post-punk in the late 1970s and subsequently generated a thriving fanzine, label, and club and gig circuit).
5) Click on link
6) Read indie pop article
7) Realise that this article is about C86 and probably not about Beren Olivia, whomever she should be.
It was stated 4 years ago that "alternative pop" and "alt pop" were redirects to the indie pop page, but at that time the term(s) were not being used very much or at least they were just "synonyms for art pop, experimental pop, avant-pop or progressive pop" (with acts such as Björk, Kate Bush, Tori Amos, Fiona Apple, Garbage, and the Cardigans being mentioned) so the indie pop section was just left as it was. Then art-pop was added to the article, taken out, put back in etc etc. I get that there is "so much overlap and ambiguity" in genres with meanings arising and shifting "so quickly"...but I think that these new pop stars are likely to be as manufactured as all the teen stars of the past...that's why I tried to get a line in the teen pop section ("Teen pop is a subgenre of pop music that is created, marketed and oriented towards preteens and teenagers), especially since in the last 15 years of musical history, the teen pop section only seems to say that only three things happened: Justin Bieber, J-pop and K-pop. Personally I disagree that these acts "are more eclectic and more original than the usual chart pop stars" (though if Beren Olivia sounds like David Gedge she probably sounds quite good), so I will agree with the people who say that alt-pop should be put somewhere else and not under indie. The point is if Billie Eilish is an incredibly popular recording artist in the Top 20 and if Billie Eilish = alt-pop and alt-pop = Billie Eilish, then maybe there should be a line about her being alt-pop/alt-pop being popular somewhere in the pop music section. Leave the indie pop section as it is, update pop and please do something about the redirects....they are all over the place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.238.125 (talk) 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lovers and Friends (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Lovers and Friends (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lovers and Friends (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Edit summary Ava Max song "Maybe You're the Problem"
Hi, I have read edit summary and I agree with you. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTRSMUSIC) Unfortunately (Rate Your Music) it is the only site that classifies the song as synthwave. The song has all the characteristics of the synthwave. It is retrofuturistic, has neon colors, the protagonists are inside a video game, there are 80s space sounds and glitch effects are present. If i can find a more reliable source, I'll add it. 37.163.37.10 (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@37.163.37.10: Thanks for your contributions on Wikipedia and I hope you'll continue editing here! Even if you wanted to include synthwave as a genre, Wikipedia's policies require a reliable source, which I provided in the edit summary specifically to use in music articles. Adding information to articles solely based on personal opinions or common sense without sourcing is considered as original research and isn't allowed on Wikipedia, even if it's accurate. Hopefully your edits will continue to be constructive and assist in more article expansion! — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ava_Max_posing_for_Charlotte_Rutherford.jpg){kind=link}