User talk:DragonFury

Hello, Max Borghetti is the author of the song because on Starlight, they take a sample interpolation from the song "Maniaca" by Abraham Mateo, where Borghetti is the composer of that song. If you look at other wiki sites, you are going to see his name listed and credited on this track. Also, we are talking with the record label to update the metadata of the song itself. 37.159.37.58 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Please link the other wiki sites you're referring to, because like I said on your talk page; I can't find any other sources. Also, if you're still talking with the record label, then I assume they have not yet confirmed the song credit, until that is resolved the credit should also not be added here. DragonFury (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Here are various links that conform the Max Borghetti credit:

https://dreamcatcher.fandom.com/wiki/Starlight

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse:_Save_Us

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse:_Save_Us

https://genius.com/Dreamcatcher-starlight-lyrics

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse:_Save_Us 37.159.37.58 (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Those are all wikis that can be edited by anonymous IP's or by anyone who is willing to make an account, they are not reliable sources for proper song credits. What's more; for four out five links, I can see the edit history. For the DC fandom wiki the edit was made today, and for the international Wikipedia articles the edits were made by anonymous IP's that either closely or exactly match yours. So not only are these not reliable sources, they are sources you altered to fit your narrative.

Meanwhile, I haven't exactly been sitting on my ass either. Turns out Abraham Mateo has a Wikipedia page that includes his discography. The song "Maniaca" was released in 2023, "Starlight" was released in 2022. Pray do tell how they interpolated a sample from a song that wouldn't be released by another year. DragonFury (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You raise a valid point about the credibility of wiki edits and the importance of verifying the information from reliable sources. However, it's crucial to consider the entire lifecycle of a song from composition, registration, to its release.

The song "Maniaca" by Abraham Mateo, while publicly released in 2023, was indeed recorded and registered in 2021. This timeline is significant because it establishes that the composition existed prior to the release of "Starlight" in 2022. In the music industry, it’s common for songs to be written and registered long before they are publicly released. This gap allows for production, marketing, and strategic release planning.

Moreover, it's worth noting that the perceived similarity between "Starlight" and "Maniaca" by fans, as mentioned, could indeed stem from an interpolation of a base melody that was registered and therefore existed before the creation of "Starlight". This scenario indicates that while "Maniaca" was released later, its foundational elements were already available and could have been accessed or inspired the later work, either consciously or unconsciously.

Therefore, the assertion that "Maniaca" influenced "Starlight" holds merit based on the registration and creation timeline, despite the release dates. This explanation aligns with common industry practices and the nature of musical composition and production timelines.

Link of the fan explanation: https://x.com/hey_leiko/status/1829758023281119654 37.159.37.58 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Fan explanations are not reliable sources. Someone going "hey, this song sounds like this other song I know of" is not enough to start editing Wikipedia articles. If Leez, Ollounder, or Dreamcatcher Company provide clarification and/or announce the credit should be included we can add it here as well. Until then, this is a dispute between them and the claimant, Wikipedia should reflect the outcome of that dispute once it's resolved, but it should be pro-actively start including these credits. DragonFury (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but I must respectfully disagree. While fan interpretations alone should not be considered reliable sources, the situation we're discussing involves more than just fan speculation. In cases where there is a significant level of discussion and potential evidence, such as similar musical structures or widespread claims that gain attention, it’s important to document these disputes and discussions, even if they are unresolved.

Wikipedia's role is to provide a comprehensive and neutral perspective on topics, which includes acknowledging ongoing debates, especially when they are significant within the fanbase or media. By noting the existence of such claims, with appropriate caveats, we aren't asserting them as fact but rather reflecting that a discussion is happening. This is particularly relevant in the music industry, where credit disputes can have important implications.

However, I agree that we should exercise caution and not include definitive credits without official confirmation. What I propose is to mention that there is a dispute or claim regarding the credit, clearly indicating that it is unresolved and awaiting clarification from official sources like Leez, Ollounder, or Dreamcatcher Company. This approach maintains the neutrality and accuracy of the article while also acknowledging the ongoing conversation.

