User talk:Jennica/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jennica. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you Saharabad (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you made some suggestions for the new Widespread Panic member articles I have created over the last several days (Duane Trucks, Todd Nance and Domingo Ortiz). Thank you for the suggestions, I will fix the instrument capitalization issue. I am curious about the source issue though. They are all relatively short articles and contain between 6 and 9 reliable sources (established news websites, official band websites, etc.) which should reliably cite all of the information in them. What can I do to add further sources). The actual Widespread Panic article, which I would estimate is at least 7-10 times as long as any of them has 44 sources.--Sk8punk3d288 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sk8punk3d288: - The source for Personnel? I think a link should be included where you got the info, is that's what you mean? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Gothca, sorry I thought you were referring to sources about information in the individual members' articles that I created, such as Duane Trucks. The sources for all of the musicians' membership are included throughout the Widespread Panic article as their history is explained. One of them already includes an exchastive history of the band including when members joined and left. I'll add a link to that source to the section and another one or two to take care of the more recent changes. Thanks!--Sk8punk3d288 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sk8punk3d288: it's not required but on a lot of those live WP pages, there were no references so I figured that would be a good addition. I usually put "Adapted from the album's liner notes", or "Adapted from AllMusic" below the Personnel header. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Tracklist" supposed to be "Track listing" and also, after 129k edits, don't you know that the # sign creates a numbered list? I'm referring to Snowfalls (Brian Keane album) - which I'll fix in the meantime. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk)

Actually I do know that and decided to do it another way. Is there a big rule against this? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: no big rule on it but I'm pretty sure it's covered in WP:MOSALBUM - it's the correct way to format and title things. I'm not trying to be rude. I am just trying to keep things consistent.

Just want to wish you a Happy Birthday, and thanks for all your good edits! Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

