User talk:JohnFromPinckney/Archives/2011

Aye-yay-yay-yay!

Please shoot me! I can't believe some people won't drop the stick. There is now a silly stupid debate on-going at Talk:What's My Name? (Rihanna song) about genres. The user who's come across from an RfC (requested by an IP) has been reverting edits and claiming the highground based on a his own claim that he has "enough musical knowledge about ska and reggae to reasonably conclude that it fits neither category". :( Seriously, apparently Billboard and AOL radio describing the song as reggae and ska suddenly aren't good enough. Please can you weigh in on the situation? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

AlleeXaSRB

Hello. Thanks for reporting AlleeXaSRB (talk · contribs) to WP:AIV. After taking a look at this user's contributions, I fear this is way too complicated for AIV. As such, I am going to suggest you take it to WP:AN/I where the situation can get more in-depth attention. When reporting it to AN/I, please include diffs showing examples of the editor's disruptive editing. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese music certifications

Is it true that IFPI does not have any listings for Vietnam ? MrFawwaz (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rihanna disco

Ah, alright. I didn't quite get what you meant, because I was sure that I was moving everything properly. ℥^nding·start 11:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

List of number-one hits of 2011 (Switzerland)

You really think that "This song was number one on the week of X" is a copyright violation? The lists of number-one hits are no more a copyvio than your average "Chart performance" section in a song article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When we copy a page of number-one hits and make a WP article of number-one hits out of it, yeah. The chart performance sections (as I mentioned in my deletion nom, which you apparently didn't read) actually add something, and we can fairly use one item out of a weekly chart listing (or several listings). It's the wholesale duplication that bugs me. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Postdlf has made a convincing argument that this isn't a copyvio... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Coderebavids

Can you please keep an eye on this editor? They keep re-adding sources from vintagevinylnews.com, a personal blog, to cite the Canadian Country Albums chart (which is listed at WP:BADCHARTS) on the articles Keep On Loving You (album) and All the Women I Am. I've tried explaining that the site is not reliable, and they keep re-adding it with incivil edit summaries. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hill Street Blues-"Notability" of cast list

Hi, you took part in a short discussion about the cast list for HSB today . I have begun a thread on an edit conflict about including a 10 person list of stars who had early one off roles on HSB. Thought you might like to participate.It is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard [actual link added by JohnFromPinckney for later reference.]

backround page talk page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues

Hope to hear your views even if they more closely match my opponent's ! --Tumadoireacht (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. Next time you start a discussion involving me, please try to mention it to me less than 10 hours after the fact. I see that it took you some time to notify me, even after you were advised to do so. It appears that you were too busy arguing with other editors to think to include me.

As to "my views", my view is that you will have trouble being successful on Wikipedia if you think of your fellow editors as your opponents. The insults, disparaging remarks, name-calling, etc., won't help, either. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

most editors are fine-HSB seems to have attracted a nest of non-inclusionists. Someone who opposes you is an opponent. Someone who opposes for bizarre and unlikely reasons is in need of a little exposure to the light of day. I will try in future to speed up my notifications to faster than within the day -maybe I could even get them to match the 3 minute unnannounced revert speed of good faith edits of your fellow traveller. I reserve the right to criticize petty personal obstructionism and cabals wherever I see or find them. Are you being honest when you say you were unaware for 10 hours ? yours in wikijesus --Tumadoireacht (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please re-review

Hello JohnFromPinckney, You recently reviewed Melanie C discography. Some time has passed and the article has been updated. Could you please re-review the article. The review page is located here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Melanie C discography/archive2 Thanks! Tsange ^►talk 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

	The Liberty Walking Barnstar
	Awarded for excellence in the field of numismatics. The layout you suggested for shooting thaler will have a lasting impact on how data is displayed in numismatic articles. Thanks for the help!-RHM22 (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve Martin

Thanks for your addition to the Steve Martin article. It's good stuff. Best wishes Span (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

[1] Wow whats up with the mean edit summary all I did was add sources to help out a perivously not well sourced section and I get my head bit off. STATic message me! 07:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Static. I'm sorry you thought it was mean; that was absolutely not my intention. I only meant to communicate that we haven't yet found ref citations to support all of the release dates being claimed there. Happy editing (and good luck in your hunt for more informative sources). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hungary certifications

