User talk:143kittypurry

Welcome!

Hi 143kittypurry! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism accusations

Please read WP:VANDAL and do not throw the word lightly. Also, please read WP:AGF and try resolving issues amicably in article talk pages, see WP:DISPUTE. --Altenmann >talk 21:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 143. This is another reminder to assume good faith. Please do not use article talk pages to make misconduct accusations, as you did at Talk:Katy Perry. WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE has advice about how to pursue a disagreement over conduct, and WP:TPG has info about what is acceptable at article talk pages. Please speak up if you have any questions about this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About your GA nomination

Hi, @143kittypurry. I am just here to let you know that ABBA discography does not go to Good article nominations. Discographies are lists, and must be lists, and lists only have two status: normal or featured list. So, move your article to FLC. Thanks for reading and cheers. Santi (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for the response. :) 143kittypurry (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ABBA discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ur So Gay

Hi! So, of course I came here because of the revert of my edit in the article about the song Ur So Gay. I would like to ask what makes this song a promotional single, because in the explanation of your edit, The song is a promo single., there's nothing confirming that, and as I read the article, I don't see any confirmation the song had any kind of release as a (promo) single, so it was only released as part of an extended play of the same title.
Danionek (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dani! I just followed the classification of the song based on its listing in Katy Perry discography. The song was described as a "buzz single" by The Guardian and Billboard, which is synonymous to "promotional single". Here are the sources:

143kittypurry (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response!
1st of all, from what I can see, there's no confirmation in the article itself this is supposed to be a promotional single (or some other synonym for it). Everything there mentions it's part of an EP of the same name (which was later included on One Of The Boys).
In my personal opinion, if I can express it, I would prefer to keep it as just a song, as it has been for the past few years ~~wow, how time has flown???~~. The song itself has never had an actual release typical of a (promo) single. I think the use of the term single here by journalists is due to the rather unusual release, since it's the debut of the Katy Perry the world knows to this day, and it's an EP of the same name and probably a significant minority noticed, apart from this the song, this release has 2 additional tracks, which shouldn't be surprising considering the title track's music video (and of course its lyrical layer, which for obvious reasons aroused interest). The very fact this video exists causes people to misuse the word single in a different meaning than it should be used, which is what others point out when a song is really a single (at least on Wikipedia :P).
Danionek (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not entirely certain, but I believe it is common knowledge among those who follow Katy's music, including me, that "Ur So Gay" is a promotional single. It was released alongside the EP prior to the release of its originating album, and it also has a music video. Therefore, it makes sense that it is considered as a promotional single. 143kittypurry (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be a fan of Katy Perry for many years, so I know a thing or 2 about her career too! It seems to me some people may have gotten used to the fact for many years this song (apparently mistakenly) was listed as a promotional single here, even though there was no confirmation of that. This seems to be very common.
I didn't remember that at the time of writing the previous messages, but now I remember someone changing it in 2021, so I changed it back to a promotional single myself, based on the supposed vinyl release of the song given in the article at the time (this), which was later reverted/removed, because the only source for this release was Discogs (this and this) – and rightly so, because Discogs is indeed considered generally unreliable. The thing is, it can be noted the song wasn't released alongside the EP, but just as part of the EP, and since the song itself never broke out into any single release, it's only part of another release, in this case the EP. The only problem here is the EP and the song have the same title, but if they didn't, there would be no problem and the song would then be just an album/EP track.
As for the music video, it's also often confused whether a song with a video is a single, but it has been explained for a long time every song can get a video and it doesn't make it a (promotional) single. Thinking Of You had its 1st music video some time before it was released as a single (or even actually released as part of One Of The Boys). Even Simple had a music video, although the song was eventually released as part of the soundtrack to The Sisterhood Of the Traveling Pants. Many years later, you can see almost every song from Smile got a music video, but few are considered singles, because after all, the release of the song itself hasn't changed. An artist can give a music video for any of their songs, even in the form of promoting it in some small way, but that still doesn't upgrade it to a (promotional) single status.
Danionek (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand it better now. Thanks for clarifying it to me. I will move the song to "other charted songs" section in Katy's discography. Thank you. 143kittypurry (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: OK (Katy Perry song) has been accepted

OK (Katy Perry song), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 00:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hi 143kittypurry! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I won't let it happen again. I'm not feeling well today and have no energy to further engage in any dispute. Thanks for reminding me, SNUGGUMS. 143kittypurry (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward, a helpful thing to keep in mind is WP:Edit warring#The three-revert rule. In short, try not to undo more than 3 edits on a page within 24 hours unless it's vandalism, clear copyright violations, your own contributions, or anything else listed under the "Exemptions" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I will revert them next week. Just kidding, SNUGGUMS. Hahaha. It seems like the user isn't too fond of Katy, as they mainly edit her albums just to remove certifications. In contrast, they regularly edit Taylor Swift's articles with UMG-issued certifications included without any problem.[1][2] It's interesting how personal preferences influence what gets added or removed. But I guess everyone has their own focus when it comes to these articles! No hate, just love. 🫶 143kittypurry (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through those diffs and the link used, I don't see any indication it came from UMG. Regardless of what musical tastes Everm4e has, be careful when accusing that user or anyone else of holding double standards. Neither diff gives any evidence to back that up when RadioScope actually is affiliated with New Zealand's certifying body of Recorded Music NZ. To be clear, I don't believe anybody should give preferential treatment on certifications and such, but am not convinced that happened here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. I just used those links to show you that he at least edited the articles listing some certifications issued by UMG, like the Philippine certification for Fearless. The user didn't remove those but chose specific ones included in the articles about Katy Perry's album. That's what I meant when I shared the links. 143kittypurry (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is a frequent editor of Taylor Swift-related articles and was accused before of having double standards. This is just my observation. 143kittypurry (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Katy Perry records and achievements has been accepted

List of Katy Perry records and achievements, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omg. Thank you so much! 🫶 143kittypurry (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest Selling Artists

Spice girls have sold over 100 million but have no metion in the list Blakey212 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I’m not quite sure why the message ended up on my talk page, but you can make your request on the talk page for the list of best-selling music artists. Best of luck! 143kittypurry (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]