User talk:ResolutionsPerMinute

Archives

As Nowmusicfan2816 Archive 1 Archive 2

Dear member,

I am compelled to bring to your attention that I have reported your disruptive behavior once more. Your recent actions of removing cited content from the "I Quit" page are concerning and can be seen as bullying. I have documented this conduct by taking screenshots and have also reached out to the Wiki Foundation regarding this matter. It's important to respect the contributions of others and uphold the integrity of our community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucygeejones8 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the facts of the album. 2607:FEA8:F420:F400:E492:5AE8:D51D:1A7E (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2607:FEA8:F420:F400:E492:5AE8:D51D:1A7E: As soon as you start citing the "facts" of the album. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is fact. They both left on certain years and even looking at the title, you would know that it's based off the movie. 2607:FEA8:F420:F400:CE5:3B41:148C:5610 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is, but you added no sources to back up these claims. It's not a matter of whether I believe you; it's a matter of following the policies of this website. If the album had been called 2001: A Funk Odyssey, it may have qualified as WP:SKYBLUE, but that's not the case. You can't know for sure if that was the band's intention unless they said so. Maybe they named it after A Chinese Odyssey. It's not likely, but there's still a chance. As for the band members leaving, I see on the band's article that their departures are cited, so perhaps if you'd copy those citations to A Funk Odyssey, that issue will be fixed. I'm not doing it for you, because the burden of sourcing your claims is on you. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Resolutions, it seems like you are the one who does not get it, because of how black and white the way you're seeing things instead of actually doing your research on particular songs you likely know nothing about. Second, a game released in 2004 with THE song in it does imply it was AT LEAST recorded sometime before 2005, and The Bravery started as a band in 2003. I'm not introducing "original" research, because I've actually done my research on said song, where you just remove sentences, paragraphs and recording dates of songs because you're a snobbish elitist who refuses to acknowledge people's research on those particular songs, and it doesn't suit your narrative. The fact you don't care even if I was a member of The Bravery shows how little you care, about people who have actually made those songs in the first place, and have done their research. You literally do not care about anybody but yourself, and the fact you want to abuse your power by removing/altering paragraphs, and recording dates on particular pages shows how self-centered, and nitpicky you really are.

By the way, copyrighted from 2004 does imply it was at least recorded sometime before 2005, and it does, that is where your black and white world-view is flawed.

First of all. Did you even do your research on those songs in particular? I literally just posted in the release date on that page that Smile Like You Mean It was released as an EP (Extended Play) in 2003, also Hot Fuss (Album) was recorded in 2003, just because it's a page only for a "single" doesn't automatically mean it can't be mentioned that it was originally released as a B-Side on an EP in 2003 along with Mr. Brightside. Can you not make up your mind or do you just feel better about yourself that you remove paragraphs and recording dates on those pages regardless of they're cited or uncited, because it doesn't suit your own narrative? You want to know why I've been reverting your edits? (And no, I have no been reverting every single edit you've made, you're obviously exaggerating) because you've been reverting multiple people's edits, removing sentences and paragraphs in that particular page for illogically even with the one's that do have cited sources, and countless others that I may not have noticed. You are the one being disruptive, because of how you're removing pieces of. "Unlike you I'm following the rules" just get out of here, with that self-centered and holier-than-thou attitude. If you want to ban me for standing for what is right, then go right ahead. You are proving yourself nothing more than be a liability on this site, I am not the only one (or first one) who has complained of your antics, and attitude, and abusing your power by removing sentences and recording dates of particular songs.--AK942000 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You left a very strongly worded message on my talk page accusing me of "disruptive editing" in relation to This Fire (Franz Ferdinand song). Please explain to me how me adding a paragraph break within the article can be classed as "disruptive editing". I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and will not to be subjected to baseless accusations. Dn9ahx (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dn9ahx: Because you've been breaking apart this paragraph since last year (hence "disruptive"), and it looks totally unattractive beside the fact. Do you see the Release and reception section broken into piddly paragraphs? Also, it doesn't matter how long you've been editing. I know a 2006 editor who still adds uncited information, so I think I'm fully within my rights to leave you a strongly worded message. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Member, I wish to bring to your attention that the individual in question is also targeting me by removing cited sources. I have had to submit three reports regarding their conduct. I recommend that you take similar action, as their behavior is unproductive and akin to bullying Lucygeejones8 (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you remove genres from infoboxes, you never put any genres that you think fit. Why? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:C:B3E6:2106:FDBB (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:6C5A:417F:794E:C:B3E6:2106:FDBB: Cuz I don't have the sources. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried to find any sources? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:C:B3E6:2106:FDBB (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:6C5A:417F:794E:C:B3E6:2106:FDBB: That's your problem, not mine. I'm not the one adding unsourced information. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that your edit of my edit for the page Torn, the Ednaswap song, almost 2 months after it was done... coincidentally right after we have had a disagreement on another article, is malicious and inappropriate. I think because we've had a disagreement over the formatting of Fade into You, you looked at my contribution history and looked for anything you felt you could change. We are both allowed to make edits to language as we see fit, but I can't help but feel that you did yours out of spite, in bad faith.