thank you very very much :) <3 --Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Jennica, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Solstice Greetings to you and Eris. Now re your edits to William T. Stearn Bibliography, I'm not sure if you noticed that the page is under very active construction with a view to GA or FA but every fly-by AWB operstor seems to want to change the layout which is making it unstable. Since I didn't see any rationale I'm reverting that. I hope you understand and don't mind. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: - I don't mind and sorry I didn't see that it was under construction -- there's no indication of that on my end. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 23:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Nice to make your acquaitance. I have to keep reminding myself WP does not work in the collaborative consulting mode I am used to in the real world of academia. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: - perhaps you could put one of these tags on it? Also, Happy Holidays to you :) --Jennica✿ / ^talk 23:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that. But the last time I tried that it was promptly deleted! I always check History before doing any edits. Thanks. Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you're choosing random times of the day to be looking at my edits and then editing pages I have, which you probably feel is justified because I looked at your edits at most three times in days past, saw that you had edited pages within my scope (album and band pages I edited months or years back) and that you were making broad changes to charts sections headings that I disagreed with, but I don't think you have any reason to still be doing it. I looked at your edits literally all of three times. I saw you had edited several pages on my watchlist, the most recent being Go Robot and Joy Enriquez (album), and so when I keep seeing "Jennica" pop up, it's getting to be a bit annoying when I know why you're doing it and that you would not have come across those pages otherwise. I've been through this with editors before. Unlike those editors, you seem to be a pretty decent editor, so please move on. Thank you. Ss112 09:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I honestly think this is a coincidence @Ss112: - I notice both of you on my watchlist too. Jennica does a lot of work on album pages, especially on making it user-friendly for mobile users. Your work on chart entries is indispensable. I actually got the impression the two of you were working in tandem! Karst (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Karst: There's definitely some crossover, as we both edit music topics, including currently popular song, album and artist articles. That's fine. However, Go Robot doesn't get a lot of traffic and isn't charting very highly, and Joy Enriquez (album) was only recently created and is by an artist who's by and large been forgotten. Don't get me wrong—there's nothing wrong with glancing at someone's edits. Everybody does that. But I just feel these edits have been made because of our charts/chart positions/chart performance heading disagreement. I'm not saying Jennica is doing these edits to spite me, just that these edits wouldn't have occurred if my edits were not being looked at. Ss112 10:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise you had a disagreement. Hope the two of you can sort it out. Have a good holidays you both. Karst (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: - wait, what's the problem here? In the last day, I realized you were going behind my back and changing the Chart positions to "Charts", so I started doing the same.. and I wasn't aware there was a rule against checking other people's contributions? I have done nothing wrong, [except changing chart positions, according to you] but everything I've changed is in accordance to the WP:MOSALBUM. I am not doing it to be "annoying". "Charts" is fine. I won't change it to Chart positions anymore, but when I see "Chart performance" when it should be "Commercial performance", I change it. If it's the title of the Charts section, I change it to Charts. I am trying to maintain consistency around here. I certainly wasn't trying to make you mad.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 15:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I just acknowledged that checking someone's contributions a few times isn't bad. I acknowledged that I did this and saw that you were changing headings I personally find more preferable to "chart positions" and changed them back. This isn't about the headings anymore; it's about following people's edits. Fine, you looked at my edits a few times the other day and edited a few pages. But you're continuing on doing it and I don't know why. You edited Go Robot after I did, then Joy Enriquez (album), which had no problems with "charts"-related headings. You just edited them because you saw I did, and I don't know why you would be randomly checking my contributions at different times of the day to find something to edit. Ss112 15:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: - The Joy Enriquez one is a new addition. I check this page nightly to see newly created pages. So what that I edited after you? I am failing to see the problem. I don't just change "chart" related headers. I make gnomeish fixes for consistency reasons. I'm not doing it to change YOUR edits.. The other day, sure, I was changing things to Chart positions but I saw you had been changing them back to Charts, so I stopped doing it. What do you want from me? I'm not sure why this is even an argument. I'm not doing anything wrong. I check a lot of people's contributions if I see their name.. You have a diverse contribs history and I just check out any album page I can... I'm not doing it because it's you. I don't take issue with any of your edits. I come across a lot of people who seem to be causing more issues than good, but not you. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 15:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't want to have a big argument or even really argue at all, I just wanted to know why you were doing it. I didn't say or even mean that you were taking issue with what I had done on those pages, I just saw that you had edited several pages I had not long after me and thought you were checking my contributions several times a day for some reason. Ss112 15:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: well, I don't want any bad blood so to speak, between us. I am not doing it to be go against you, that's all.. I just simply like fixing the small things. I'm not trying to bother anybody.. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's no bad blood, I was just wondering if there was any on your part and that's why you were doing it. Your edits are mostly pretty helpful from what I see! Ss112 16:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: just know I am truly not going behind your back to change what you changed.. like I said, you touch on a lot of album pages. I like the formatting side of things per the album style guide. I have nothing against your edits :) --Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to keep on with this, but I thought it was clear I don't like being followed. There might be "nothing wrong" with it, and I know you're not picking at my edits and you just want to "fix" things, but this is excessive. You insinuated above that you happen to stumble across edits of mine on pages you are now editing. If this is true, I don't see why that means you need to click through to my contributions page, but in the last two hours, you edited around 10 pages I did earlier. You did not come across these pages in any other way than by looking at my contributions. Jennica, you seem to find plenty of pages on your own in a day to edit. You edit over 500 pages in less than 24 hours. I don't think you need to be searching up Special:Contributions/Ss112 to be looking for things to "fix". Please stop following me. Find your own pages to edit. I don't have any problem with you or your edits at the moment, but I soon will if I keep finding pages that I edited earlier were edited less than 10 minutes later or whenever in the day you check on me for no reason other than to look for pages to edit. I don't know how other editors feel about you doing this to them, but I find it annoying, so please stop. Thank you. Ss112 07:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: - is there a rule against it? I can't believe this is even a topic of discussion lmao. I am not singling you out. I check out other editor's contribs all the time. This is a public domain. I think you're overreacting. I find stuff on pages you edit that need fixing all the time, but it's not something you did. we're doing two different things here. