User talk:Doctorhawkes

This is specifically about you reverting my edits to the Usage in other media section of the I Touch Myself song page to include that the song was used in the Sex Education TV series. Does there need to be a peer-reviewed study on the use of the song for it to be acceptable? BananaBaron (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A song can appear in hundreds of shows or movies. If you include them all, you have a terrible article. So only the notable appearances are included, the ones that are discussed in a reliable source. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, perhaps these sources aren't 100% correct, at least they provide the closest one can come to a reasonable reliability. I double-checked everything with chart entries relevant to the particular singles, like UK's official charts, Billboard, Dutchcharts etc. These all work out.

What happens now, is that the information those sites provide is now removed, leaving some BS entry without any sources mentioned. Genesis "In Too Deep" now shows a US release date of January 1987, without any source provided, someone just made that up. I can find no source for that date. When actually we know it charted in late April, as the article suggests it was a hit during the summer of 87. So I suggest to you, a close source is better than no source at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray1983a (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works I'm afraid, as you've already been warned repeatedly. If you believe the information is incorrect, delete it. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps not how it is supposed to work, but it is how it works out. Not trying to violate wikipedia. I'm a wikipedia-fan. But with some artists, these dates are all over the place and they don't work out with the (reliable) Billboard and UK Charts. Within that context, the info on my sources seem very correct. It's at least a whole lot better than someone's wild guess. And when in doubt, I won't make an entry. These release dates provide some context to an artists' output. Which makes wikipedia a bit more beautiful.

Can you please explain why you recently reverted my edits to the wiki page relating to Devil Inside by INXS. None of the edits made were factually incorrect.

I'm not saying the information was incorrect, but you need a reliable source discussing it for it to be included. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough -- I will add the edits back in and quote a music forum site where it has been discussed . Personally, I think the comments I made are quite relevant and actually of interest to anyone who knows the song. It was not made flippantly but a genuine comment designed to inform and potentially promote discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.19.223 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A music forum is NOT an appropriate source. (The one you used, no one even agreed what was said.) Have a read of this WP:RS. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will remove the word "controversially" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.19.223 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reputable source for all of it.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check the news for new Australian PM. ABC is showing it live now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.163.47 (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no worries. I think you just jumped the gun a little on the first changes. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.outertech.com/en/clipboard-historyWelcome!

Hello, Doctorhawkes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity of fairness for "Blue Links Only" justification for removal of individuals, should this not also be applied to "Matt Frazier" of Local Natives" then? You left this red link live on the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6291:C200:B438:2795:753B:8966 (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6291:C200:B438:2795:753B:8966 (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the band is notable and blue-linked, but members of the band only get individual articles if they do something of note individually. That's my justification, anyways.Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person you removed, Rene Michelle Aranda, the youngest sister of Michael Aranda, won a national acting award (for which she shaved herself bald for if you cared to research it). They flew her from L.A. to Washington D.C. for it (see front page of Collegian) & it was the first time the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts had ever issued an award of this nature in its 42 years since being founded in 1969. All of this information can be found on the KCACTF website which was cited & blue-linked along with the link to Cinelatino, the Spanish Television network she produces feature films for, including the very first television series Cinelatino will air- information on film specifics can be found both on IMDb & the Cinelatino website (where you'll find Emmy nominated actress Vannessa Vasquez starred in the first movie she produced). Production updates regarding the upcoming television series are documented throughout the production company's IMDb (was cited) as well as throughout social media, where it might come up that another film she produced received a raving 5-star review commending the diversity of her cast (which according to IMDb, she didn't just produce but cast & also helped write the movie). Tally those credits and you'll find she produced 5 feature films in her first year working for Cinelatino. Her 2nd year, the network's status-quo breaking television series, 22 years after its launch.

Her brother is a vlogger (in a few of whom's videos she is featured) and yet he's got his own page (which she is mentioned on). Sure, he's got 200,000 subs but 30 million people watch Cinelatino in 60 Spanish speaking territories, including all of North America. She's even been the subject of a Ms. In The Biz article, where it touches on how she founded her own production company (listed on corporationwiki). And now (though it can't be cited yet to anything other than the various social media pages of Nickelodean stars Sol Rodriguez & Reinaldo Zavarce and the casting company Selekt Casting, it seems she has cast them in an upcoming project called Cartel.

If you have Netflix, she's a household name in your own space. Watch Expelled and you'll find she's a cast member in that web-star studded film.

I don't know about you but for a 24 year old chick (let alone anybody), that's all pretty notable... Cleaning up an edit is understandable. Prettying up formatting is always appreciated. But deleting mention of a pro-active native's cited achievements makes it look like you didn't really do much research before you edited... just my thought, anyways.

It sounds like you should create an article for her & then her notability can be judged properly. Sounds like you have plenty of sources. Give it a go. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you know which Shirnack played tonight? Jason or Alan? The SMH says Jason and others say Alan. Cheers,  florrie  13:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! It was Alan. Great to have a win after so long. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go and change it. Yes, great game considering they weren't playing at their best and with so many injuries! I had the pleasure of watching it with a group of WT fans I've met up with over here in the West, so it was an even better win!  florrie  11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi im taylor can you tell me what you undid on the harry wells page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.229.203 (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Taylor. I undid the info about his family. Not because it was wrong, but because there was no source for it. On the other hand, I wasn't aware that he was originally known as Wills, and have found a reference for that.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi its talyor again So do you konw were he lives now see no one knows these things and as my mum says its a shame no one knows were he lives. I think people should now were he lives what do u say doctorhawkes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.229.203 (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have any sources, and I'm not sure what a source for that would be. I don't see why you deleted just my edit, when you can google "jinx count to ten" and see it is all over the place. 67.168.11.194 (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to seem harsh. As the page says, there are a "myriad of highly varied rules". Unfortunately, trying to list them all without a decent reference leads to nonsense list of variations. I'll have a look and see if I can find a good source.Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I like my addition though, and I don't think it really screws the article up too much, at least until someone comes along to turn it into something literary... I'm kidding, I guess, but if you don't mind I'd like to put it back. Here's a book: https://www.google.com/search?q=jinx+count+to+ten&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 Is that a source? Seems as good as any. Thanks for responding. 67.168.11.194 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2.223.105.40 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Alright then, what is the 2011 population of Burnley, there is no point including a statistic that is 14 years out of date without a more up to date statistic to compare with.[reply]

I don't think "All of Burnley borough apart from Deerplay with Coalclough, Briercliffe and Cliviger with Worsthorne 2011" really helps much at all. The average read has no idea what that means.Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon173314 (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Ok, what if I just add a reference telling you where I got my information from.Croydon173314 (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It always helps. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a source why need a source for Centerfield look at the Giants logo.

