User talk:JWesterfield5
|
Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1963[edit]
The article Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1963 is based on the Hot 100 section of "Top Records of 1963" list that appeared in the December 28, 1963 issue of Billboard. The data used in compiling this list ended in November, as did all similar Billboard lists. As a result, songs like "Sugar Shack", which charted late in the year, did not rank as high as they would have if all of November and December had been included. I know that there are alot of sites out there that give different information, but this article is about the Year-End Hot 100 singles listed in December 28, 1963 issue of Billboard. That is the only list that is official.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Source[edit]
Then, what is this?
https://web.archive.org/web/20080124210145/http://www.billboard.com:80/bbcom/bio/index.jsp?pid=25757 JWesterfield5 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- What is that supposed to tell me? That link makes no reference to Billboard's Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1963. No one is disputing that Sugar Shack reached number 1 on the Hot 100.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC
Source[edit]
What this means is that there is no way Surfin' U.S.A. went to number one at the end of that year because of two reasons: one, the song went to number three that year on the Hot 100 chart, which there is no way a song like that could go to number one at the end of the year, even though there were three songs that never went to number one but managed to be the number one songs of the year. Second, there were other songs that charted at number one later in the year, and managed to make number one on their Year-End charts, such as Lulu's To Sir with Love, The Beatles' Hey Jude, The Archies' Sugar, Sugar, and Elton John's Candle in the Wind 1997. I looked at a ton of different sources, some involving Billboard, as this link takes you back to their website in 2008 and showed that they may have made a mistake on their behalf, proving that Sugar Shack was the number one song of 1963 and making the chart you found inaccurate and false.
Also, if you look at Billboard's past top 100 songs of all time lists, you can see that Sugar Shack is placed on many of those lists, and not Surfin' U.S.A., just to let you know. JWesterfield5 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Barry Kowal[edit]
Also, look at Barry Kowal’s chart website, as shown that the list was updated in December 1971 to prove they made the mistake.
http://hitsofalldecades.com/chart_hits/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1980&Itemid=49 JWesterfield5 (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- That link says that it was not published in the December 28, 1963 issue of Billboard, and nowhere in that link does it say that the list was officially updated or that Billboard ever admitted to making a mistake.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Source[edit]
I’m not debating or anything, but you and I know that Surfin’ U.S.A cannot be the number one song of 1963 as it went to number three. Can you please leave it as it is? JWesterfield5 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- True, "Surfin' U.S.A." only reached No. 3, but it did spend 25 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100, and peaked in May, so its entire chart run was included in the data Billboard used in compiling their list.[1] "Sugar Shack" did reach No. 1, but it only spent 15 weeks on the chart, and because it was late in the year not all of its run was included in the data Billboard used. Even the list you prefer ranks "Surfin' U.S.A." at No. 2. If Billboard had used data from the entire year "Sugar Shack" probably would have been number one, but the data they used ended at some point in November. The list that someone handed Barry Kowal may have been what the list would have looked like if the data from the entire calendar year had been included, but that differs from how Billboard officially compiled these lists. It was never officially published by Billboard, and therefore is not the official list. Even if some Billboard employee did hand Barry Kowal this list, that does not make it official. Billboard never issued a correction that said that the list they published in 1963 was wrong.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Source[edit]
Then I don’t understand why Billboard would update their lists like that, like the one I found from their website in 2008. JWesterfield5 (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- The link that you posted from Billboard's website from 2008 did not have an updated list, it was a bio for Jimmy Gilmer, which did say "Sugar Shack" was "a monster number one single in late 1963", but it did not say it was the number one single for 1963. If Billboard had officially published an updated list in their magazine or on their website, I would have to reconsider my position.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Source[edit]
To be honest, I knew about this issue, as I have visited this website before many times. I’ve just been used to the other list posted before. I’m very sorry for being a little hard. It’s not you, it’s just getting my beliefs ahead of me. If you want to post the list you found from the website, go right ahead. I just want to put all of this behind and move on. JWesterfield5 (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Source[edit]
Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to post that. This is what I meant to post.
JWesterfield5 (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Since the list that placed "Sugar Shack" at number 1 was published by Billboard, you have convinced me that it should be included. However, unless I see evidence that Billboard officially retracted the first list they published, which listed "Surfin' U.S.A." as number 1, I don't think that list should be removed though.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Source[edit]
Hi, I know we went over this, but I was looking at some old Billboard chart books, by certified music historians, such as Joel Whitburn and Fred Bronson, and I looked at one of Bronson’s books, and he claims that Sugar Shack was the number one song of 1963. Now, I know that it doesn’t mention that Billboard didn’t make a mistake, but I looked over some of those books, and they claim that Sugar Shack went to number one at the end of that year and says nothing about Surfin’ U.S.A. being the number one song of 1963. Remember, these are certified music historians, and they may be correct.