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 15:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? I've told you I don't like you following me, and you're asking if there's a rule against doing it, i.e. you'll just keep doing it even if editors make it clear they don't want their edits monitored and to be followed around. Wow, okay. And yeah, there is. It's WP:Wikihounding. You don't have to be undoing my edits, targeting them or directly antagonising me to be hounding (following) me. As I said, you edit like 500 pages in a day. You don't need to be looking at mine. I can't speak for other editors, but I'm pretty sure a number of them would probably be annoyed too. I don't look at yours; you don't have any reason to be looking at mine ("there are errors on pages you edit" is not a valid reason. There are "errors" all over Wikipedia, depending on what you consider an error. Nobody could ever hope to fix them all, or get consistency on all topics, let alone music topics). Please respect that and stop debating it. Ss112 15:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I just want to let you know, as just happened with Made (Big Bang album), if you see me editing a page not long after you have, it's because I've edited it and it's on my watchlist. I added the US peak of that album and I watched it then, because Korean albums attract a lot of unsavoury changes. I have no interest in looking at your contributions after this argument, so your editing of Bitter Pill (album), which is on my watchlist as I put all of James's articles on there, probably because I edited Gavin James's articles earlier and you clicked through to it, did not go unnoticed. This isn't paranoia; it's you still finding ways to get around me asking you to stop looking at my edits. That includes still looking at them and clicking through to related articles and editing those. You have zero reason to be clicking through to my edits at all. Please just stop this already. Ss112 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: - this is hilarious. I was looking at k-pop albums that were released this year. I am not doing anything wrong, FYI. And honestly, I just don't know why you care. Now I feel like I have to check the edit history to make sure I'm not going to offend little ol' Ss112. Like??? My wikipedia editing is all over the place, now I feel like I have to take certain steps to make sure I'm not upsetting you? You're a little too sensitive about this. Perhaps maybe you should stop paying attention to who edits after you??? My edits aren't hurting YOU or YOUR edits. i haven't spent time looking at your contribs today. I'm not out to get lil ol' SS112! Wish I could block you! By the way, I can't see whats on your watchlist, so how would I know it's ~your territory~~? The Gavin album article shows you haven't ever touched it. And so you're coming to me about how I'm still "following" you? And my edits, were again, useful and not impeding you AT ALL. And yes, you are paranoid. Paranoid that someone I guess is "after your edits". I don't get it if someone's edits are actually useful, what the big problem is. Like, have you even looked at what I'm editing? Probably not. you're too busy looking at your contribs and worrying about who is editing after you, and editing charts. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you how you found Made (Big Bang album); I said obviously me editing there convinced you it was okay to monitor me again for a minute or two. But I will repeat again, Jennica, yes, I have looked at your edits on the pages I watch. It's quite easy to do this. Also, yes, I know I haven't edited the Gavin James album article. I didn't say I had, so perhaps read what I said more thoroughly before assuming I'm following you around. I said I put all his articles on my watchlist. Do you know what a watchlist is? Do you even use yours? You don't appear to, as you're convinced I'm following you around in return. Sorry, but I have better things to be doing than checking what lil ol' Jennica is doing all day, but you don't appear to, as all you want to do is type in Special:Contributions/Ss112! What's he up to??? Lmao, Jesus. What's actually hilarious is that you appear not to be able to find enough articles to edit in a day without patrolling what a bunch of users do. Again, I repeat, please get off my case. Find your own articles to edit, because I'm done here. You have no point left to make. Ss112 02:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: - Yes I know what a watchlist is, how condescending of you to imply I'm that stupid. Also, how hilariously ridiculous for you to say, "Find your own articles to edit". Like YOU own the ones you are editing. This is so pedantic. And it's all because of you.. You only check for a couple things on pages. I'm checking other things. I'm not hurting your edits at all - you can't that through your thick skull. If you're so concerned about other people looking at your contribution history, maybe wikipedia isn't for you. Because it's PUBLIC. And I can look at whoever's! And you can too! And it's not harassment like you were trying to tout.. and might I add, you went behind MY edits a few days ago and changed "Chart positions" back to "Charts". I never went behind your back to revert or change one of your edits. We're doing separate work, and obviously you can't see that. I'm trying to make the layout consistent with the MOSALBUM standards. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not condescending if what you're saying implies you think the only way someone can know someone's editing a page is by looking at that user's contributions. I don't think I own the pages I edit; again, you think I asked you to not ever touch them, which would be unrealistic. I asked you not to follow me around then edit them. That's it. Not "check the page you're editing to see if Ss112 has edited it recently". WTF? And awesome, thanks for clarifying. I know it's all because of me, because you shouldn't be following people around anyway and it's time someone told you that. If that makes me pedantic, then so be it. Other users follow people because they're problematic and contribute unsourced information; you just do it for things to edit, and people can get annoyed, even if their edits are not being targeted in particular. As I just did. Also, it kinda is; I pointed out WP:Wikihounding to you and said you don't need to actually be harassing someone for them to take it that way, even if you're not targeting their edits. Finally, I can see that. You don't understand I've already clarified I understand WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO THESE PAGES, and that my issue isn't with that. Also, it's really cute that you think I got to 120,000 edits by only editing charts sections. Thanks for trying to reduce my entire contributions to the site by what you've seen me doing in the two months you've been editing 500+ pages a day. Maybe when you were stalking me, you should have actually done some real stalking and looked back to see that my entire history is not "only edit[ing] a couple of things" (and I guess by comparison, Jennica's edits are so much more helpful because she doesn't only edit one thing!) and I only started doing charts in 2014. But sure, whatever you need to think. Cool, well, keep aiming for that consistency you'll never be able to have. You might be able to break the Wikipedia record for most edits to achieve MOSALBUM standards across the whole of the site, lol. Ss112 03:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Challenge accepted. I fix what I can. I don't target you, but only look over some of the pages you have edited and see that things need fixing. Stuff you didn't fix. I'm done with this. I don't see how it's hounding you when I'm not targeting your edits at all. It's a pathetic debate. I don't agree with anything you're saying. I am open to perspectives but it just doesn't make sense to me because this is all a public setting. My edits aren't bad, so I just don't see why it's a bad thing. Like someone else said, he thought we were working in tandem. @Ss112:--Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You would need to download a few more scripts and actually do bot edits if you actually intended to try to ever get around to fixing every non-compliant MOSALBUM issue. Then guess what? People will come along and screw them all up again. More pages will be created; people will revert you if they don't like your "fixes" on pages they love; it's just not possible. You couldn't possibly patrol every page and keep them that way. As for your final statement, it's not an editor's responsibility to fix every possible error another editor might see on a page; they are allowed to only focus on what they wish.. Ss112 03:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

