User talk:Javajourney

Hey there, you removed a edit of mine about Sleep Token and a nomination one of the members received for a song they were credited in performing for.

You stated in edit "Not only is this not their song, it also did not receive a nom." But yet the song in question did receive a nomination this year. https://www.grammy.com/news/2026-grammys-nominations-full-winners-nominees-list please see under "Best Rock Performance" that II was credited as he was the drummer for this song during the live performance at Ozzy's Farewell show.

Please note that in past years others who did live performances of others songs have also been nominated/or won this category (ex. Gojira's performance of Meá Culpa (which was their reimagined take on the original) which won the Best Metal Performance award last year. Wanderingmusic1295 (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. I think I must have been confusing "Best Rock Performance" with "Best Metal Performance", because I did not see that when I first looked at the ref. That's my mistake. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 21:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I had to revert over 30 edits by 64.121.29.89 and I must've been looking at the wrong version of the Sleep Token page. Thanks for catching my slip up. Xanarki (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Javajourney, I want to let you know that I reverted your edits to Solomon Ray. It seems from a careful examination of the sources, the person behind Solomon Ray the AI artist is actually Topher (rapper) AKA Christopher Townsend, not the person linked here. (source) I also left a note on the article talk page as well. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

My bad. I seem to have gotten the two confused. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 01:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It's alright. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edit on Dave's discography. Adding UK R&B singles is fine unless there's an actual country chart. The Billboard Hot 100 chart is the biggest in the world and should be added instead of the UK R&B singles chart. Your continuous revision is not necessary.user:BigWikiDawg

@BigWikiDawg, Dave hasn't entered the Hot 100. The chart was added yesterday by BottleOfChocolateMilk in this revision, and that time I replaced the Hot 100 with the Bubbling Under Hot 100 (which he has entered) and removed UK R&B in attempt to cap at 10 in this revision and this revision, respectively. It was subsequently removed by Joeee777 in this revision.

I don't directly oppose having US charts listed on the discography—in fact, I support it. However, I didn't pursue the chart being kept there because I didn't want to get involved in an edit war. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 03:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, "tech industry" is not synonymous with "Silicon valley", but "San Francisco's tech industry" is. I will say that the article does not mention "Silicon Valley" by name, but the valley's definitely what it's talking about: "The tech industry is the only Bay Area subculture to have never produced any of its own music" "The software that makes the company possible pushes San Francisco — and the world — away from what it was. [...] It builds, while it gentrifies. The city might be back, but it’s nothing like it used to be." Just asking—not rhetorically/spitefully, but genuinely—do you think it should still remain unlinked? I'm not too sure on linking guidelines.

—Grungeosmunge (talk | contribs) 15:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe that it should remained unlinked. I mentioned the principle of least astonishment in my summary (and possibly MOS:SPECIFICLINK or MOS:LINKCLARITY would apply here). My reason being is that I don't think that "San Francisco's tech industry" is exclusive to Silicon Valley—it could refer to the tech industry in a much broader sense, rather than being particular and specific. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 17:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Javajourney! I am sorry that you were denied the autopatrolled right. You have support from two new page reviewers... and the lack of reason from @Arcticocean is odd (even though they aren't obliged to give a reason). Your article output is excellent, so keep that up! I would recommend reapplying in a couple of months. I can see on this occasion @Dclemens1971 requested on your behalf. I would be happy to request on your behalf in April or May, so long as your articles continue to be of high quality! All the best! 11WB (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about here? If I was talking about a damn access-date, I would have specified and said "update the access-dates". Those notes were not sourced. There were no citations for the Digital Song Sales chart nor the Alternative Digital Song Sales chart contained within them until you just added them with some edit summary that is pointlessly arguing with me about something that was not even the reason I removed them. "Direct links to the charts themselves"—in case you need to be reminded, the citations at the tops of the columns are for the Billboard Hot 100 and the Alternative Airplay chart, not the charts the notes apply to. You still seem mad about some stupid situation that happened on Cody Johnson discography like you're keeping score or track of disputes with me when I don't even remember that or care about your edits. Add citations in the notes next them, and avoid arguing with me in edit summaries because I probably won't see them. Skyversay (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned in this edit summary an apology about getting upset over a simple thing. Peaks have been restored and re-sourced. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 18:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Java, this is what they do. They literally fail to pay full attention to the evidence and edits in front of them, misinterpret, WP:BITE] you over it, create WP:WIKIDRAMA, and then suggest that drama is an example of your editing as opposed to them manufacturing it. That's what happened to me, anyway. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 19:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro, I responded to an instance of unsourced content removal in an immature way. I became upset in an area where I shouldn't have, and Skyversay got upset in turn, which is obviously a natural human reaction. Skyversay is not in the wrong here, I am. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 21:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Judging by the edit summary in the diff at least (I don't see any other examples here so I may be missing something), you honestly explained the edits to him with as much civility, clarity and advice as any user possibly could. Of course, citations within notes (to specific weeks or specific subpage links of the artist page for instance) are beneficial, but even then, the user should know that a Billboard artist page gives their history on all of the chart, Bubbling Under equivalents and component charts included, meaning the content within the notes is already cited in the headers. I don't know much about the discography page of this band, but given how Skyversay lectured me on how to edit and this and that, it really says a lot related to how he reacted here. I just need to call out what needed to be called out. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 15:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: What was that you were saying about "Wikidrama" above and editors manufacturing it? I haven't even replied here and you found a way to have another go at me over something you were not even involved in. I wrote on your talk page a handful of times, only did so again after Max24 invited me to, stopped when you said you told me not to (which I did not initially see because you removed the entire thread and I couldn't be bothered to go back and read it all), and you're acting like I was the ringleader of editors who made you feel unwelcome. By no means was I even the main editor who posted on your page or the one who seemed to have the most issues with your edits. I don't think about you or your edits, so stop manufacturing or prolonging the Wikidrama you claim to be against, leave me out of whatever crusade you're on and get over it. You can type another rant if you so please (it's not my talk page after all), but I will not be reading it nor replying any further. Javajourney, I think we both reacted poorly, and I hold nothing against you going forward. Thanks for your words. Skyversay (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I was blaming multiple users, not just you; I never accused you of being the primary "ringleader". I'm just sick of the WP:GASLIGHTing that I and other users have faced from plenty of other people, and wanted the wronged party to know that it was not their fault and that this happens way too often. I know you're not going to read this, which is fine, and I appreciate the self-reflection here, but I'm typing this here for other contributors reading this, specifically so volunteers who potentially desire to make a difference on the topic area know what they're getting into. These kinds of incidents happen with other users by other users, not just Skyversay, and if I'm not editing the music pages, the very least I can do is make it clear on discussions that they are not OK. HUMANXANTHRO (What you say about his company is what you say about society) 17:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