Here is one of Bronson’s books I found on Google Books:
https://books.google.com/books?id=PgGqNrqfrsoC&lpg=PT122&pg=PT147#v=onepage&q&f=false JWesterfield5 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- With the entire year included, "Sugar Shack" was the number one single of the year. The two lists are not completely different. In the list with "Sugar Shack" at number 1, songs that charted late in the year are ranked higher, as they would be if the data from additional weeks from late in the year were added. Since the list that had "Sugar Shack" as number one was officially published by Billboard, I added the Billboard and Barry Kowal references to the Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1963 and left that list in. I also added the Billboard reference to "Sugar Shack"'s article. --Tdl1060 (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Source[edit]
It looks much better! Thanks! JWesterfield5 (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 20[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1975, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctor's Orders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been watching editors at that article going back and forth on the title of the Post Malone and Swae Lee song "Sunflower", adding and removing the parenthetical subtitle part. You have been part of this back and forth, removing the subtitle on two occasions, and I suggest you stop and take part in the discussion on the article's talk page. For the record, Billboard lists the song's subtitle on their Hot 100 chart, and while I can go either way on how its listed in the Wikipedia article, I don't want to see edit-warring at the article, which it has turned into already. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
- List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1972 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Looking Glass
- List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1984 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Madonna
- List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1985 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Madonna
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2004, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terror Squad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
 | 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 |
January 2020[edit]
Hello, I'm Magitroopa. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, It's Pony, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this show was made in the United Kingdom, but also has American voice actors and writers. I agree that it is a British show, but it can be American, too, so I don’t know why I need a reliable source for this, it’s really stupid. JWesterfield5 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, if it was just a British show, it would contain nothing but British writers, animators and voice actors, same with America. So, I believe it is a British-American show, which needs no source for this. JWesterfield5 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
February 2020[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at It's Pony, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
WHY DOES IT NEED A RELIABLE SOURCE???? JWesterfield5 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, I can do as I please as no one owns this page, especially you. JWesterfield5 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on It's Pony. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magitroopa (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I think what you are doing is really ridiculous. This show can be both British and American. Yes, it was made by a British animation studio, I will give you credit for that, but do I have to remind you that this show also features voice actors and writers who are also mostly AMERICAN, and that it was also co-produced by Nickelodeon Animation Studios in AMERICA? Think about that. You need to stop telling people like me to refer to the Wikipedia reference page like I am a complete moron. Not only that, but stop talking like you work for Wikipedia or better yet, Nickelodeon! I am sorry if I am coming off a little snobbish and mean, but you don’t own this page nor Wikipedia, and what you put down is wrong, so stop sounding like you own the page. No nationality of a show should require a reliable source. especially It’s Pony. JWesterfield5 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am not 'talking like I work for Wikipedia or Nickelodeon'. This is how Wikipedia runs- things need to be properly sourced. The show is produced by a British animation studio, and therefore, is a British show. PAW Patrol airs on Nickelodeon, and yet as shown on the page, it is not a Canadian-American show, just a Canadian show. As the note (that you continue to completely ignore) on It's Pony states, other nationalities must be sourced. Continuing to add the unsourced information is now disruptively editing and may result in being blocked. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I have been doing some thinking these last few days of what you said and I want to make something clear; I was not setting out to vandalize the It's Pony page. I was trying to make the page a little more and accurate and I agree with you, it is a British show, but what I don't get is that why I need proof that it has to be American when it is clear that this show featured a mix of British and American people who work on the show, such as Josh Zuckerman and Kal Penn. Not only that, but Nickelodeon co-produce the show, and if you look at the Nick animation Wikipedia page, which is probably not good enough, it should be done proof, right? Not only that, but take a look at The Amazing World of Gumball on Wikipedia. It is also credited as a British-American show that didn't have a message saying that it needed a reliable source for its nationality, showing that both England and America worked on that show, so why does It's Pony need that message, as both countries did work on that like they did with Gumball, unlike PAW Patrol and Peppa Pig, which it only featured their respective nationalities, which are Canada and the UK, respectively. It shouldn't be focused on just the animation, which was made in London, I can give you credit for that, but also look at the people who worked on it, as well. I am very sorry for editing the page the way I did and for upsetting you, I am trying to make Wikipedia better by fixing things that are inaccurate that some kid wrote who clearly has no knowledge of the content. If you don't want me to edit the page without proof anymore, I understand, but I just want to tell you how I feel, and I get it, you have your beliefs and I have mine and do I think what you put down is wrong, of course, but it's not worth fighting over something small like this show. I also do not want to be lectured on how to you use Wikipedia properly, like you did, as I have been editing on here for many years. I know this site from left to right. The main reason I am writing this to you is to not fight or criticize or be negative, but come to an understanding to things and not have you blocking me from editing on here. I don't want you to see me as a vandal, as I wanted to make it more accurate. To make things easy for both of us, I will leave you and It's Pony alone and if I find a reliable source for its nationality, I will put it on Wikipedia to ease tension that has been going on towards both of us.
Again, I apologize for my actions and I hope there are no hard feelings. Thanks.I
P.S. If there are any typos, sorry about that as I wrote this message on my tablet. :P JWesterfield5 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, the kid part, I wasn't referring to you, I know you are very smart and I wasn't insulting you any other way. JWesterfield5 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
| 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 |
Disambiguation link notification for June 17[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Billboard Global 200 number ones of 2022, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anitta.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]
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) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)