I think some form of separation between the sections of the sentence is correct. So, I changed the punctuation and wording to something that I feel is more correct, a semicolon to connect the clauses. I researched dependent clauses but I don't think it's applicable there. If you still disagree with the new formatting, please create a talk section and elaborate. If you revert my change without elaborating, I will create a talk page section for this issue and warn you again.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much!

I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. Saw141 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saw141: I reverted your edit because I checked your contribs, which is what I do when I see a potentially disruptive editor, and the edit you made on Torn was most definitely a grammatical mistake. It had nothing to do with "maliciousness". It seems to me like you are casting aspersions because you aren't getting your way, and leaving me three messages is overkill. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's one message with three warnings. I felt they were applicable because of how I've interpreted your behavior. I am calling you out for what I saw as inappropriate behavior. Regarding the Torn edit... The flow of the sentence felt grammatically incorrect without separating the a "Thornalley", from the next clause. It may have been grammatically incorrect because of the specific words used after "Thornalley". I believe that the current version is more correct. Saw141 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saw141: Yes, leaving me a message starting with "Welcome to Wikipedia" really stuck it to me. Anyway, this I see nothing wrong with your new edit on Torn since is it grammatically sound, so I won't do anything about it. As for Fade into You, however, check your talk page in a few minutes. Let's continue the discussion there. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All my actions on I Just Shot John Lennon have been valid Admin actions. I declined a speedy deletion criterion that used the rationale of "Googling this song shows no notable chart perfomances or coverage from independent sources. No use for it, pls delete." That is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Woozy reverted me and I removed it a second time, explaining what the proper steps were. Woozy took my advice and added a PROD. An IP came by and per PROD policy removed the PROD. Per policy no reason is required to remove a PROD. Woozy against the policy readded the PROD. I removed it per policy and explained in the edit summary why I did and pointed Woozy to the proper next step, AFD. I also explained it in further detail on their talk page. I don't care what happens with the article but don't accuse me of just reverting. ~ GB fan 12:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: I wasn't accusing you of anything. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does seem that way when you say "Courtesy ping to Woozybydefault and GB fan, who should stop reverting each other and make detailed statements on this AfD report." Makes it seem that all I was doing was reverting. ~ GB fan 12:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Which you were. Facts. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't. I was doing my admin duties and explaining all the way along why I was doing it. Not editing or making any editorial decisions on the article. I removed invalid speedy deletion requests and an invalid PROD request. But from the sounds of it we will not see eye to eye on this. ~ GB fan 12:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Reverting is reverting, no matter what your reason. It was a blooming edit war, and I decided to be benevolent and halt it before one of you got the pink slip. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are so funny, I will concede a revert is a revert. Based on that I have 3 reverts and Woozy 2 over the course of 6 days and all of mine are removing edits that are against policy. That is not a blooming edit war and neither one of us would have gotten a pink slip. ~ GB fan 12:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Don't be so sure of yourself. Nobody has the same pair of eyeballs as you do. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was just reaching out to ask why you restored this revision? [1] I removed the pop rock influence as it's unsourced — which I left in the edit summary [2] . I'm not sure if you didn’t see that? From the looks of it an IP had added the genre influence back in July of 2020 [3] — but didn’t cite any sources to back the claim. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight: I did see your edit, but as you can see, what you did between then and me ultimately didn't matter. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you saw it why would you add it back knowing that it's unsourced? You’ve been editing for over a decade with over 87,000 edits you're very much aware of how to add a citation. I also don't know what removing the year has anything to do with what I’m getting across to? Pillowdelight (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight: Okay, now I see where I went wrong, and I'm sorry, but don't tell me how to do my job. People make mistakes, so you don't have to call me out on something you could have easily explained with an edit summary. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not telling you how to do your job. I reached out because I didn’t want to start an edit war. I was just confused is all. No worries, just a misunderstanding is all. Pillowdelight (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts to Texas related articles are non-constructive in my opinion. Lead sections are supposed to be short summaries of the article, not major length. Unsourced? It's obvious that said tracks are included on the compilation based on the track listings. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodreg3: Then make more detailed sections so the lead will look good. Making the lead one or two sentences for articles of this size is just asking for a cleanup tag. Also, the information you added was unsourced. Can't argue with that. Your fault. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the albums such as The Greatest Hits was released in 2000, when the internet was still very much in its infancy, it is hard to get reliable sources for something as simple as, and as common knowledge as, a track list. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodreg3: Welcome to the real world. That's why there's cite av media notes. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know that one so thank you for that information. I will certainly make use of that in the future. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're having trouble of grasping the concept of citing sources, aren't you?