...for your recent deletion of the maliciously directed URL at the McMillan article page.

I will step back and let you edit for a while, to do whatever further corrections you wish.

I would note that the errant/malicious citation that you took the initiative to address makes a second appearance via <ref name=... markup, that still needs to be addressed. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-16359-60|&#126;2026-16359-60]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-16359-60|talk]]) 19:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :Fixed the second ref. —[[User:Javajourney|JavaJourney]] ([[User talk:Javajourney|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Javajourney|contribs]]) 19:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :I failed to address above the fact that we share some common convictions, generally, in this subject area, but that I will nevertheless come across very strict, with regard to editing in compliance of [[WP:VERIFY]] and [[WP:OR]]. :Deriving material from and citing ones personal webpage, press releases, other autobiographical sources—this is all third rate encyclopedic writing. :Per our policies and guidelines, independent sources are needed needed to support purported facts. That underpins my editing today. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-16359-60|&#126;2026-16359-60]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-16359-60|talk]]) 19:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC) == Break == Hello! About [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garcia_Live_Volume_22&diff=1343809088&oldid=1343647207 this] edit, why is a break HTML tag preferable to a break template? I'm not objecting, I'm just asking. <span style="font-family: cursive;">— Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I used it because it's more consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. The template is used when the tag is unsuitable, and in cases other than that, it's generally unnecessary. I don't think it makes much difference, though, so if you prefer one over the other, it performs just as well. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 16:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Now I'm a bit curious about this, so I've posted a question about it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Break markup. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you aware that having placeholder genres on song articles is a standard practice and has been for some time, as there are tons of articles that follow this practice to this very day? It is true that sourced genres are definitely preferred, but from my past experience, placeholder genres are typically preferred over no genres at all. The placeholder genre in question depends on what genre has been socially accepted by readers and contributors as the artist or group's overall genre.

For songs recorded by The Beatles, including solo efforts, the placeholder genre would be Rock. Since that is considered to be the group's music genre by default as shown by the article page's first sentence. For songs recorded by The Monkees, the placeholder genre would be Pop rock. Since that is considered to be the group's music genre by default as shown by the article page's first sentence. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I am not aware of that. To my knowledge, WP guidelines states that "any genre description must be sourced", with no mention of an exception for artists who are categorized by a certain genre. An artist is not confined to a particular genre, so some genres might vary song-by-song, even if they are performed by the same artist. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 13:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Well it's true. I suggest you check various song articles. Since there are tons of song articles that follow this practice. I would also strongly recommend that you add the placeholder genre back or not try and undo my edit if I add it back. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am unsure why you keep altering these sites with incorrect info. Forrest has not announced his departure from Surfaces yet. Even though, it is decently apparent he has distanced himself, nothing official has been announced with this. The source attached also does not back up the statement that he announced his separation this year. Auginperson (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Auginperson, like I mentioned in my edit summary, I listed Frank under "former members" becuase sources appear to claim that he is no longer a member of Surfaces. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 23:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. The only problem with that is that he hasn't really said so explicitly, and the source the was next to that section didn't make that claim either. Do you understand and agree with that? Auginperson (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed we might disagree on some aspects so instead of starting a editing war I want to explain to you why I changed the description on the release history of the aforementioned article.

These descriptions should describe what is in the table below. The previous only said "List of release history and formats", which in no way shape or form gives information that any user couldn't perceive from the previous headliner. You did affirmed the edit was "redundant", I beg to differ since the new description addresses each column specifically, providing the best possible description something the previous didn't do and actually did repeat "release history twice", that was indeed "redundant".

Let me know your toughs!

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I do be believe it to be redundant to list off each of the columns in the header. In the summary, I mentioned this edit which you had made on The Romantic (album), where you removed the header from tables because all of the information had already been stated; I find it somewhat odd to apply this reason there but not here. Back to the topic at hand, all of the columns are able to be read and understood, so it's probably somewhat unnecessary to name them all in an exhaustive list. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 13:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)