That's how Wkipedia works. Anything not very obvious should be sourced. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The page in question originally was written without any citable references to support the claims. I have removed anything without citable references. I explained that. Rather than just undoing the edit I suggest you instead dig up references for that material (I couldn't find any, but you might have better luck). Cheers, Miles Gillham (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Link rot. "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." I'll have a look to see if I can get any help from the Wayback machine later. Doctorhawkes (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to delete her name on the list? When in fact the reference I put clearly states that she is an Australian composer and everybody knows she writes her own songs. Please help me understand. DerrickGavinLam

Hi! Yeah, there's no doubt that she writes her own songs. As per the page, it's a list of "composers of classical music, contemporary music and/or film soundtracks", contemporary music being modern classical music. Please forgive me if she has composed this type of music, but otherwise I'd say she was better classified as a song-writer.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine! I've made that mistake on occasion.

Best,

GAB (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doctorhawkes,

How are you?

First of all, thanks a lot for your corrections, I really liked that article and if I can remember more songs about cities or I listen to them, I'll put some more info in the article.

About what you corrected me about Jalisco, I knew it was a state, not a city; but in that song they talk about a city, Gudalajara, which is the state's capital, I didn't know how to manage that information.

About Waimarama, it was somehow the same but the opposite..., as you can see in the article about Waimarama. Waimarama is a place in Hastings, New Zealand.

Thanks again,

Bye Gaudio (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All good. I've added those 2 entries back under Guadalajara & Hastings. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doctorhawkes! Saw your rv on this article and comment. I would never usually do that, but I've been in intense discussions with others on the David Bowie article, in which I'd put quotes. These caused upset and were in many cases contracted and paraphrased by others. Not quite the same as what I did in this instance, but. Pearce's English is clearly awful as quoted; it reads better as i've presented. What I've used is a common journalistic method. Wrong here, though? Boscaswell (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boscawell. Yeah, anything in quotations mark should be verbatim from the original. Of course, paraphrasing the meaning of the sentence also has its place. I should also say, good work on the Pearce article. It was good to see a voice of reason there amongst the nonsense. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All the best! Boscaswell talk 03:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done today's update. It's getting long, the Australia Day party section, but the story is massive. It would be easy to argue that the section is out of balance compared to the stuff about his playing career, but when I first looked at that there was next to nothing. That area could do with some expansion - I'll leave it to others. Right now the section about the Party scandal needs to be kept up to date, otherwise Wiki looks pretty stupid. All the best! Boscaswell talk 17:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering why you reverted my edit to "Holiday (Vampire Weekend song)"? You didn't give a reason in your edit summary. I thought it was a legitimate link to the YouTube video. But if I've done something wrong could you let me know what it was? I've been a Wikipedia editor for better than 10 years now, usually just minor stuff, so it's a little surprising to have something reverted that I thought was fairly insignificant. Thanks! --Egpetersen (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should have left an edit summary referring to WP:VIDEOLINK. I'm guessing you were more interested in having the video as an external link? If not, a reference like http://www.stereogum.com/586571/vampire-weekend-soundtracks-hilfiger-honda-holiday-ads/video/ would be a lot better. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just when I think I know all the policies, a new one comes up that I've never seen before. Thank you for the explanation. I'll link the Stereogum article instead, as that YouTube video doesn't appear to be a legitimate upload. --Egpetersen (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorry if this comes across as a bit terse, but where do you expect this to be discussed exactly? I checked the talk page before making the edit, but all I found was an IP posting about its chords, so I naturally assumed that the page received basically no traffic. I changed its classification from "soft rock" to "rock" because I don't see how this song can be classified as "soft". I'm not sure why a reference would be necessary for that; are Eagles songs just automatically classified as soft rock?

I'm very interested to hear your perspective on the matter. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, the talk page is the best place to discuss. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but Eagles articles have a looong history of genre-warring. Myself, I would never describe the song as "disco", but that's why there's a ref there to support it. Most of their singles have referenced genres. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of any article is the standard place to discuss changes, but nobody even posts on that one, and the article doesn't get enough activity for me to feel confident that my attempt at discussion would even garner attention. I guess I could look for a reference of some sort. I'm actually of the opinion that "soft rock" is more in need of a reference than simple "rock", as the former implies... well, softness. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you post on the talk page and no one objects after a few days, go ahead and change. But really, looking for a ref aint that hard. "Soft rock" seems to be the most referenced on their other articles. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase here is "other articles" - One of These Nights sounds different from Desperado or Tequila Sunrise, for example. Those are soft rock songs. This track, not so much (I don't think). Kurtis ^(talk) 21:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doctorhawkes, thanks so much for the feedback. Would you be able to send me a link to the guidelines for an infobox photo. I am looking to update these images as I have newer images from 2016 and 2017. Thanks! Ann Odong 19:37, 11 June 2017

Good places to start are here, here, and here. Obviously some of your pictures are better quality and more recent than what is already used. IMHO, the action shots are great for further in the article, and would be strong when cropped to have a clearer shot of the player in the infobox. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for creating the article on the new Tex, Don & Charlie album. Good work. BlackCab (TALK) 02:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 July you deleted in "List of songs about cities" this song:

• "Hombre caimán (Se va el caimán)" (1941) by José María Peñaranda, based on the legend of El Hombre Caimán

This is a very famous song in Spanish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEa-syGQvR8&feature=youtu.be&t=47s https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Pe%C3%B1aranda

