User talk:Chasewc91

This user has opted out of talkbacks

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Chasewc91}}), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.

This is Chasewc91's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Please don't refactor talk pages, as you did here. It causes problems with the archiving bot (although that talk page doesn't have one yet) by preventing stale discussions from getting archived at the right time. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, there's no archiving bot and the discussion is not stale, so your points are moot. Refactoring talk pages for organization, etc. is allowed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page you point to is not a policy or guideline, but just an essay. You should really seek a consensus for moving the comments and sections of other people around. And a bot will soon be added to that talk page because it is getting long. Finally, it's your talk page, but archiving this discussion before I'd had a chance to respond was a pretty rude slap in the face. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: I archived at six months without thinking about this discussion; quit taking it so personally. And I moved the comments because the talk page was a mess with so many separate sections for the same issue within days of each other. There was nothing wrong with my actions and as you put it to me the other day when I confronted you about soapbox discussions, "I really don't need a lecture." –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. Lecture over. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I reverted that whole section, which included your comments, simply because I don't recognize nor reply to uncivil comments like those left by that other editor. My revert had nothing to do with your comments. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chasewc91, my suggestion is that you do not engage him any further. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: Thanks for the tip. I'm not letting him get to me, I'm just replying where I feel a comment is needed. If he wants to dig himself a deeper hole with uncivil replies, that's his prerogative. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't respond to him anymore, period. At least until the 3RR is over. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure how to handle this, so I followed the example at Peter Gabriel and added a hatnote to Keith Urban to the dab page that I created. Someone else changed the hatnote in the meantime, and if that's the better way to handle this type of situation, I have no objection to the deletion. -Dewelar (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dewelar: The Gabriel example is a little different since he has four self-titled albums and there's another topic. Generally, hatnotes should not have more than 3 links and should not extend for longer than about a line and a half. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(originally posted to Rms125a@hotmail.com's talk page here) Hi Rms125a@hotmail.com. I apologize for my accidental revert of your edit here while looking at your edit summary. But I would like to ask you not to "SHOUT" by leaving all-caps edit summaries and talk page messages as you did there and here. This can be seen by others as disruptive and uncivil. Thanks. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I hardly ever do shout, especially on an edit summary, where people can conclude, understandably, that the shouter is not the reliable party. I would have concluded the same. Thanks for re-reviewing. I guess I felt too strongly. Quis separabit? 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there i see you're editing discography-related article so that's why i'm writing to u. Someone reverted my edit on Azealia Banks discography for no reason like wtf. Please tell that person that if a remix version of single is aviable on iTunes it means those are just promo singles and should be under the section promotional singles. Many featured discographies like this or this work the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.141.152 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 July 2015

@46.130.141.152: This is an issue that should be discussed on the article's talk page. I don't know enough about Banks to comment. Please discuss with the editor(s) you are having the dispute with. Thanks. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your response, but I'm confused. The last picture I put on was taken directly from the article, which had been preciously approved. Why can it not be used in the info box? It represents Caitlyn today, rather than the old Bruce Jenner picture. Please explain. Thanks.--Mimi C. (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mimi C.: The image of Jenner in Vanity Fair is non-free. Note that Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia" and we must have valid rationale for using non-free content. The fair-use rationale on the Vanity Fair image says that it can be used as a historically significant image in juxtaposition with text that is relevant to it (the gender transition section in Jenner's article). To illustrate the subject in the infobox, free images of Jenner exist so we need to use those. Many editors have pointed out the concern that the current image is outdated, but we cannot change it until a new free image of her becomes available. Feel free to look at the non-free content criteria for further explanation. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Got it! --Mimi C. (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused why the images I uploaded are not accepted. I got them through Creative Commons with the correct Attribution that states:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format & Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Please explain. Thanks.--Mimi C. (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mimi C.: I've just left some comments on the Jenner article's talk page. Please continue the discussion there, thanks. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with this edit except: that's a free image; why make it so tiny? The entire purpose of an infobox image is to identify the article subject; since we're using a free image, and Houston is predominant anyway, BKB in sunglasses shrunk down fails IMO to identify her as preferred. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ATinySliver: I have no preference; I just didn't see the need to make the image larger. If you restore the 300px size I won't object. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you. Meantime, per a previous discussion at the article's talk, I think "first cousin once removed" and the like is overkill for an infobox. How about simply "cousin"? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ATinySliver: I agree, but I didn't want to remove those individuals without consensus. Simply "Cousin" isn't completely accurate due to the varying relationships. Personally, I would remove all but her grandmother and uncle as the relationships are too distant to warrant mention in the infobox. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with that, but I'd have to read the article talk again to see if there was ever anything resembling a consensus on the issue. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 04:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I believe that's what my edit falls under. "Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content." You already made an edit summary on the Title EP page about how that user's edit didn't use correct English, so I didn't see why I had to do it too. Also, I, and several other editors, know you've been stalking and harassing people editing Trainor's pages, and people have already shown proof of this on other talk pages. For your own good, I would really suggest you cut it out before you're reported to the administrators. --Markhoris (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Markhoris: A lot of your recent edits are marked as "minor" when they don't qualify. A lot of reversions, actually, that aren't of vandalism or test edits. I didn't leave that notice because of one edit in particular. Please do not post on my talk page again with empty threats for simply leaving a notice on your talk page. And I don't stalk or harass anyone, so kindly buzz off with the personal attacks and name-calling. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about with this: You already made an edit summary on the Title EP page about how that user's edit didn't use correct English, so I didn't see why I had to do it too. Unless I've looked over something, I don't have any recent edits to that article that are marked as minor, when improperly marking minor edits is what I cautioned you against doing. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently started a move request. --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know why did you redirect the article for the song 'Bombastic' but I got it back bc I don't think it deserved a redirect User:Sabinbik22 - talk 19:21, 6 August 2015‎