" they are allowed to only focus on what they wish" - oh.. huh. that's what I am doing. focusing on album pages. in which we both edit. - I do use some userscripts, as well as 2 python scripts that are specifically for formatting Personnel. All I focus on is the layout and the order in which things go. The worst ones are punk albums, Christian albums and Spanish albums. And yeah. I've always known your stats, since I use a userscript for that to display the stats on a profile page. "An autopatrolled user, extended confirmed user, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker, 10 years 8 months old, with 119,736 edits. Last edited 19 seconds ago." - --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Awesome; there are tools for everybody to find those things. Am I supposed to be intimidated or something...? Ss112 03:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

No? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Then why quote my own stats that I am well aware of to me? That's not information you're privy to that nobody else is. Ss112 03:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Jennica, while we've been doing this, you've looked at topics I've been editing again. Can you not help yourself? If you cannot contain yourself from clicking through my edits for no good reason, I will report you and have it asked of you that you not do it. This has gone on far too long. I have asked you to stop, and you can't even respect that. Us speaking here doesn't give you a free pass to look at what I'm doing while we are. You were told to not be a jerk; you definitely are being one by still doing it. I will not ask you again; next time will be reporting you. Ss112 03:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You are delusional. You have edited over 100k articles, and you're expecting me not to show up in the same edit history as you? Which article are you referring to? You need to get off your high horse and perhaps log off and find something real to bitch about. I want to leave this alone as well, and you are now hounding me on my own talk page --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Because you can't comply with a simple request that others have told you it's being a jerk to not respect. The Paramore and Black Sabbath articles you just clicked through to. You think out of the 5 million pages here I'm expected to believe that you just found those by coincidence now? Perhaps you need to log off and find better things to do with your time than follow people around on a website others want to edit on their own terms and not be followed around on. I will take this further if my watchlist keeps showing you editing right after me. Ss112 03:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the stupidest argument ever. You can't find fault with any of my edits but still are bothered by this. I am now perusing OTHER things and if I happen to show up in the same edit history, then it on you to get butthurt about it. Find something REAL and tangible to cry about. I am editing on my own terms. The fact you want to tell me what articles I shouldn't be editing on is hilarious. By proxy, you are telling me that. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, well, you're being reported for telling me to "fuck off". That's never okay and you should know better. Ss112 03:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: - see [1]] --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I don't see a consensus there. Incivility is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Ss112 03:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I bet you are reveling in your pettiness. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not, actually. I wish you had've just said "sure, okay, I'll try to not look at your contributions" in the first place like most editors would and this back-and-forth could have been all avoided. Ss112 03:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the thread on ANI was closed by a non-admin: Can you please just not monitor me everyday, then? I don't mind if you look at the edit history of a page, see I've edited it, then maybe edit one or two pages I have recently. When that happens on a page you've come across by chance. That's whatever. But the thing I take issue with is somebody feeling the need to type in my username multiple times a day to see what I've been doing. I just feel that doesn't need to happen and is unreasonable. I'm sorry this has gone on so long and for the sarcasm and incivility on both our parts. Ss112 05:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ss112 A compromise, I suppose, yes. There is absolutely no ill will from me, just a penchant for sitting at my computer and editing wikipedia for hours on end. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I still do think your edits are helpful. It is nice that you want consistency and to improve Wikipedia. I suppose we all do, which is why we're all here. Well, even after all this, happy holidays! Ss112 05:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 8 Days of Christmas page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Great work on your updates. I'm not sure it's necessary to change CCM to contemporary Christian music, but when doing so, could you please watch for the capitalization of the the term? If it's the second or subsequent genre in an infobox or mid-sentence, such in the lede, the "C" should be lower case: contemporary Christian music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: - thanks.. and well, I can stop doing those additions but I am not into Christian music and thought "CCM" was sort of a vague term. I will stop doing it for now. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. It's hard to do with AWB and you have to watch while doing so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: - I am checking each edit . But from an outsider's perspective, so to speak, CCM is not a well-known term so I thought I'd change it. maybe a consensus is necessary. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood, on both fronts. I have used AWB and I simply meant that checking capitalization can slow down the AWB process. Great work though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: - I feel paranoid about going too fast on AWB. I don't want to get in any trouble. and thanks again! ✿ --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I just finished the "bulky" section for Malicorne 2. If you wish, in order to meet the same standard than the one you applied to Malicorne 1, you may "took the notes and added them below the track listing instead of alongside the titles"! Do proceed... I have my share of edits... Redomatic (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to rename simply "Malicorne 2" the current wiki article named "Malicorne 2, Le Mariage anglais" but I can't find the rename button! Do you know how to do it? Redomatic (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Redomatic: - what the name is really titled is sort of confusing. Is it "Le Mariage anglais" or really "Malicorne II"? Discogs says Le Mariage anglais [2] and AllMusic says the same. before we move it, we should make sure. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jennica for thanking my recent edit several minutes ago about the death of Debbie Reynolds. Shinzon5 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jennica! Nice to meet you. First, I'm sorry for my irregular English (I know that is bad :). I saw your edit in the IndianBio's talk page about the issue with Madonna and the title "Entertainer". I agree with both point of view. Personally, I feel that I can re-open a "Requested move" in the future. In the past years, I opened some of "controversials" topics about music articles, like the Michael Jackson figures (including Thriller) when I obtained a general approval, and subsequently we have a better control on the best-seller list since then. Also, I did the same with the Queen of Pop's title. Those cases, are examples that were discussions over and over again through years, but are already fixed IMHO. With this disambiguation I feel that I can answer each oppose point of view with references including (mostly are "cycle answer") and yeah, they can read this haha. What do you think?. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: - Well I am giddy at the thought. Your English is fine by the way. I think we should go for it. Have you reviewed the past move requests regarding the name change? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quicker hahaha. That's good that at least my English is understandable. Hmmm, to be honest I verified some of them, not completely all at this moment. That's why I said in the future because I'm still working on that. Of course, if is necesary I just make sure about an opinion before. Best regards Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the From Elvis Presley Boulevard, Memphis, Tennessee page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: - thank you! happy new year to you as well --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome, hope 2017 be a better year for everybody. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Me too, for sure! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi

Thanks for your contribution to St. James, have not had a chance to read the changes properly as yet, so I am not responding to that area.