Because of its fame, I consider that it must be in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Macías (talk • contribs) 08:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a video on youtube means little for WP:CSC, but the Spanish article does. I've re-added and linked. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that MrBrand intends to follow through with his threat "I will continue to delete this every time you put it back up." even though the statement in the article is backed up by a reliable independent source. As I advised him this is contrary to WP:COI and WP:3R. He doesn't seem to care - is there any other intervention that could be put in place? Dan arndt (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to start a discussion on the talk page. Let's see how it goes. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not good continues to revert changes as per his original comments that he will continue to delete it every time you put it back. Should we report him for breaching 4R, I'm guessing that I'm guilty of the same provisions but you aren't. Dan arndt (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'll escalate this afternoon. Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doctorhawkes. Just wondering why you would delete the names of R.W Miller & Sir Roderick Miller from the Notable Persons list? Wiki discourages the removal of red links for the sake of it, and they were held in high esteem by Balmain locals and their workers. Even after moving to Vaucluse they remained big Tigers supporters and Sir Rod was a regular down at the sailing club until his death. If the list wasn't alphabetical they should have been at the top of the list. Good people. That's just from personal knowledge of course, but sources were given originally. Theirishslave (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they don't appear to be notable. If every Balmain resident who was "good people" was included, we would have a very long list indeed. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your not authorised to censor pages or delete information just because it is not in line with your ideology. If there are mistakes, correct them. if there are not leave them alone. If they have an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, I would suggest that trumps your knowledge as to whether that person is notable or not.Theirishslave (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no ideology. If you believe that they are notable, trying writing an article for them and they will be judged against Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree with you on your reason for removing Aussiejed's addition of the I, Tonya trailer to the "25 or 6 to 4" page. IndieWire called the movie a "breakout biopic" and said there was no "buzzier title" at the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival. The cast of "I, Tonya" received an ensemble award at the 2017 Hollywood Film Awards. In advertising this movie, I do think it is notable that the song "25 or 6 to 4" figures so prominently in the trailer. I think the song was carefully chosen for the trailer - I presume it is in the movie soundtrack - and several published reports about the trailer mention the song. This is already a movie of some note, and "25 or 6 to 4" is being used to promote it to the general public.Curious405 (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The song has appeared in many television shows and movies and trailers. I did a quick google and plenty of sources mention that the song is used in the trailer, but none of them seem to think it was particularly notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm like a dog with a bone. How about this commentary: "I, Tonya has given us anything but the traditional sports biopic trailer, using the driving beats of Chicago's '25 or 6 to 4' and Hot Chocolate's 'Every 1's a Winner' to paint the picture of America's ultimate dysfunctional family." (from http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a842061/margot-robbie-nsfw-i-tonya-trailer/) I'm trying to figure out what the trailer/movie reviewer would have to write to make the song's use in it notable (any song). Any examples you can direct me to, as it applies to use in popular culture, would be appreciated.Curious405 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the page for Wake Up (Arcade Fire song) which (I think) is a notable song in a trailer. The ref that was used is here: [1]. In general, trailers don't get as much in depth coverage as the movie itself. I would imagine when "I, Tonya" comes out, the song will also be included in the movie, a have appropriate sources for inclusion in the article.Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Curious405 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doctorhawkes,

I recently removed a photo of someone on the Jesus Christians page which you subsequently reverted saying that wikipedia doesn't require permission to upload photos however this is what I read: " Commons respects the legal rights of the subjects of our photographs and has a moral obligation to behave ethically with regard to photographs of people... The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a private place, and Commons expects this even if local laws do not require it.... Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy."

I think the above makes it clear that permission is the most ethical course of action, and considering that someone (Ross777/Wikipeggar) is making edits that are largely based on personal issues and not to improve the page, including a photo of someone whom they are trying to turn people against shouldn't be allowed considering the circumstances. I'm not totally up on wiki protocols but I request that you not allow the photo again in future. Thanks for your time.Frog Manz (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Frog Manz.

Firstly, I agree with many of the edits you have recently made. I have no association with any of the people involved. I feel that some recent edits have included information that was implied rather than explicit and have reverted these where I can.

The Wikicommons guidelines that you quote refer to paparazzi-type photos, and I agree that if the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy, their permission should be sought before using. Nobody wants photos taken through a window by a telephoto lens. I have no reason to believe that refers to the photo I reverted, and especially not to the other photos that have been added since. It is very well-documented that the subject was a Jesus Christian, so I'm not sure how this would further impact on the subject. Of course, I've been wrong before, and I encourage you to discuss further on the talk page. If there is a consensus that the photo is inappropriate, it will be removed.

Best Wishes, Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr H, Most of the photos used are not private locations, or taken in a private place, but public places. The editor above cannot complain about photos taken in public places, as "a right to privacy" otherwise newspapers around the country would be in a great deal of legal trouble. Your comments on recent developments would be welcome on the Jesus Christian talk page as soon as is convenient because advice from experienced editors would help there.Wholetruth (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why you need to delete everything I did even the recorded ones that made to a studio album?

As you know, I left heaps. My apologies if I got any wrong. There were so may to revert I may have made a mistake. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doctorhawkes, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Change whatever you think is poor/incorrect: I'm certain I haven't read as much about them as you have. The whole article could use another's eye. I haven't really tackled some sections too well.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might happen, but you could have just put Citation Needed – unless you're sure it's all untrue.Patrick Neylan (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way it works, especially with a WP:BLP. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, of course – I respect your adherence to the rules, considering some of the crap that ends up on these pages – but the version you reverted to was equally unsourced, uncited and unverfiable. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, the whole subsection should be deleted. I'm not sure that would improve the page. Patrick Neylan (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listen mate, I understand that you're a proud Australian patriot and would like to see as much local representation as possible, but that list has a very precise and interesting purpose that you are disrupting with examples that are merely anecdotal mentions or act as a setting in songs that about something completely different than the city itself. It's in the bloody description: The specific problem is: The page should only contain songs which have been specifically written about a city. Tell me, are the lyrics "don't get extortion threats from the Coffs Harbour saloon" about Coffs Harbour, or about Russell Crowe? The same applies to every other listing I've deleted.

Otherwise why stop there? Just add all of these: I've Been Everywhere, that'll be fun and informative.

I will have to report you if you continue undoing my changes. This article is not your personal playground. Dziewięćsił (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any presumption of a personal playground is rude. If you must report, do so. I'm well aware that there are songs listed that don't meet the criteria on the list. However you have removed a number that certainly do meet the criteria, and are clearly referenced. The removal of "Brisbane (Security City)" or "Streets of Your Town" is ridiculous.

Anyways, I'll bulk revert, and then you can remove the inappropriate and unsourced. I must admit, I'm curious to see if you continue on the same path, or limit yourself to 2 countries. All the best. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So wait, you do admit some were not appropriate, even though you've been reverting them every time, no matter which ones I had actually thrown out? You've manually re-entered the song about Russell Crowe several times, as quick as the very next day it got deleted (alone!). So... yeah, thank you for proving my point.

Also, I can and will limit myself to 2 countries if I want to (tbh I've added entries to several countries in the past, but what the hell) — my selectivity does not make irrelevant entries any more welcome. And seeing how you're taking this personally (and how you still feel entitled to police my activity around this article), I can't help but feel that you calling my remark rude was short for rudely accurate.