@Sabinbik22: We have guidelines on which songs can and can't have articles on this encyclopedia. See WP:NSONG: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Only one source that is even somewhat reliable (Idolator) has discussed the song, and it does not meet the quoted criteria as it is a self-promoting interview with the artist. As you reverted with no reason given and this song clearly does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, I will be returning the article to a redirect. Please do not restore the article again without leaving an explanatory edit summary on why this song should have an article.

Also, when writing on a talk page, please leave new comments at the bottom of the page and use four tildes (~~~~) so that the date is included along with your username. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what prompted this, but do know you'll be missed if you retire and your work will not be forgotten. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SNUGGUMS. I appreciate the kind words. It's not something I'm seriously considering at this point (I don't plan to suddenly quit within the next few months), but it could get there soon. Disagreements and such are bound to happen on a collaborative web project, but sometimes they get too heated for my taste and it's somewhat discouraging. And with my final year of college approaching, I don't know what my schedule could look like in a year's time. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just thought I'd let you know. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before reverting changes please discuss. The article on Beyonce describes her as a dancer and in the dancer template there is a height entry. Thus I think it is a relevant piece of information for the article. If the source (Google search DB) is not authoritative enough you can tag the information as not reliable but there is no need to remove it. ziMBRicchio 10:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zimbricchio: First of all, please leave new messages at the bottom of a talk page. Secondly, I reverted your edit as I felt the height parameter is unneeded. It makes the infobox unnecessarily longer and Beyoncé's height is not relevant to any aspect of her career. She's not a model. She's not an athlete. You made a bold edit, I didn't feel it was necessary, now the onus is on you to discuss this at the talk page if you think it should be added back (see WP:BRD). Chase (talk | contributions) 13:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion exists because we don't all have the same opinion, so you're kindly requested to make use of it. I mentioned in the edit summary and in the message to you that she is a dancer and in the dancer's infobox you also find the height. It's a small change and not a bold one and it adds information, I don't think I need to have any approval. ziMBRicchio 15:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zimbricchio: My opinion isn't going to change. You don't need approval for anything, but I reverted the info as I didn't find it necessary and I'm assuming you're not going to edit-war over this. Which is why I suggested you bring this to the talk page so other editors can weigh in. I'm done here. Please direct further comments to Talk:Beyoncé. Thank you. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chase. This thoroughly concerns me about the notability of this article. I'm no expert at BLP and article deletion policies, hence why I'm bringing it to your attention. I know it's an awful forum and all but what's been said there made me hesitant to bring this up on the article's talk page. CoolMarc 21:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coolmarc I'm not really sure how to handle this, especially with the failed AFD. Maybe you should leave a note at the talk page. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is run and blanked by her PR team I've noticed... CoolMarc 22:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolmarc: Then revert them. That's not allowed. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you left a talk page caution.[1] The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Please feel free to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget Forever. Regards. Abi-Maria (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chris Brown (entertainer). Since you had some involvement with the Chris Brown (entertainer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈^discuss 14:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chris Brown (musician). Since you had some involvement with the Chris Brown (musician) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈^discuss 14:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Smells Like Teen Spirit", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this was more than half a year ago, but I have to disagree with your RM closure. Firstly, with 3 supports and 4 opposes, there is no clear consensus in this discussion "that making the article title more ambiguous is not helpful to the reader", and certainly no consensus to close this as "not moved". Secondly, the opposes by In ictu oculi and 67.70.32.190 failed to address the nominator's rationale, and the oppose by Richhoncho ignored the WP:PRECISION guideline. Thirdly, you performed a supervote in the discussion closure, as shown in your closing rationale. Lastly, this discussion did not result in a clear-cut outcome, and is too controversial to be closed by a non-admin. Please revert your discussion closure, and allow the discussion to be closed by an administrator, or I am going to take this to WP:MRV. Thanks. sst✈ 06:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SSTflyer: I saw a slight majority of arguments that cited policy and a few arguments that did not. Consensus is based on policy, not head counts, and I did not perform a supervote. The discussion is stale and you're better off starting a new RM. I stand by my closure. Cheers. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Black Magic (Little Mix song). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. sst✈ 10:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 22:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not retire! MaranoFan (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there consensus for a blatant violation of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines? This is now officiallyt disputed, and must be discussed on the talk page. I continue to hold my belief that use of the image in this matter violates multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