Just wanted to add some info which may clarify the contributions to St. James:

In light of Intellectual Property Rights, one form of which, relates to the rights arising through culture, be it food, drink, or expressions of art, I felt that it was necessary to capture some info on St. James.

Also as there is the possibility that a part of POS may be preserved and God knows when an approach to UNESCO for review as a World Heritage Site or should artifacts be discovered, this information may become important. Curaco has a UNESCO sitein Willemstad.

Also, given that the city is located within a bay or Gulf, there may be evidence of use by the Caribs or Arawaks which may make the area even more important.

If you are interested in reading about preservation of historical places, re Indentured Labourers, perhaps you can check the page for Icacos or Cedros as there are iimages of one of the older barracks which were used and which has been preserved.

Jennifer N Bailey (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I nominated the "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" for GA awhile back and have had no takers surprisingly (it is a Beatles song after all) . Anyways, I was wondering if you are interested in reviewing articles, and if you wanted to start with this one? It should be rather easy because I brought it to GA before, and, not to sound arrogant, I should have passed. If it is not your thing, that is okay, but if you do end up reviewing the article, I am very appreciative.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: - unfortunately, I do not peg myself as a good reviewer. I will look it over though to see if anything needs fixing :) --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I will see if Ritchie wants to review another one for me. Thank you for the looking it over though, I know I make some dumb grammatical errors from time to time no matter how many times I reviea my work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add tags like this without providing a coherent explanation and seeking the agreement of other editors to the changes you wish to see. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes on formatting. Regarding Puchito Records discography, the table method does not favor mobile use. The table method works well, sometimes (as is the case the Steve Turre discography). But, in the case of Puchito (historic info), the table method limits info, particularly when trying to identify matrix numbers, OCLCs, ISSNs, catalog numbers, and the like. With respect to citations/notes, when the cites begin to stack-up, segmenting is easier to manage. It's just an opinion. With respect to using reflists, I'm happy with regular floating columns. Your comment about bold vs. semicolon headers, I was unaware that it does not work well for screen reader users. Eurodog (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Eurodog: - segmenting is fine but the method you use is pretty uncommon. I've seen Notes and References be separated most commonly, in their own sections. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 23:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

More: Labels with their own discographies are at Category:Record label discographies. I'm well-aware of the table method and have worked on many myself. Eurodog (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I need about 30 days to improve the Puchito Records discography. I could easily, and fairly quickly, put it in a sortable table. But, first, would rather discuss with the discog community the merit of this style (i.e., mobile friendly). One of the goals is to build-in a cross-reference, showing which singles are in which albums. This would be messy under the table method. Note that the discography is less than half complete. Down the road, it might make sense to put it all in a table. But, right now, there are too many missing parameters on many of the listings.

The two articles – Puchito Records and Puchito Records discography – were launched before being refined. With respect to content, I thought that launching it might garner input given (i) recent U.S./Cuba warming and (ii) the realization that many people with firsthand knowledge seem to be passing. Sometimes, an article like this takes a life of its own. In the next week or so, I will raise these issues with the Wikipedian-In-Residence at New York Public Library for the Performing Arts.