This being said, the Australia section (and any other for that matter if I find the time) will get purged again soon. Listing all songs that barely mention some place for narrative purposes is pointless; unless you want to pretend Cat Scratch Fever is a song about cats or medicine. Dziewięćsił (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing that you tend to not use Edit summaries. (Why?) I'm wondering why you keep reverting that addition to the article? I found it quite helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary says "unsourced". If you honestly think the article is improved, I'll defer to your better judgment. To me, most of the changes either make little sense or are unsourced local variations. I can't see any rules referring to a square called "toilet". I don't know what "who hit the balls square" means, and I've never seen rules that refer to the serve having to be "decent".

Fair point on the edit summaries, though. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Did you remove a taco as a sandwich? It is the same thing as a gyro, or a hot dog. Would love to know the reasoning if you believe that this is incorrect. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.72.56.241 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Not because I believe a taco is not sandwich, but because it should be discussed on the talk page first. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I hope you are fine I saw a mistake sir! in I wanna Rock page, I believe all of what I added were right! I edited again, but you deleted the line I added. Best (sorry if there are weird uses of english language)SepticSH (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Everything you have added is correct, but does not belong in the lede of the article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. so add it in where you know better. I am amateur. good luck!SepticSH (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't remove that info, someone else did. If you read WP:IPC, it may be a little clearer why. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added much needed sources for information such as the Saxophones played by Dino Solera on “Action This Day”, as well as the other instruments that the page listed Queen members as playing but didn’t appear on Allmusic or in the album’s Liner Notes. I would like to know why you reverted my editing for that page. GoldenGuy23 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you know why. Because you don't have a reliable source. You have a long history of doing this and have been blocked for it before. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The production of the song is urban in the instrumentation and pop in its structure, which makes it a Urban pop song, why don't you add a source stating what genre the song is instead of removing the genre entirely? Alberto279 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information in wikipedia must be sourced. If I don't have source, I can't add a genre. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, thanks for the revert. I have explained on the first they came for the.... talk page why I feel the edits are necessary. I read the rest of the talk entries that deal with point 1. It's not a poem as concieved, and 2. Niemöller is listed as an outspoken opponent of the Nazis from the beginning being somewhat inaccurate. There is a small neutrality concern, but I feel that's been explained. Is it okay if I ask what now? There are other entries on the talk page that point out that it's not a poem in the classic sense, but there were no responses to those at all. Or to the ones which were called offtopic. Nothing for about 10 to 12 years in fact. When that happens are we simply not allowed to edit it? Cheers! Robbie.johnson (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few days. If there are no real objections, then revert me. Otherwise, discuss to reach consensus. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks! Robbie.johnson (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for my note about the gore and violence in Crossed_(comics)#Crossed:_Badlands_(Volumes_4–17), to support my edit that the level depicted is notable: [[2]]

It is in the nature of the overall low level analysis of comics media that it is hard to find authoritative comments and review, however perhaps you can also see from these [[3]], [[4]] and the Avatar_Press WKP article that there is general agreement in the comics/graphics novel community that the independent Avatar Press is well-known for being a publishing house that 'pushes the envelope' in what is shown in comics, that further, Crossed is typical of an Avatar comicbook that shows exceptionally violent scenes [[5]] (note second sentence), and finally note that the Crossed Badlands volumes are the Crossed stories most illustrative of this tendency (majority of the scenes mentioned in this latter link are from the Badlands stories).

My conclusion is that the levels of gore and violence are a notable factor of this comic, and Badlands in particular, and it is therefore worth mentioning. Centrepull (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is WP:OR. If you want to include something saying Badlands "stories are notable for further pushing the explicit gore factor of the Crossed series to further graphic heights" then find a reputable source saying so. Those links you provided don't come close. WP:PROVEIT. To me, the violence seems about even the whole way through. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  George Ho (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]  

This user keeps returning to restored the unsourced passage about Elton John to the lead which you and I have kept removing. I have now warned them on their talk page not to continue or they will be reported to administrators. Rodericksilly (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no citation "already there". Until you added it, there was no citation anywhere in the article after the word "erotic". WP:V requires a citation. I disagree that the topic of rape is erotic, but I won't argue unless I can find a source otherwise. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ref was already there, just not placed after the word erotic. a quick ctrl-F would have cleared that up. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was wrong when I assumed you knew the difference between a reference and a citation. WP:V requires a citation. CTRL-F wouldn't have cleared anything up. Nor did it clear anything up with your edit summary "ref was already there". 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge is only exceeded by your charm. I consider myself schooled. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if it is unsourced or not correct??? EVERYBODY CARES FAG! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.75.207 (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facts, how are you gonna call it unsourced if you fucking have ears and listen to the album, you remove a genesis genre prog rock, do you know what genesis is? A prog rock band. Get the hell out of here 🤦‍♂️ Progggy (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Doctorhawkes I just have a question that someone with your expert knowledge might know the answer to. I have done some edits for the two players mentioned above regarding their off-field incidents but a new user keeps deleting the edits saying it is slander and libellous despite the fact that I have appropriate references.

If the allegations are proven 100% true and I re-add the information yet it keeps getting removed then what can I do?. This user has already threatened me with the use of lawyers. Sully198787 (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as everything you have written is backed by a good source, you are in the right. Ignore any talk of lawyers. It looks like an experienced wikpedian is already on the case. I'll help out also. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doctorhawkes - I checked Amazon and the ISBN before I made the edit. Please check these:

Kaleidescope Eyes is here - note cover and advert promo: https://www.amazon.com/Kaleidoscope-Eyes-Psychedelic-Citadel-Underground/dp/0806517883

The cover of Milk It! does have "90's" but the Amazon promo is selling the book under " '90s".I don't know what to do with that, but Kaleidoescope needs to conform to the source. https://www.amazon.com/Milk-Collected-Musings-Alternative-Explosion/dp/0306812711

Needs to be changed, but I'll wait to hear back from you.

regards, Sensei48 (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I totally agree that "90's" should not be used generally. That said, surely we should abide the actual title of the book rather than any incorrect titling done by Amazon or any other 3rd party. The source is the book itself rather than any link to it. It seems absurd to use the spelling on a website that incorrectly lists the title of the book.

Note that I haven't changed the ref for Kaleidoscope Eyes. That is a separate reference for another book by the same author.