Hi John. As you know I am trying to make sense of the certification thresholds so I can make a reliable template (and I'm also correcting what I can in List of music recording certifications as I go). In this edit you added Note: Only as of 1 January 2010 to the Hungarian records. Do you happen to remember why? this source states a change in the domestic repertoire thresholds on 2009-10-01 and I believe there was never a change in international levels. Just to make it clear, if I can't find a reliable source, the template will return "0" (as it already does for Denmark before April 2009 which is the latest I have a source for). Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sacagawea dollar

Hi John. I hate to bother you again, but I was wondering if you could please give me a little assistance with something that I haven't been able to work out. I'm doing some work on an article that's currently in my userspace, here. Towards the bottom of the page, I have some images of the Sacagawea dollar reverses. Could you please tell me how to make the edge letting go in the middle underneath the other four images, or how to make all the images go in one box where I can label each one. I haven't been able to figure it out at all. Thanks for your time!-RHM22 (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again John. Nevermind that last request, because someone else already came through and figured it out. Thanks anyway!-RHM22 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISCOGSTYLE

Hey John, I don't know about you, but I was thinking its about time WP:DISCOGSTYLE lost the 'proposal' banner at the top. Its been a proposal for two long and people are beginning to use it to justify their style deviations with discographies. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The sincerest form of flattery

The Danes have adapted singlechart.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is John still from Pinckney?

Hi John, its been an incredibly long time since I last saw your name in an edit summary, and since I last spoke to you. Just wanted to see if your still editing? and how you are really. :) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Lil! Yes, it's been ages; I've been away due to a big change in my work life. Something had to go, and Wikipedia was at the top of the expendable list. I was spending way too much time here anyway, and getting too caught up and exasperated in the activities of other editors. Don't take offense; you're not one of them.

I miss the action here and I wonder what's been decided in certain areas of WP, as I haven't been following any discussions. Still, I think I need to stay (mostly) away for a while longer. My life is not yet properly balanced (and I've never been too well balanced myself). Hope you (and the other WP editors I enjoyed working with) are doing well. May peace, harmony and patience be yours. Happy editing! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk Page

To respond to your question about the lists, they are not used for discussion and I did not realize how long they were getting, so I deleted what I think is unnecessary (almost everything). However I do use the Top 40 so I can update it when I am using a computer that is not my own because it is only stored in my Word documents. I understand that there are other ways to do this such as using a flash drive, but I find this the easiest and I figured it will not bother anyone if I leave one list there. I have also removed links that involve voting for songs or things like that, so it will not seem like I am "promoting myself" MuSiClOvEr (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bolding

Thank you John for the feedback! I now know when to properly use bolding and I will no longer make some of the mistakes that I previously did. Hosobel (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Discography

I'd like to know if you still can see any problem about the refs or the tables now.Rodrigo18 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Only Girl

I didn't have a problem with the caption change, it was the one before that I wanted to restore, thus subsequent edits were also reverted in the process. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool; that's what I was hoping when I partially reverted your double-revert. I can flex. Take care, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving "Cheers" BB page

Could you archive it please? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No need, is there? Having reached 8, it should still show up on Billboard's pages for "Cheers" (while it's still charting, at least) and/or Rihanna's singles (beginning next week) or (failing those) at Allmusic. And if it moves further up, we'd need to re-do the archive. Doesn't seem necessary here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

JLO discography

Just thought it would easier to comment here as I'm currently working on the refs, and you'd get the nice little orange notification. Is this what you mean? — Status {^talk_contribs  02:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright. :) Sorry I'm such a bother with this, and thanks for going into more detail. I'm not the best with refs. Tomica was the one who dealt with the refs in the first place, while I did everything else on the article. Checking all the titles and works out now. It may take me a bit, since I have school, but in the next 40 mins (that I'll be online) I'll go through as much as I can. :) Really improving my ref skills with this article. I literally sucked at it before this. I just couldn't grasp it AT ALL. — Status {^talk_contribs  02:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Does this work need to be changed to charts.de? — Status {^talk_contribs  02:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes. The domain is charts.de (which is already the clincher for me), and there's a great big "charts.de" near the top of the page, so there doesn't appear to be some other, friendlier name for the resource/site. The "media control" at the upper right (with logo) looks like the publisher, confirmed when I scroll to the bottom of the page and see "© 2011 media control" down there.