I am not trying to be antagonistic and sincerely appreciate you pushing for cleaner/simpler formatting. I get it. But at the same time, with an eye down the road, I have tried to set it up for development. For example, the segmentation in the reference section is not needed, now, but was set-up for development. One of my long-standing efforts has been to improve bibliography — inline citations and info about those sources. Thanks, again! Eurodog (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not that i have any personal objection to it, but several of your edits to Mariah Carey articles I have on my watchlist came up and I saw that you had changed "singer and songwriter" to "singer-songwriter". I agree(?) that it essentially means the same thing, but if I'm not mistaken, there was a discussion in the Wikipedia music community some time ago about "singer-songwriter" implying a certain category of musician (as in, somebody who writes all their own material) as distinct from a "singer and songwriter" (as in, somebody who sings and writes sometimes). I think it was a bunch of editors being a bit picky, but all I'm saying is don't be surprised if some people have an objection to it, as I believe that discussion took place somewhere along the line. Ss112 18:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: - ok thanks, i didn't know about the discussion. I saw it on some of her song pages/albums, including some pages that were GAs and assumed it would be fine to change. As far as I knew, she writes 98-99% of her material, at least co-wrote so I would think she would qualify. We'll see what happens I guess. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: - do you know how to fix this? Number 1's (Mariah Carey album) - on the weekly charts, NZ, Sweden and a few others are showing a broken link in the reflist but it's mainly due to the album title I am guessing, since it's correct when you go to the website--Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that's from when template editors changed the script in the single and album chart templates to accommodate things like accents (which didn't work for years due to the previous script used in the template). Unfortunately, now things like hash symbols and brackets ([ and ]) don't work in links to Hung Medien websites. I'll change the hash symbol to the code for it, which works, but I don't know if others will like it. Ss112 18:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I noticed a user (Alinblack) who, coincidentally, recently appears to have undone a move you performed. Instead of undoing the move directly, they restored content at I Idolize You (Massive Ego Single) with the claim that the information is "about the single" (despite it being an incorrect namespace and capitalisation). Perhaps you can request it be re-moved at WP:RM/TR (or just revert their edits to each page, as they didn't move it, just copypasted) and leave them a message on their talk page about it being incorrect? Ss112 05:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: - yikes. I reverted it and now it's all messed up. I am not sure where it is now. I don't do many page moves. I reverted it back. I guess I'll try the other method. how come you didn't just fix it? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know and thought, since I only just noticed it half an hour or so ago, that you'd like to do it yourself since you moved the page to the correct namespace. I might just revert the changes, since the history is more at I Idolize You (Massive Ego song) anyway. Ss112 05:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1984 (Van Halen 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The article 1984 (Van Halen album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1984 (Van Halen album) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey can you do me a favor by adding a "personnel" section in the Starboy article, based off the album's liner notes here. If you can do it that is. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: - Hey! I did it. i adapted it from the discogs websites as well. it looked like it matched up to it. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts by the way, is the "erroneously credited as" parts in the Notes section under the track listing necessary? it just adds unneeded bulk to what is supposed to be a simple telling of the sample. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me adding the personnel section to the article, and I think "erroneously credited as" might be unnecessary to that part. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I just realized all the producers are in the track listing already o well --Jennica✿ / ^talk 23:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a better source for the album's liner notes. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jennica, just a minor note, it's perfectly acceptable for people to edit as IPs. The edits on Starboy do not appear to be disruptive, just minor content disputes. Please try to engage the other editors on the talk page. Protection should not be used to try to stop IPs from contributing. Remember to assume good faith, there seem to be other logged in editors that agree with some of the IP edits, such as this edit. -- ferret (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agreed with Ferret on this, the article don't need to be protected, only if necessary, like IPs adding unsourced content or vandalism. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay guys. I thought it was going to get out of hand. I had been reverted twice by different IP user [or maybe the same?] due to adding who played what instrument on what track. and the whole track listing headline thing. it's all good now. TheAmazingPeanuts Ferret --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Just remember we shouldn't protect preemptively. Only in response to an ongoing issue. For a (minor) content dispute like this, the talk page is the best place to start. I'll watch the page a few days just in case. -- ferret (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok Jennica, you're all set. Your older archives are all together at User talk:Jennica/Archive 1 now. The latest is in User talk:Jennica/Archive 2. Your archives header should be good to go now. -- ferret (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ferret - thanks so much! I appreciate it! congrats on being an admin too --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem :) Glad to help. -- ferret (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jennica, would you be so kind to ecxplain me, what is unconstructive in my contribution to Ceca (singer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.158.162 (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@95.76.158.162: - It's vandalism. plain and simple. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In your infobox changes using AWB, you need to insert an endash (–) between dates instead of a hyphen (-). See this as an example. EddieHugh (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: - ok thanks. i have a userscript that does it but I wish AWB could do it [find and replace doesn't work].. unless there is a way? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't use any bots/scripts (yet!), so don't know. Fix dates at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes might have an answer, but it might not change from "&" and other things. EddieHugh (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: - ah yeah. It does do it on its own but I was manually adding them in since before it was just an ampersand. I'll keep notepad up with the dash so I can paste it in. And scripts are great! I recommend getting the the installer. That way, you can just click "install" on the ones you want and it does for you. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, can you be a little more careful when using find and replace? Over on Almirante Latorre-class battleship, there were more colons in that section than just the ones being used to indent. :-) Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Per the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews there's a very clear consensus here that Scaruffi is not to be used as a source in music/album articles in any capacity. So please, do not add his opinions anymore [1]. It is a wp:self published source. Woovee (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Deaths in November 2015 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Deaths in December 2016 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Deaths in January 2015 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

In good faith you made some edits to Sesame Street that fixed errors in a pair of prior edits. But those edits were clearly vandalism or test edits that had no business being on that article and instead of fixing them they should have been reverted on sight. While assuming good faith is a part of the Wikipedia ethos, it must be tempered by some common sense and scripts must be used with decision making fully engagaed. I ask you, if you're using them to more carefully review your edits before saving them. oknazevad (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: - it wasn't me who vandalized it. It was an editor before me. I didn't catch the vandalism because I was only there to fix the reflist coding. it was my mistake.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I know it was t you who vandalized it. Your edits were a classic example of gnomish work. And for that work I thank you! Just wanted to mention that double checking them is a good idea to make sure that it fits the article as a whole. oknazevad (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Mötley Crüe page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Deaths in October 2016 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be an editor with a changing IP (usually beginning with 73.81) that geolocates to Pennsylvania/Delaware wanting to move "Castle on the Hill" first in order of singles from ÷ on related Ed Sheeran articles because "it comes first alphabetically" and citing some apparent precedent on Rihanna's Anti when there's no policy or established reason to do this. Can you please monitor this and revert when you see it? I'm quite convinced this IP is an editor that's been blocked and is now editing through IPs, because they've cited Wikipedia policies, which is quite rare for IPs to do. Ss112 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, can you revert the IP 82.15.136.209's edits? They keep adding in Sheeran to every track when it's not supported by the source. I think I've used up my reverts on that page. Ss112 18:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: - hi, sorry. It looks like it's been taken care of right now. I'll keep a look out. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 20:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