I would have thought that using the actual title of the book is always correct, but I have been surprised by Wikipedia policy before. Are you able to show me anything to support your argument? Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again at my message above. You'll find https links to Amazon for each of the DeRogatis books. You'll also see Amazon photos of the book covers, and they are as I describe above. Kaleidescope clearly needs to be changed in our article to conform to the actual cover as depicted. For Milk It! I'll leave to you to decide what to do with the discrepancy between the photo of the cover and the title under which Amazon is selling it. Sensei48 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I been working on citations for List of songs that retell a work of literature for the past week or so, and it is a lengthy but enjoyable process. I have noticed that you have removed several listings, such as this one, which was

"Holland 1945" is a Neutral Milk Hotel song about The Diary of Anne Frank.

and you noted that the song is not a retelling. There is at least one reliable source (Newsweek) that suggests that it is, or at least that it is close enough to be included on the list:

"But this particular songwriter was Jeff Mangum, the singer and chief creative force behind indie-rock outfit Neutral Milk Hotel. Mangum's fascination with Anne Frank's story resulted in the band's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, one of the most beloved and unusual cult albums of the late 20th century. If you've set foot on a liberal arts college in the past two decades, you've heard it. Songs like "Holland, 1945" and "Ghost" resurrect Frank's story with an odd mix of historical detail and hysterical longing."

So what I want to propose is this - What if we add a section on the talk page, where if there are particularly questionable entries, we can cut them from the main page and list them on the talk page, until such time as citations can be researched and (if needed) consensus can be reached on their inclusion or exclusion.

Do you have any thoughts on that? (We can post this exchange on the pertinent talk page, as well.)

Thanks for your contributions, KConWiki (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think the lyrics make it very clear it is not a retelling. Mangum's fascination with Anne Frank is well-documented, but I've never seen a reference that says he was "retelling" her written work. That said, you're the one doing all the hard work and I'm more than happy to do whatever you wish with this page. Discussion can only help. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doctorhawkes, could you explain the reason for undoing the edit on the Lloyd Cole Bio page please? Just a bit confused, the current image doesn't appear to be very representative of the artist, is it that you prefer that image to the professional portrait I uploaded or have I transgressed a rule of editing? I'd just like to clear this up so I don't make the same mistake the same mistake again, KR and peace, Turbo

Hi, Turbo. The photo is much better, but it doesn't appear you have provided evidence that the photographer has given permission for the picture to be released under creative commons. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrHawkes, thanks for the prompt response. The reason I included the link I did when I uploaded the portrait was at the bottom of that page Mr Cole says Take any photo you’d like – Click on the photo and choose JPG or TIFF to download. Make a note of the photographer. Credit the photographer if you reproduce it in any commercial venture, even your weblog. If the TIFF comes in a folder with a covering letter, please read it and don’t reproduce the photo anywhere until you have come to an arrangement with the photographer. OK? LC It's not in a folder with a covering letter and is availanle for use as long as the photographer is credited, which I did. Do you require further confirmation from Mr Dellas or Mr Cole that use of the photograph is permitted? KR & peace,. Turbo

If you see the licensing message here it might make things clearer. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrHawkes, OK, I think I'm getting somewhere now :) I've now edited the Permission section of Information and also the licensing with the same statement. Do you think that will be sufficient. Thanks again for your help, I'm trying not to take up too much of your time, I just want to get this right peace, Turbo PS I now have permission form Mark Dellas to use the image too via email, Ive added it to a category I 'think' Ive done everyhthing

Perfect. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to find a source or anything, Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.133.120.222 (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're not trying to find a source or anything. Wikipedia information must be sourced. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you go to hell! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.133.120.222 (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious by what standard you made this decision? Thmazing (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no indication of notability. To show notability you'd be looking for reliable sources that discuss its inclusion in depth. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop constantly removing the info from the Long Away page.There is absolutely no need to,as it is very valuable information,sourced and it has been on the page for a long time.Stop doing this beacuse you have no rights,I posted the sources,still not good enough for you.You gave no reason for removing it,only wrote unsourced,and not notable.Why?!!!!!!! Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a reliable source. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "follow the rules even if they make no sense"your motto?I know and understand that youtube is not a reliable source because anyone can put things on it,but this is not something someone said or similiar,this is actual footage of the performance which just happens to be on youtube.Unless someone faked,edited or did something just to fake the performance... Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the are you doing,ANSWER ME HERE.HOW IN THE WORLD IS IT NOT NOTABLE...JUST HOW.THE ONLY SINGLE TIME THAT SONG WAS PERFORMED BY BRIAN MAY LIVEE!!!!!!!!HOW IN THE WORLD IS IT UNSOURCED,I POSTED THE LINKS TO THE FOOTAGE OF THE PERFORMANCE,EVEN IF THE DATE IS NOT CORRECT,STILL!!!WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME,DO YOU WANT ME TO PERSONALLY ASK BRIAN MAY TO CONFIRM,ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT'S NOT BRIAN MAY PERFORMING,THAT SOMEONE FAKED THE FOOTAGE?!!!!WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR POINT,WHAT DO YOU WANT?ANSWER ME!HERE.I'VE HAD ENOUGH PATIENCE BUT THIS IS JUST RIDICOULUS.ANSWER ME HERE AND GIVE ME AT LEAST ONE GOOD REASON FOR DOING THAT. Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to not add the information if you don't have a valid source. Frankly, even with a source, it seems trivial to me. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

I'm sorry,that was a typo(us unbeliveable as it may seem) Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just your personal opinion that it seems trivial (EVEN WITH A SOURCE),and you keep removing it... Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And could you explain why it seems "trivial",do you have something against it or something Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I apologize for the harsh words(even though it was an accident,but still I think U should apologize) Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo again,I meant to say I should apologize not U

Damir Okanović Dule (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello, just wondering why you keep removing the source I typed in on the Works Tour page? This is the only reliable source I can find. Thanks. Warriorsandcavaliers2015 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did leave links to the guidelines to explain why. Information on Wikipedia should be from a reliable sources: a newspaper, a magazine, online publications like Pitchfork, a well known critic. If you can't find a reliable source, it shouldn't be included. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written and edited by users. As a user, I have a perfect right to change the profile picture on the Lou Reed page, in this case, reverting it back to a famous and well-known image of Reed that was already there (before you or whoever else changed it). Such an edit is in no way "unconstructive" or "disruptive." What is your logic for such a comment? If anything, you're the one being unconstructive and disruptive, by making such a comment and by threatening me with the possibility of being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps I was a bit glib in my comment about Lou Reed looking "old" in the other image; however, I do think the image of Reed as a young man represents his style and legacy more accurately than your choice, and unless you are able to satisfactorily justify your edit, then I will continue to revert it, within Wikipedia's guidelines of acceptable editing. BTW, Wikipedia isn't a "democracy"; edits aren't made by "vote." A user can edit an article as many times as he wants as long as he has a legitimate reason for doing so, and as long as he follows Wikipedia's policies. So regardless of whether you are able to convince your little community of friends on Wikipedia ("other users") to agree with your position, my editing will continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jescoromas (talk • contribs) 10:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you think you have the power to block me from editing, go for it. We'll see how that works out.