That leaves us needing a title. The web page uses "charts.de" as its <title>, which makes it the same as the work, but there's not much we can do about that. There's that word "Suche" (German for "Search") also near the top, but (a) that doesn't narrow things down for Web searchers very much, and (b) it is not marked up as an <h1> or <h2> element in the HTML of the page (sorry if that's too technical, but I happen to have experience with HTML mark-up). So I'm not inclined to call "Suche" the title, and the <title> (seen in the browser's window frame) is "charts.de". That's what I'd use for the title parameter then. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have experience in HTML as well, so I get what you're talking about. :) Yeah, charts.de seems fine for the title. What the publisher and work of this be? I'm thinking "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" for the publisher, and ifpi.se for the work? But I'm not sure if this website is official or not. — Status {^talk_contribs  02:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at The Marshall Mathers LP for an example of how I've done this in the past. It seems I didn't provide both a work and a publisher. Ultimately it's just a PDF file we got from here, so it's hard to specify a "work" beyond that terse little title (ÅR 2003) it's got. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rihanna

Hi there, Thank you for your comments, it's nice to get one which is constructive. I have added some notes to my page regarding the date format. Darkieboy236 (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey [reverting ref archives on Rehab (Rihanna song)]

Hey Pinckney man. Why do you reverted some of the archive. I have done them per this.— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with you man? I have done per this comment: All you need to do in the citations is add |archiveurl= |archivedate= to the templates if you use them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC) — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As I thought I'd indicated in my edit summaries, because they're not really archives. Where Melicans wrote, "All you need to do in the citations is add |archiveurl= |archivedate= to the templates if you use them," it came across as oversimplified. That's not all you have to do. You also (first) have to take the URL to be archived over to WebCite, as Melicans pointed to in the previous sentence on the FLC page. Then, the URLs you get back from WebCite can go in the archiveurl parameters. Hope this clears things up, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahaaaa ... Ok, it's clear now. I never worked with this before. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

JLO

He actually nominated it with barely doing any edits to it, and after I talked to him about it, I got myself added onto it, as I had been working on it for months on end. Seeing as how he hasn't touched it in almost a month, and I've been doing most of the work anyway, I removed his name. — Status {^talk_contribs 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

FLC of K-Ci & JoJo discography

Hello John,

I appreciate your comments and I just wanted to let you know that I have addressed all but two of them.
—Michael Jester (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

MusicNotes

MusicNotes (the website) is not considered a reliable source by the community. But just like IMDb, it can be used within Wikipedia. Now, the sheet they sell is what is considered a reliable source, because those sheets are provided from record labels. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez discography

Sony Music's page is not unreliable. Valid source. Please do not make changes.Alptns90(talk) 16:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus among knowledgable Wikipedia editors is to disregard sales claims by record labels, artists, and fansites. Sony, as I understand it, is one of the more notorious inflators of sales figures. (And anyway, why are you using an Austrian page?) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think should necessarily be a page from USA. I got the source as Sony Music's official website.Alptns90(talk) 16:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, doesn't have to be USian, but sources in English are preferred here, which is all I was getting at.

It's only a tiny side issue, though, as the figures (in whatever language) aren't from a reliable source. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sony is not reliable, please explain what the source is reliable source? Alptns90(talk) 08:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We usually accept Billboard as a source for sales, and any serious newspaper like the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal, although they write about pop stars' sales figures only infrequently. Some Web sites (like MTV's, and Yahoo! Chart Watch) are also accepted for sales, although some are pretty shaky, too. I look for a source with some history (not just popped up new this month), ideally with a reporter's name attached (Paul Grein is better than Cheezer888 or iLuvJLo) and some indication of the independence and reliability of the figures. If it's just someone regurgitating a Sony press release, it doesn't help us; if a professional journalist from the WSJ is willing to report the same things as are in the press release, then I'd assume the reporter checked it out and found it to be true.

I hope that helps. It's essentially still a case-by-case thing, but labels and artists are generally given a blanket dismissal (for sales and certs, that is; details about release dates and titles are cool), while big news organisations (Gannett, NBC, Reuters, AP, Fox, etc.) are generally automatically accepted. It's the sources in-between that make it difficult sometimes. I'm sorry I can't point to anything more definitive than Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Where I Got 7,000,000 copies from

Where did I get 7,000,000? 3:31: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw9vkW4YevM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you're writing about these edits to Lady Gaga discography and my message on your Talk page. I still stand by my comments there, and it doesn't address the fact that you changed sales numbers without adding appropriate references. I don't imagine Gaga's interview will yield usable figures (I'm not going to sit through the whole thing) anyway, as she's hardly a reliable source in reporting her own sales. And lastly, none of this has any visible connection to your edit summaries, which read, "Poker Face has sold 6.4 Million is[sic] the US, therefore it's 6x Platinum". That's not a true statement anyway, but it's totally unrelated to your change to 7,000,000. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Discography