It is not being used minimally, as required by NFCC. The small, specific image violates NFCC 8 because it does not improve reader's understanding of the subject more than the album cover also containing the copyrighted work in question does (which improves understanding by identifying the album via its cover, and displaying the copyrighted work "Love Symbol #2"), and is being used twice. Manual of Style for trademarks also states that "Product logos and corporate logos [..] whether copyrighted or not, may be used once in the infobox or corner of articles about the related product, service, company, or entity." This image is effectively a trademark, thus displaying the image in the lead like that is inconsistent with this guidance. Plus, you previously mentioned that, besides the copyrighted symbol, "Love Symbol Album" has been used as the de facto official title of the album. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: Where is there consensus for a blatant violation of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines? At this FFD from November. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One user in this FFD personally admits that there is no case law on applying Wikipedia NFCC policy to this particular case. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was: keep as is. Start a new discussion if you want to see a change. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an Eye on Adele's Award Page ... is the Lead ok now?

Pauseypaul (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pauseypaul: Looks good! Chase (talk | contributions) 15:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me what the "Deletion review" process entails? I see you renominated them, but I don't understand what the process accomplishes. Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV Chase (talk | contributions) 00:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So "endorse" means that they agree with the user who closed the decision, and in this case, they agree that "Truth" should be redirected, while "Asking 4 It" and "Rare" remain articles? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's in regards to whether or not the closure was appropriate, not an opportunity to !vote again. Please read the DRV page. Thank you. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These edits lost me. With a few exceptions (that we're getting around to), the majority of the article is well-referenced with the exception of 2014: The Voice. Why the general tag rather than the more specific one? 🖖ATS / Talk 23:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ATS: The discography also needs additional sources. I added a section tag there before seeing the one on the section about The Voice Chase (talk | contributions) 23:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Cheers! 🖖ATS / Talk 23:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. You are invited to participate in the move discussion on Talk:Kylie, because you previously commented in a previous RM on the same subject. Thank you, Calidum ¤ 03:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made this edit to Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber and was trying to incorporate an acheivement section to Justin Bieber like this one at Lady Gaga. Can you help me with this or is what you wrote an appropriate section? Thanks. Chase (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I'm Gonna Lose You, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  — Calvin999 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed A-Yo to the second single on the Joanne page and was told the source I added wasn't credible. Some user is obsessively reverting my edits. So I guess it is reliable? --Jennica✿ ^Talk 18:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennica: Not sure what source you used. I used PlayIGA.com, Interscope's official radio promotion site, which lists it as her new single. Chase (talk | contributions) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the one I used and it was touted as unreliable by IndianBio. --Jennica✿ ^Talk 22:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit here, what exactly is the difference between a producer/primary producer and a co-producer? Last I checked, a co-producer is somebody who produces something along with one or more other people. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: – to get the exact definition you'd have to ask the people who were in the studio, but the booklet makes the distinction. Typically "co-producer" credit goes to those who had less involvement in the production than the primary producer(s). Chase (talk | contributions) 23:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exact wording from the booklet: "Produced by Mark Ronson, Lady Gaga, BloodPop® and co-produced by Josh Homme, Jeff Bhasker". Chase (talk | contributions) 23:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Interesting how they would single out certain people over others like that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's common with a lot of album credits (not just Gaga) and doesn't make sense to me. Especially when you see some people credited as "co-producers" and others credited for "additional production". But I do agree that co-producer seems to imply something that 2 or more people produced together, and I see how it can be confusing. But it's best to give the credits as specified by the artist/label. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notion doesn't make sense to me either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about why you removed the state name from Mount Kisco. I know it's unnecessary to add the state name, but Mount Kisco is not Manhattan and most readers of Wikipedia may find it helpful to know it is a small city in New York state. Thanks for your response. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: refer to WP:COMMADIS and WP:CONCISE. There's no need to disambiguate Mount Kisco, the title is shorter, and the fact that it's in New York is explained clearly in the article. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:USPLACE? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I guess. Why we have US cities set up to go against our primary disambiguation guidelines is beyond me. I truthfully don't have much opinion on the matter; if you want to file a technical request I won't object. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons for removing the state name also seem supported by policy. And while WP:USPLACE doesn't support removing the state name, MOS:CA does (see this discussion). I have seen this discussed a few places before regarding the removal of the state from places like Manhattan. I won't revert, and will invite you to a discussion if I start something about this someplace. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored Kevin De Clue. The prod rules suggests that if anyone objects to the deletion than it should not be deleted as a prod. While I suppose one might argue that "anybody" doesn't include the subject, it doesn't say that. I've restored it per a request received at OTRS. I will leave it up to you if it should go through the AfD process but I wanted you to be aware of the restoration.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe it's been 7 days since your proposed name change. I was wondering when it would carried out? Thanks! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chase, did you have any discussion with User:Homeostasis07 regarding the extra album cover in Rebel Heart about its notability? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Nobody informed me of any discussion regarding that article/file Chase (talk | contributions) 13:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so as well, the user is claiming the contrary. Take a look at User_talk:Aspects#Rebel_Heart_revision. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding The Needle Drop should be count as an reliable source or not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Might take a look later. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, only if you want to join in. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you removed Popcrush via WP:ALBUMAVOID? 183.171.181.37 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — TheMagnificentist 08:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a community discussion to decide if the recurring collaborators should stay. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu: You should start by finding a policy that supports including that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE discourages trivial information like this with no context. This isn't IMDb. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But does everybody agree with you when you say it is “trivial [...] with no context”? Foxnpichu (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context of it? If there's no context for it and it's just information for the sake of information, it's indiscriminate. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touche, I guess. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding the infobox should keep "playlist" instead of mixtape. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chase, Kevin DeClue Here. I was wondering why you took down the WIKI of me? Happy new Year K DeClue musicbydeclue@gmail.com 68.8.205.184 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chase, My name is Kevin DeClue and I am a multi platinum music producer. I have been #2 on the Billboard charts and have sold 6 million records. A very small percent of the worlds population has done this. You can see thatI co/wrote Mr James Dean as well as Last Song. Someone continues to say that I am not a valuable artist and voted my site down. They then put up a picture of me when I was young singing in a bar. Can you help in any way??

(talk page watcher)Kevin, it's likely the article on you was deleted for non-notability. WP:NOTABILITY is a Wikipedia standard based on policy and is strictly adhered to, especially in the case of WP:BLPs (biographies of living persons). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

115.164.182.252 (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chase, don't see you much around the Gaga articles nowadays? How's life? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: I've gotten a bit busy in my own life to be a regular anywhere here. I just browse around the site, cleaning up things I come across in articles I happen to be reading anyway. Life is good. How are you? Chase (talk | contributions) 15:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine. Had taken a sabbatical from work, but soon will become busy as well. Are you excited for whatever Gaga has to offer? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you have an issue with my edits feel free, and we can reach a consensus. Thanks. 183.171.123.78 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please split the article of double-A side single Scream/Childhood into two articles: Scream (Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson song) or Scream (Michael Jackson song)

Childhood (Michael Jackson song)

There is a clear consensus here and here on article's talk page.Thank you... -Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Akhiljaxxn:, I'm probably not going to have the time to do this. Feel free to take it up on your own. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, back in December, you edited Don't Smile At Me, but your edit was inaccurate. You said that the goal was to keep a chain that goes to other articles, but that is not right. The chronology needs to have every release from discography (in this case, if it’s an EP, album, compilation or live album), rather than just ones with articles. I did not undo your reverts, but MiaHarris74 did. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]