User talk:Jennica

Season's greetings!

Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Do me a favor

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)

Archives

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)

Ceca

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)

AWB

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)

Find/replace

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)

no wp:self published source

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)

Reference errors on 14 January

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)

IP's edits to ÷ (album), Shape of You and Castle on the Hill (Ed Sheeran song)

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)

Be more careful please

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)

Reference errors on 15 January

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)

That IP

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)

No scoring plays

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)

Userbox question

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)

Your GA nomination of 1984 (Van Halen album)

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)

Van Halen

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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Van Halen 1984 Back cover.png

⚠

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)

Garage rock task force

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)

Talkback

Hello, Jennica. You have new messages at Talk:Glossary of musical terminology.
Message added 08:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Jax Jones genres

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)

[1] 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)