They've just come back and started edit warring again. Ss112 00:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: - I wonder if it's the same person as this IP user. They blanked and redirected the Bebe Rexha album because someone vandalized it. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's very likely. They've come from all of nowhere in the past two days, and started edit warring and generally being disruptive at a bunch of pop music articles. When that happens, they're usually a blocked user and a CheckUser usually finds who they are. Their edits are still current on ÷ (album), by the way—I prefer "Shape of You" being first because it seems the more prominent single. Ss112 00:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: - are you planning to report them to SPI or WP:AIV ? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If I reported at WP:AIV, they may just block the most recent one, then several hours later, the new incarnation would come along and start editing the articles again. They usually don't range block as there may be unrelated people using IPs in the range that are valid contributors. SPIs generally take too long and they never reveal connections to an IP for confidentiality reasons. I definitely think they should be reported somehow because they're an edit warrior, vandal and likely sockpuppet, but I'm at a loss as to what to do. Ss112 01:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: - I say report it to AIV. If you don't want to, I can. At least it might stop the warring for a day or something. By the way do you have any opinion on this topic? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If you could, it'd be helpful, since you also know more about what they did to those Bebe Rexha articles. As for capitalising certifications, I'm torn. I used to always prefer capitalising them in article text, however I see more of "double platinum" and "was certified gold in Australia" and the like in prose these days. I think it's another area where we can't get consistency. So long as it's consistent on one article, it's fine, but I prefer capitalising Gold and Platinum since they essentially function as proper nouns. Also, "it was certified Gold" seems correct as the Gold award is basically a title given to that release, and as you pointed out, it's capitalised on other websites and automatically in cert tables. Ss112 01:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This whole thing is quite stupid and childish, if I may say. Just because YOU think that SOY is the more prominent single doesn't mean that everyone agrees with that. You can't use YOUR reason as a rule that needs to be followed. I'm all for discussing this, but your reasoning doesn't make sense at all, and is purely your personal opinion. And as far as me blanking the Bebe Rexha page, they used the template used for "Digital Distortion" and just added a few things, which is vandalism, so I had every right to do that. 73.81.150.34 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@73.81.150.34: - no, your edit on the Bebe Rexha page made no sense. It's been an article for awhile now and for you to blank the page and make it a redirect just because it was vandalized makes zero sense. You should have reverted it, just like I reverted your blanking of the page. You clearly know how to use the undo button since you won't quit on the SOY page. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, so even thought the entire page was vandalism, it should still have been allowed to be a page? Do you logic? Do you even try to abide by any rules other than the ones you make up for yourself The way I looked at it was this: a page had been made prematurely, it clearly needed more time to create, so making it a redirect seemed like the most logical option. 73.81.150.34 (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@73.81.150.34: - No, This was an edit before you reverted and it contained the INFOBOX with Iggy's details on it. Everything else on the article is correct, and also cited. You should have just edited it to fit Bebe's details. Jumping the gun a bit, I think. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, all I saw was the cover for DD and what looked like most of the information on that page copied over. That seemed like a bunch of vandalism that shouldn't have been a page. 73.81.150.34 (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you even care about this so much? I know it's hypocritical of me to ask, but I'm just wondering. 73.81.150.34 (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I am agreeing with Ss112 on this issue, that's all. If you want to get a consensus about this, I guess you should maybe take it to RfC or the respective talk pages. You are saying it's 'our personal preferences' when it turns out that it's really you who wants it in alphabetical order. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're agreeing with someone who has no reason whatsoever to have them in one order, but not with someone who wants them in alphabetical order? No, you're right, that makes perfect sense. 73.81.156.252 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It would have been nice if you'd said something at WT:NFL before making that change, but I guess it does make sense. Your edit summaries could do with a bit of improvement, however. Would you mind changing every season to match? – PeeJay 22:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: - I thought I did all the seasons? or do you mean the ones you changed? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I mean all previous seasons, not just 2016. – PeeJay 11:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm now convinced more than ever that that IP is indeed a sockpuppeting blocked user, except since they're IP hopping every few hours there's little. They changed IPs again to make the final few edits to your talk page. IPs rarely fight issues like this, and it's quite obviously a little power trip they're having, which is blatant blocked user behaviour—the "I have to have it my way and you're all wrong!" pettiness. If only the administrator who protected the pages had looked a bit further into it, they might have seen this, but admins rarely want to touch the issue of sockpuppeting requiring CheckUser, it seems. Ss112 09:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ss112 - well I don't know how to combat it now. It seems like it would be hard to pinpoint the master sock because of the IP hopping. I could put a request in.. I put a request in for a sockpuppet I regularly report like 3-4 days ago and it still hasn't been blocked. And that's with no checkuser requested. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe if you request CheckUser it'll go quicker... or maybe not, but even still. Better to find out than have this go on. If you could file it, that'd be helpful (also, now you seem to have had the most time speaking with them). If I have anything to add, I'll write at the investigation page too. Ss112 10:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ss112 haha it will take longer with checkuser I think. I'll submit something. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: - whoa. an admin went on there and locked the articles so nobody can edit them until the 19th. Here's the SPI report --Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Looks like it had gotten to that stage. It's ridiculous that admins just do that and don't restore the page to the way it was before the dispute. Pages are often just kept in stasis for several days, even with blatantly incorrect things on them... Ss112 10:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because alphabetical order, as opposed to personal preference, is blatantly incorrect. The only person on a little power trip here is you, get over yourself. You're ridiculous. 73.81.156.206 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Lmao, whatever, sockpuppeter. You'll get found out soon enough. Jennica, maybe you want to remove their blatant incivility from your talk page. Ss112 20:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that all involved parties take this to the talk page of the article. This is a content dispute and best handled at the article's so other interested editors can see it and understand the outcome. -- ferret (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: This goes beyond a content dispute. It now concerns an IP-hopping, abusive, disruptive editor who is blatantly sockpuppeting and admins refuse to do anything about them. They've posted on Jennica's talk page here with at least three different IPs, and they have two different SPIs open on them, one from when they had a conflict with Kellymoat days ago. They think they can get away with anything. It's no longer about just Ed Sheeran's singles. Ss112 20:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ss112 Nah I don't mind keeping this on here. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that most users have no control over their IP. It's not deliberate that their IP changes from day to day, it's done by their ISP. It's not automatically sockpuppeting, nor are users required to create accounts. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: I know IPs change day to day, or even multiple times in a day (as this was). It used to happen to me—before I registered for an account. But they could avoid it by registering for an account and then staying on that account, so they can be held accountable for their actions all in one place. I know what sockpuppeting is, and creating new accounts to avoid detection is one of the main ways. They have created at least two accounts in addition to engaging in disruptive editing across multiple IPs (as stated at the SPI, where they gave the user Kellymoat grief). I can see multiple other things on WP:SOCK they have violated too. They know what they're doing and they continue to do it, and it's admin refusal to do anything about a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy that allows this to go on. Ss112 14:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, since you are the user with the most edit counts and the most user boxes on her/his user page, I hope you can help me with my question. I want to keep the same code on my :de: and :en: user page, mainly info for editing that I need regularly, but also very few user boxes. Now, I wanted to have at least one fun user box, that is an edited beer barrel with "AGF" added. But it is only hosted on the German wikipedia (not on commons), and I cannot figure it out how that can be tweaked so that it works for my :en: userpage as well. I add the code (commented out) for you to look at, but feel free to reject when you not feel like it or when it is absolutely not your area of expertise.
Could be that I simply cannot use the {{Babel-code in :en:... I looked into your code with your user boxes and not a single "Babel" there, many years ago I used to play around way more with user boxes than I do now and was just starting to use :en: also, not only :de: and I think I recall that quite some issues started when I tried to have the same start page like I try now (again)... after I removed all fancy looking stuff and only kept sober dry info... Cheers, --Rava77 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The "your / you’re" and the similar other ones are hilarious. Also somehow sad, seeing as how often you see these same three mistake over and over, like with then/than & its/it's, when all three are so simple. Just because they sound alike, but they are nothing alike...</ramble>