Please don't remove the ITA singles section. It's more official than Austria was. You could be blocked from editing if you continue to remove things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, although you seem to be missing my point, and I guess I'm missing yours. I don't have a problem with replacing Austria with Italy on Lady Gaga discography, as Italy is a much more populous country, and also has reliable archives of music performance. However:

1. You didn't actually add references to those reliable archives, you merely changed the named ref "AUTCharts" to "ITACharts", which doesn't do anything useful.
2. Because you refer to non-existent references, there's a big, ugly, red note down in the references list. I wish you had noticed this, but it seems you didn't even check your work. Twice.
3. The charts should be in alphabetical order following the artist's home country, but you left Italy where Austria was, right between Australia and Canada. It doesn't belong there, and should have been moved.
4. For the Italian certifications, you added multiple instances of the full reference citations for some PDF file(s). I don't know if the same file actually supports all the claims you added, but you don't need to repeat the full citations, The thing to do is described in my edit summary, namely, to see WP:NAMEDREFS on how to re-use citations. You seem to have ignored my tip.
5. If you had done all of the above, I might have left it all, except I would necessarily have checked every last change of yours, because you have sort of a bad track record. But that's okay, because a change from Austria to Italy makes good sense and could be an improvement to the article. However doing so would take me time, and doing items 1 through 3 above for you too would take more time. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much time to invest.

It's easier to just revert your change to a broken page back to one which has no technical errors and on which the Austrian peaks have presumably been thoroughly checked. So that's what I did, and it's what I'll do again if you leave the page in such poor condition. I hope you now get my point.

Now, about your points: here on this page, you say "[Italy is] more official than Austria was". What in the world is that supposed to mean? "More official" how? And removing unsourced data does not usually lead automatically to a block, especially relative to adding unsourced data, as you repeatedly have (at this and other articles). So please consider how further disruptive edits such as yours might be blocked before you make them again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

10/16/11

Please stop removing the Italian charts from Lady Gaga's Discography. Instead of removing it, fix it make it better instead of just moving all my hard work!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to replace them. Could you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslover1213 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Jennifer Lopez discography/archive1

Are you going to follow up with anything? Do you think it would be alright if I asked a few people to take part in the discussion? Nobody is like commenting on it. Obviously I wouldn't ask my friends on here, I'd just go through some previous FLs and ask for comments? — Status {^talk_contribs 14:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were waiting for me. (I thought I was waiting for you...) I don't know about asking other editors to review stuff; it's a bit sticky. One or two of the directors will probably look it over, though (without you asking). I often see The Rambling Man come by after one or two other reviewers are satisfied, and throw in a few remarks and questions. Maybe when they see how much I put you through the wringer before finally supporting the nom, they'll pass it with just two or three of us.

Anyway, I'm looking at it again now. We're probably not too far from done. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I'm gonna ask the editiors who were involved with it before it was restarted to comment. Surely that's okay. I've also had school and other things, so it's not like I was waiting by the keyboard. xD — Status {^talk_contribs 10:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything has been resolved, as well. Unsure why you didn't cross ref 11 and 15 out, as they were fixed to the specifications. — Status {^talk_contribs 10:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mostly just to leave them readable, although I was afraid it might be confusing. Looking again later today. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping! :) — Status {^talk_contribs 21:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pong! I'm afraid you have forced me to support your FL nom for Jennifer Lopez discography through your unfair habit of working hard and responding quickly and seriously to my criticisms. Good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Birdman discography

Just a note on your edits: according to what User: Wikipedian Penguin told me, the publisher for Billboard pages can remain Nielsen if the page only refers to a single chart week before the ownership of Billboard changed (such as [this one]). This doesn't apply to many, but I have changed a few back. Your kudos is much appreciated, though - some aspects of the page took ages to sort out, especially combining the guest appearance and remix tables and reformatting them. Work still ongoing... I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did look at the dates and, I thought, made my decision appropriately. For me, if we go to the Billboard site today (or anytime after mid-October 2010) to verify a claim, then the publisher of the source we're using is Prometheus Global Media. Seeing all the refs you added with accessdate=October 16, 2011 made me feel confident about changing the publisher to the later name. (I don't know what to say about BB ref citations on WP from the December 2009 – October 2010 timespan, when the company was named e5 Global Media.) But it's all cool; I don't feel strongly enough about it to change it again, nor even to argue further about it. I just wanted to explain my reasoning. Again, cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I suppose, although obviously consistency is ideal, it depends on your personal choice which one you choose, as either seem to be fine. Remember, I'm only working on what I was told by someone else, as I wasn't sure either. Nice to see that someone else is bothering to edit Birdman discography. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Electoral Calculus