Hi! I didn't upload the file and I wasn't the person who introduced it to the page and I definitely don't have any power to block you. I also don't feel very strongly about which pic is used (though I do prefer the older one). BUT, when people disagree on these matters, you need to seek consensus on the talk page. And if the majority disagree with you, you should move on. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit removed? It is correct. It also satisfies the noteworthiness tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolandthegang11 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably have a read of WP:CSC. Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not negate my entry. Please confirm which of the three types of lists you believe covers this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolandthegang11 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even a valid source that it exists, let alone evidence that the band or song should have it's own article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a professional release, from a professional artist, on a label. You can find the album on Discogs and on Spotify, and it is sold in stores. Please confirm what evidence I can provide to justify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolandthegang11 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it doesn't exist. There are many bands and songs out there that don't meet the notability criteria. Here is a good place to start: WP:NMUSIC. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The band satisfies multiple criteria on that list. Please confirm what evidence I can provide. Whether or not other bands and songs satisfy the notability criteria is neither here nor there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolandthegang11 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then write the article and its notability will be judged. I'm curious to see what criteria you can meet. Good luck! Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For clarification, is it the case that the only way to have my entry on the "Songs About Sydney" page approved is to first have a separate article approved on the artist of the song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolandthegang11 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or the song itself. In rarer cases the writer or the album. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you reverted the cover song entry that I added in today for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars_(song)#Covers. Your undo commit doesn't have any notes explaining why. If I didn't format something properly, I'd like to learn from my mistake. Also if something was incorrect, why not just correct it? I made sure that the Youtube video citation followed the rules, well to the best I could understand them. It was a video directly posted by the singer's account and it was their official release of the cover. Also if it would follow the citation rules better, the cover was officially released on an album called Girls, Volume 3 (music from the HBO Original Series), song #9. Amazon.com - Girls, Vol. 3 (Music From The HBO Original Series).

Further, this artist Aurora has 3 full albums on Spotify, is credited on the soundtrack for Frozen 2, has a song with 178million views on Spotify, has had multiple songs on Norway's national music chart. Also has an approved wiki page as a singer, which I linked right at the beginning of the entry. That appears to meet many criteria for notable musicians. So I hope that is not the justification. As far as the individual recording, it's on Spotify, buyable through various major retail music sites, and definitely meets criteria #5, 'a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show'. It's on a released album for the HBO TV show Girls. The link I provided on Amazon above.

I think I understand now, that your edit linked to WP:SONGCOVER. So your claim is that it doesn't meet the criteria there. Sorry still learning the ins and outs. So let's look at the criteria there,

"the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right."

• An Entertatinment Weekly article which lists her cover as one of the 10 worth listening to - https://ew.com/article/2016/03/24/bowie-life-mars-covers/
• She was on Howard Stern, cred iffy :), and sung the cover - https://www.howardstern.com/show/2016/07/25/hear-aurora-cover-life-mars-and-tell-howard-about-her-dead-moth-collection/
• Billboard.com listed it on their best covers of David Bowie article, though I guess they didn't link directly to her YT account because the video link is dead - https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7271880/david-bowie-life-on-mars-best-covers-chris-martin-lorde-video
• Same with this Gigwise Session, the video link is dead. Probably Billboard was linking to the performance she did for Gigwise Sessions - https://www.gigwise.com/features/105758/aurora-covers-david-bowie-life-on-mars-before-album-tour-john-lewis
• Inverse had an article on it - refering to its use in the TV show Girls - https://www.inverse.com/article/13124-both-girls-and-vinyl-closed-to-david-bowie-s-life-on-mars-last-night-for-some-reason

If nothing else, I see no difference between the entry I proposed and the 2019 one from Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross which was exactly the same situation, a cover used on an HBO show, in that case Watchmen. Which just links to a pitchfork.com article. So would an acceptable revision of my post be to cite one or more of these sources above instead of the Youtube video directly?

Thanks for any info you can provide. Brandon J Williams (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are good sources. If they had been used as references, I wouldn't have removed. A youtube source is no good at all. It shows the song exists, but you need independent sources discussing the version to show notability. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited this and you reverted it... Why?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars_(song)#Covers . she did cover it.... forgive my noobness. how should i have done it? Or, better yet, there is reference to it on NRK of Aurora Aksnes covering it at Nidarosdomen mrinvader.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrinvader (talk • contribs) 23:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

In the aftermath, Kasso bragged about the murder to friends. Kasso claimed Satan manifested in the form of a black crow after killing Lauwers, and that the crow had cawed; something he interpreted as Satan's approval of the murder. Kasso even brought several disbelieving teens to view Lauwers' body before he and Troiano returned to the woods to bury the decomposing remains in a shallow grave. However, it wasn't until two weeks went by, on July 1, that the murder was reported to the police via an anonymous tip. On July 4, 1984, police used dogs to search Aztakea Woods and recovered the decomposing and mutilated body of Gary Lauwers. Kasso and Troiano were arrested the next day. On July 7, Kasso committed suicide by hanging himself in his jail cell.

Jimmy Troiano signed two confessions that he later recanted. Quinones gave witness account that Troiano helped Kasso during the murder, but later denied this during his testimony at Troiano's trial. Due to Quinones' drugged state at the time of the killing, his testimony was brought into question and Troiano was acquitted of second-degree murder in a trial by jury in April 1985.