Hi @Rava77: - I am not sure on this but I will refer you to the WP:HELPDESK. They may be able to help you there. sorry i couldn't help. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jessica, could have thought of that by myself (facepalms) I was looking for a more specific talk page, but when that's not found you should best use a more generic one (instead of not figuring it out at all on your own, that is)). Thanks and Rava out. --Rava77 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The article 1984 (Van Halen album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1984 (Van Halen album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Great job! Karst (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I was planning on doing the GA review for Van Halen (album) but I see you've withdrawn it. If it were available I'd start reviewing immediately. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: hi! and thanks but I don't know about it right now. the review for 1984 got passed but it was my first time ever nominating an article - I'm not sure if I feel up to doing it right now (fixing everything). --Jennica✿ / ^talk 01:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you change your mind please let me know. I'm doing the 4th GA Cup and this would be a fun subject to peruse. I've listened to this album many times. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Van Halen 1984 Back cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Recently Garagepunk66 and I created a project for garage rock here. I realize content creation is not your main objective, but I think this is worth joining because, when it gets in full swing, dozens of articles, including ones about albums, will be created. I recruited some fairly new users so formatting errors will undoubtedly arise in the beginning. For that reason, you may want to join and look over the listed editors' histories every once in awhile or the talk page to do your thing. If you do not want to, I understand; I just thought it was worth mentioning.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

DBaK (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Jennica, can you add genre(s) for UK top 5 single You Don't Know Me (Jax Jones song), as it's one of the only modern song pages with no genres listed, thanks. It sounds like tropical house, dancehall-pop (reggae fusion) or afrobeat inspired.--2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:C8AD:711B:476A:8BE8 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. That needs a source. thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 20:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

[3] Here it is described as dance-pop. It's also got afrobeat vibes but I'm sure I saw it called dancehall/tropical house somewhere. Could you edit the page please, as I don't know how to put in references properly, thanks.--2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:C8AD:711B:476A:8BE8 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. a forum is not a reliable source. it has to be from a publication. it's not really that important anyways --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong website I meant it's called dance-pop here [4]. But that's just one of the genres.--2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:C8AD:711B:476A:8BE8 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)