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Electoral Calculus#Italic title. Trevj (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-bro

Wow, you called me bro. Thank you wholeheartedly. That really touched my heart. So from today, you are also my elder Wiki-bro (I think you are older than me, right?). And thanks for your comprehension as well. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Loud

You've done something which has mucked up the release history table. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 00:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, friend, I haven't. I believe it was you. It was screwed up before I started working on it. Please read WP:AGF. I hope you can fix that table, by the way, because I don't know what dates are right. Try going through the Edit history. It was already leaking here. Now follow the edits to yours here. Happy editing. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Loud

1. Raining Men IS sourced, it is information displayed which shows every song, no matter where it charted in the UK top 200 singles, which comes from The Official Charts Company.
2. No other chart position in that table on Loud has a reference next to a chart position, why should Raining Men be any different?
3. I removed Sweden from the release history because it was a dead link.

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 12:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Calvin. You seem to be consistently misunderstanding some fundamental points. I hope I can explain:

1. "Raining Men" at 142 in the UK on Loud is not sourced, at least not as of 22:58, 20 October 2011. If you look at the article (at least in the 22:58 diff), you'll see that the UK column has one ref (#239). Ref 239 gives us two sources, and the second is for "What's My Name?" only. So we look at the first one, which is "Chart Stats – Rihanna". Chart Stats only covers 1 to 75 on the UK charts so I already know it won't show a 142, but we can look and see... that it doesn't. There's no interim inline ref next the 142 (even before I deleted it earlier), so the 142 for "Raining Men" is unsourced.
2. When discussing and making edits to Loud, it does not matter what's on some other article. The readers of Wikipedia aren't going to go look at every potentially related article to verify facts claimed on the page they were reading; they should be able to assess our sources from the page they're on.
3. When somebody adds a peak (or other claim) to an article, they have an obligation to add new references to sources supporting the claim, or to check that the existing refs on the page already do support it.
4. Now, even if I do decide to leave the Loud page and go look at the "Raining Men" page (which I did, by the way, several times, even before your edit summary which assumed I "couldn't be bothered"), then according to your repeated assertions in your edit summaries and again here above, I ought to expect to find a good reference for 142 in the UK, which I can then copy and reuse over at Loud. That was my plan, anyway, although I don't always (or even usually) do that. But at "Raining Men", there is no adequate reference. As of this diff, the only source for the 142 is a link to the Zobbel Home page. There should be a page which actually contains the actual claim I'm trying to verify, but that Home page does not contain the word "Raining" nor the number 142 (and doesn't seem to even have a search function). So I have no idea where to start looking, and I'm way over the limits of my interest by now, so I simply revert the 142 at Loud, pretend not to have seen the sourcing failure at "Raining Men", and hope that either the song zooms up above 75 to make it onto Chart Stats or somebody with more time and interest will fix the ref for the UK peak.
5. As far as I know, none of the other peaks shown in the Loud table are unverified by the refs provided at the tops of the columns, so they don't need the (ugly, temporary) inline refs next to the peaks in the cells. I just checked through the whole lower part of that table a couple of days ago and updated some peaks for "Cheers" so I hope the whole table's well-sourced.

I hope that clears things up for you. I hope you see why I revert things when they're not adequately sourced on the same page, and why I'll keep doing it with this one particular case. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried putting a note parameter in the reference on Raining Men explaining the search function, because the url stays the same on every page, I can't help that. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen Zobbel refs with a page of (say) C–Csz (1971 – 1990) or some such. I went right to the page from whatever article has the ref on it. Of course, even then you still have to search through the page to find the peak you're looking for, but at least it's on there somewhere.

Ah, okay, here: try looking at Eminem discography, Ref 139 for example. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've followed that format in the Raining Men ref. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cool. You'll want to use a title of your own, though; the teacher will get made if she notices you copied mine.   ;-)   Also, the date on the reference (not the accessdate, today, but the date) is supposed to be the publication date of the resource you're referencing. You have used 27.11.2010, which may be a chart date or chart release date, but surely isn't the zobbel page's publication date. You'll need to change (probably remove) that. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

CHanged, the title, but that was the chart date, not the websites publication.

Exactly; that's why it needs changing. The only correct date to use there would be 2011-05-07, from the "last updated" notice at the bottom of the Zobbel page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. It chart on the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart as well but I can't find a source for it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)