In conclusion, by documenting the dispute rather than ignoring it, we provide a more complete and balanced view of the situation, which is in line with Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and neutrality. 37.159.37.58 (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

While it is Wikipedia's goal to be comprehensive and neutral, it still requires additions to be properly sourced and referenced. Including a comment regarding a dispute about crediting can be done, but so far I've not seen any reliable source that says there even is a dispute. A Twitter account and an anonymous IP on Wikipedia are not enough basis to include such claims in the article. DragonFury (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

PS. please continue the discussion on the article's Talk Page so other Wikipedia editors might add their thoughts and opinions. In future I will only respond there, and not on my personal talk page here. DragonFury (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Howdy. Regarding your revert here do you have a reliable source for her birthdate? I had posted on the talk page for her article asking if anyone had a reliable source but unfortunately nobody responded. Rockfang (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The Babymetal Twitter usually posts a happy birthday tweet every year on December 20. I think there's also plenty of sources from when she was still in ASH or Sakura Gakuin that have her birthday listed. DragonFury (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

While editing Republic of China Air Force I accidentally reverted your edit. I edited back. Cheers.- BC  _{talk to me} 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article. E.G. https://ponycanyon.us/musicnews/band-maid-guitarist-kanami-makes-history-announcing-the-release-of-the-first-ever-prs-signature-model-guitar-by-a-japanese-artist/ Is this a credible source in your opinion? Weltenburg (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Pony Canyon is Band-Maid's record label, so that would not be a reliable source.DragonFury (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There are no multiple sources confirming that her death was by hanging instead there are multiple sources claiming that her death was by suicide with absolutely no mention as to how she killed herself2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a reliable source referenced, and there's also a LONG discussion in the Talk Page archives about the whole situation. You want to discuss it further/again, do it there.DragonFury (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

send a redirect link about the "long discussion" you are referring to 2601:441:8400:9760:CF14:17F2:ACC0:153B (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Literally a single click deep in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sulli/Archive_1#Edits_about_cause_of_death_as_hanging_have_no_credible_sources DragonFury (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at NFL International Series shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that multiple other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Frank Anchor 13:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, the good old "we added incorrect information and when someone removes it, we'll add it back until in we can smack them with an edit war warning." method. "Use the talk page", you mean the very same talk page I specifically referred to? The one where we had established a consensus on what team names to include? DragonFury (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

That is correct. However you are referring to consensus that was added two years ago which went out the window when a note was added to the table specifically referencing a game in which a team known as the “Commanders” will be playing. Frank Anchor 13:38, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

First of all, 2022 was three years ago. And the consensus is still relevant and applicable because there are still teams that haven't played internationally. The Las Vegas Raiders are one of them; they're listed simply as the Oakland Raiders, as per the relevant consensus. The Washington Commanders also have not yet played internationally and thus shouldn't be listed under "results" because that team doesn't have a result to list. And yes, I'm well aware this/my entire argument will be moot four days from now. DragonFury (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

As the Raiders do not have a scheduled international game this season, there is no note on the table saying this team will play in 2025, thus not making that a valid comparison. With the note saying the Commanders will be playing in 2025, this team name must be included, otherwise a reader may think a team known as the "Redskins" will be playing this week, which is incorrect. Frank Anchor 14:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a simple consensus; the team names included in the records list include the teams who have played in the series; past tense. The added note covers teams that will play in the series; future tense. The Commanders fall into the last category. If the note causes confusion of the sort you imply; why include it at all? Why not just rely on the listed games to show the Commanders will play in the series? DragonFury (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Rather than continue this edit war in which multiple editors are on both “sides” of the issue, I have added a note clarifying Washington and Las Vegas have only played under a previous nickname. Obviously this will be moot for Washington in four days, but this hopefully addresses any potential issues with LV until they play their next game. Frank Anchor 16:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are dismissing this video as source when the information is coming from the artist's own mouth. She clearly states she was born in Seoul and even says the neighborhood (Seodaemung-gu) then goes on saying she lived in Goyang when she was young. It didn't make it to korean media as the content in the video in question was aimed to chinese audience so there isn't a news outlet article link but aren't the words of the own artist enough? Glasskwon (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. – sbaio 18:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

LOL mate, one revert does not an edit war make. We already had the upper/lower case discussion once; and at best, there was no consensus. As I stated back then; lower case was clearly less used, with less than a dozen or so pages using it (across 100+) so I simply went for consistency and used upper case across them. And as I also stated back then; Upper case is the clear standard across most articles. DragonFury (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)