All of that may be true BUT you're talking about Kasso and the sentence is about someone else entirely: Anthony Jacques Broussard. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, that achieves the fact that we have information in the article that is not sourced. If you'd care to look at all other cover version sections, you would see sources after statements. This said section is only sourced by chart numbers, so it is unclear where that sentence even came from. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be blunt, but if the ref doesn't support the preceding statement, it's meaningless. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That ref contains the release date, at the very least. The charts don't have it. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is my editing disruptive with Jesus He Knows Me is a rock song? I didn’t put any subgenre of Rock, I just put rock. With the amount of songs with genres, you should just add a genre that you hear. Rock. You call that disruptive and unsourced? Do I need a legitimate source that the song is rock? Maybe you should listen to the song yourself and talk to me when you know I’m right and YOU are wrong. Progggy (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genres must be sourced. You removed a warning that said, "Do NOT add genres without a source to support them.", and you've blocked before for adding unsourced genres, so I'm pretty sure you were aware you're doing the wrong thing. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is the genre unsourced when the song sounds like Rock? I think you should listen to the song instead of calling it unsourced, I guess the next thing is that I need a source that the song exists lmao. Progggy (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can add anything here. Yes, even if it sounds like "rock" to you, you still need a source. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user by the namd of AdengNRL who keeps adding rivalries to the Penrith Panthers page and Rivalries in the National Rugby League page which are not rivalries and just their own personal opinion. They also never use references. Whenever I remove the information, this user just re-posts it again. Is there anything I can do?, or do I just have to keep removing the information over and over again. I thought I would ask as you have been on Wikipedia a lot longer than me. Sully198787 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've done the right thing by starting a discussion on their talk page. If their behaviour doesn't change, warnings will escalate and they would face a possible ban. Hopefully it doesn't get to that. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed over the last two days they are still re-adding the content back after it has been removed. They are also doing it through IP Logins and not through the AdengNRL login to avoid being banned.Sully198787 (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed it is because the statement, as worded, implies that the school is racist because their student body is 5% while the local population is 28%. That's a conclusion not supported by the refs, which are bare stats. If there were a secondary source that supported claims of the school being racist and that was the reason for the disparity, then fine. Otherwise, it doesn't belong as it is a synthesis to draw an inferred conclusion not supported by the stats. We could just as well synthesize the conclusion that they aren't racist because their % of Asian students vs. the community is 5 times that of the community. But, that's not in the article, nor should it be. Neither should be the inferred conclusion they remain racist. It's not supported by any secondary refs. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think your belief that the article implies racism is synthesis. It certainly isn't stated. But I can totally understand why you're concerned about any inference of racism. Might I suggest you take it to the talk page? I only reverted because because I don't believe this is a case WP:SYN, not because I strongly believe the stats should be included. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the lack of traffic on the page, a talk page discussion is unlikely to produce much, if anything. I am going to re-remove the material, as WP:CHALLENGE policy states "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people[6] or existing groups". If you want to include it, find other sources that discuss the disparity in racial makeup of the school vs. the community. Please don't re-add it without doing so. Regardless, I'm considering putting the article for AfD given the apparent lack of notability of the school. I'm working through WP:BEFORE first of course. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, I've appreciated your efforts on school articles in many ways, but I'm not following you here. Is it the presence of the district statistics in close proximity to the school statistics that you find to be SYNTH? It seems to me that demographic statistics are very relevant and commonly reported at schools of all sorts. The statement you removed provided factual, reliably sourced information, the statistics are what they are - any conclusion is being drawn by the reader. I understand that people associated with the school would like to remove this information. Should we remove reliably sourced information becaue the article's subject finds them offensive? Thanks for your input! Jacona (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's ok to juxtapose these two disparate facts, why are other demographic comparisons not included? The comparison is the problem. The sources do not compare the two stats. They state them. We here at Wikipedia are comparing them, which generates the SYNTH problem. The sources are not comparing them. I'm not concerned about the school's desire for better marketing. I've been editing against that in reverting their apparent efforts and wiping out copyright violations of dumps of marketing material. I am concerned about the passage of WP:CHALLENGE that I quoted above. We do have an obligation, codified in policy, to avoid damaging the reputation of groups with poorly sourced information. Yes, the two stats themselves are appropriately sourced. The juxtaposition of the two in the same sentence is a comparison not supported by the stats. Regardless, as I noted above I'm thinking to AfD this article as the sources I am finding are not supporting notability; just the usual run of the mill local sports results sort of thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Then you have no objection to inclusion of demographics, nor the use of NCES? I think the material should be reinserted, but should include the full demographics, not just the black student %. As for AfD, this is a particularly poorly sourced article, but as the school's been there 50 years, it's probably not that the sources don't exist, just that they aren't easily searchable online.Jacona (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the comparison of those two stats in particular that is objectionable, most especially in the same sentence and even more so in a paragraph regarding its racist founding. The implication is blatantly clear, and goes against WP:CHALLENGE in that it directly harms a group. The second paragraph on the article now should probably be a section on the school's history. Demographics could be its own section, without doing comparisons and making implications not supported by references that make the same comparison. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the conversation here, this SHOULD be raised on the talk page. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello doc! As a fellow watcher of the above page, could I trouble you to cast an eye on this edit please. I'm unable to open the link. Cheers! Robvanvee 09:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and it's a proper reference. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just reverting my edits, you could site sources on the song pages for them being signature songs. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person adding the categories is responsible for doing the sourcing. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to do if you didn't revert everything. Ah well, I'm not going to debate over something as trivial as this. We both have more important things to do on here, after all. Best of luck with future edits you make on here, and apologies for adding the categories without sources. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doctorhawkes - sorry to see that you are also a long-suffering Cincinnati Bengals fan like me :-( - does anyone else remember Greg Cook?

I'm writing to ask why you reverted my edits identifying Cliff Richard and The Shadows as the original artist and Ian Samwell as the writer of the song "Dynamite" - the B-side of the 1959 No. 1 UK single "Travellin' Light"

While Brenda Lee did release a song called "Dynamite" in 1957 written by Mort Garson and Tom Glazer that gave her the nickname, "Little Miss Dynamite", it is not the song that Dave Edmunds covered

Thanks!

LutherMayhem (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick google to double check and the album credits indicate Garson/Glazer. See https://www.flickr.com/photos/rk-dd/6901608894/. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - so the album credits are wrong (not the first time that has ever happened) - if you look closely at the album credits picture you referenced, the credit is actually listed as "Mort/Carson/Glazer" - is it possible to put a note in the entry to indicate that the album credit is wrong?

If you look at the Wikipedia entry for Ian Samwell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Samwell), it mentions that he wrote "Dynamite" as well as some other songs for Cliff Richard (including "Move It", Cliff's first hit record)

A quick listen to the songs verifies that Dave Edmunds covered the Cliff Richard song and not the Brenda Lee song
Dave Edmunds version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAyc5vDWFHk
Cliff Richard and The Shadows version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndl9LFB99ys
Brenda Lee version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HXSeHs35Ro

You can also Google on the first line of the lyrics ("Send me love in a package labelled 'Dynamite'") sung by Dave Edmunds and the Cliff Richard song comes up on all of the lyric sites

Thanks!

19:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutherMayhem (talk • contribs)

Can't argue with that. Good work. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing Limp Bizkit's name in the Don't Change article. Please. Stop it. Thank you. Mr. Punk Pirate (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You need to read WP:SONGCOVER. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less what WP:SONGCOVER says. Just don't remove Limp Bizkit's name from that article. Bye. Mr. Punk Pirate (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You finally found some references. That wasn't so hard, was it? Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's because he's in the category Category:American contraltos, which is an all-female category otherwise and doesn't select out when I use PetScan to select my categories. It's an issue I've encountered with the article before; usually I'm sharp enough to remember to scrub it from my list, but apparently I've been off my game for the past few weeks. Thanks for spotting. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was worried I was oblivious to some gender issue. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - I'm the one who's being oblivious. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are such a masochist monster that I want you to die right now!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.133.120.86 (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the CD, and there is an insert booklet which contains the wording 'All songs written by Vic Chesnutt except "Stevie Smith" adapted from the Stevie Smith poem "Not Waving But Drowning"'. Surely that will be a good enough source. - Higherwiki (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. You'll see I already reverted myself. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to provide a reliable source with Cam Forrester's YouTube documentary on Maureen Tucker to back up my edits about her contributions to the banana album. Yes, she was credited with percussion on "The Velvet Underground and Nico", and sometimes, rock albums would credit drummers with playing percussion instead of the more accurate drums and percussion. 106.69.139.54 (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that and appreciate the effort. However, the band themselves choose what goes on the record sleeve and presumably know better than a later documentarian. That said, they're probably both right: The drum is a percussion instrument. If you really feel the record sleeve is incorrect, you could discuss on the talk page and see if you can get some consensus. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. It has to be noted that sometimes, liner notes can make mistakes, typos, misspellings or omissions, and although Moe Tucker was erroneously credited with playing the drums on "Loaded", she was actually not on the album at all because she was pregnant, and sometimes, but not always, documentarians, biographers and/or historians' research has proven subsequent recollections incorrect. Anyway, thanks once again for your help. 106.69.139.54 (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I noticed on several pages of various songs and albums on the site that don't have a genre section and instead replaced by an edit text saying that you should add sources to put in a genre. But sometimes it doesn't make any sense when like for example a rock song charted on the mainstream rock charts yet the infobox doesn't say a genre when it's clearly obvious what the style of music is. Also, when finding sources to a genre that I know about a song to, I've been having trouble trying to find a good source to finding citations for a song in a specific style. There are sites like Discogs and AllMusic, yet, sometimes the info is incomplete, while other places like RateYourMusic is a depreciated source. I do like to name a genre of music for a certain song that I like to the correct genre, but I need some help trying to find some recommended good sites to source a genre of music for a song or an album. 70Jack90 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't give you much help there. It can be very frustrating looking for sources. Sometimes they may not even exist. Still, they must be sourced to be added. What may seem obvious to you is contentious for others. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for reverting my removal of the "juggernaut power ballad" comment was that "it is sourced", as if everything that is ever printed is accurate. How does it fit the definition of a power ballad? The writer for the Guardian is reviewing a concert where it's normal for the instrumentation to be much more overpowering than the studio recording, so it hardly qualifies as an objective description of the single. Danaphile (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the article doesn't claim "True" is a power-ballad, just that that particular writer calls it a power ballad. Power ballad doesn't have it's own article, so the description is relatively brief, but still includes words like "typically" and "often". I guess that implies there are other, less-typical power ballads.

I don't feel strongly whether the song is a power ballad or not, but considering there is a source for the claim, I would expect a discussion on the talk page before deletion. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this reversion of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Don%27t_Like_Mondays&oldid=1100521970 -- FYI, Youtube just shows me "Video Unavailable" when I click that link. I gather you're actually able to view the music video? Perhaps this is a case of geofencing by the record company? Matt Gies (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can. Just tried with a VPN. Worked for Australia, UK, Brazil, but not US. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You may already know my history of editing rugby league articles and that is my main purpose. RE: Dylan Napa the "nickname" Hercules would have come from Nick Politis from Dylan's time at the Roosters (then onto the Bulldogs). His background through father is Cook Island/Maori/Tahitian (French Polynesian) the Pacific explains why he is currently at Catalans/Southern France. The middle name is John but that's up to you decipher the difference between a middle name and a NICKname.

Regarding the flagicons for teams I don't think they should be there unless.. it represents the nation they have most recently represented (Sitili Tupouniua - Tonga) otherwise they should just come under birthplace if known. Just my viewpoint. CPSgreengrass (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know one way or another, but we DO have a reliable source saying that is his name. Might be best to discuss on talk page. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You removed the popular culture section I added to The Wanderer (Dion song); however, I think it should stay. This song was prominently featured in the series Lost Girl, in which it was a significant plot point spanning 3 seasons and was the basis for a character within the show. Its presence in Fallout 4, alluded to in another section regarding legal action taken by the artist as a result, is also significant as it remained part of the published game despite the controversy. I understand that popular culture sections should be used sparingly and should not function as a list of places that a song can be found, however, these cases rise above that standard and reflect truly notable uses. (And if the concern was simply lack of citations, why remove the entire section instead of adding a "citation needed" tag?) Littlemisssunshine22 (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concern wasn't just the lack of sources, hence the removal. To show something is notable, you need a reliable third party discussing it.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria of "a reliable third party discussing it" still sounds like it's a sourcing issue. (If you see it differently, I'd like to know what you see the difference to be.) The "Citation Needed" tag page recommends that information only be removed if "the content is nonsense or is unlikely to be true," neither of which are the case.

Regardless, I won't change the page; my aim is to make articles accurate and readable, and a subjective assessment of information or reliability by either of us does nothing to further that goal. Littlemisssunshine22 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it (it seems to be a common view, though I'm sure some disagree) "citation needed" is great for something that could well be true, but doesn't have a source. With song covers or trivia, not only does it have to be true, but also have genuine discussion to show it is noteworthy. I must admit, I do try to avoid adding to the 469k articles with a CN tag. That said, I'll be looking for sources on this article when I have time. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit with no discussion? Did you read what I put on the talk page about it? I don't want an edit war situation. What do you think justifies having such a large section about a cover version of the song? That should be on the band's own page should it not?

Jackhammer111 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Notable covers stay in the article. See WP:COVERSONG. To you and I it may seem strange that this cover gets more page space, but it was a very successful recording. Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]