There wasn't much need for a comment as abrupt as that, was there? I would appreciate it if you didn't make me look to be an absolute idiot, thank you very much. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodreg3: Don't put words in my mouth. In no way did I call you an idiot. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but your question at the end certainly insinuates that. Read back at what I said "I would appreciate it if you didn't make me look to be an absolute idiot". I didn't say you called me one, but rather, by asking such a question, you are insinuating that I am one due to my lack of source provided. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodreg3: I wasn't insinuating anything either, but whatever. Let's just move on. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Can You Dig It (song), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can You Dig It (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Music Barnstar
		Hi ResolutionsPerMinute, I see that you have taken an indefinite break from Wikipedia editing, and I think we all do need to have a break at some point, so that's fine. I'm awarding you this barnstar for your fantastic contributions you have made to music articles throughout all these years, i.e. creating new ones, expanding them, improving their quality and defending them from disruptive edits or edits made by sockpuppets! I hope things get a lot better for you in real life over the next few years! Wishing you the best. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, you removed Christian alternative rock from the song, Flood. Why? 2601:C7:C280:14C0:E48D:AE39:D2B1:8DFF (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Now 08 Australia Series Cover Art.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. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Now Spring 2005 Australia Series Cover Art.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. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Now Autumn 2008 Australia Series Cover Art.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. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ToploaderDancingintheMoonlight.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see you again! I'm glad that things have changed for the better for you. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AP 499D25: I appreciate that, thank you! I'm still getting things sorted out, but I knew from the start that 2025 was gonna be a good year. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 23:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to second this sentiment. Great to see you contributing again, I hope things continue to get better for you! JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Undercover Baker Street.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved our section in Covers down and out of the Freemasons version. That was an error in code, I guess.

As far as 'notable', we are a signed act (in both the US and European markets) and have been together for better than 5 years. This single has also been played across the globe on hundreds of radio stations since its release. Its too early to have all the numbers in from the PROs to link, but we are watching in real time. I don't see how you can arbitrarily choose who's 'notable'. Lowendwarrior (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again... you do not get to decide what is 'notable' and just arbitrarily remove information that you deem 'unworthy'. These are factual inclusions and are backed with proper citiations. Lowendwarrior (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Member, I wish to bring to your attention that the individual in question is also targeting me by removing cited sources. I have had to submit three reports regarding their conduct. I recommend that you take similar action, as their behavior is unproductive and akin to bullying Lucygeejones8 (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I read your edit summary and then misread the mobile diff. I had naturally assumed you had reverted the date as well. I take no issue with the template. mftp dan ^oops 13:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Member,

I would like to express my concern regarding what I perceive as bullying behavior and disruptive actions on your part. Consequently, I have submitted a formal complaint to my mentor, as you have removed cited sources that originate from credible books and magazines and have been appropriately referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucygeejones8 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. A while ago you made some really insightful edits on the article above by adjusting some charts' names to how they actually used to be called at the time. I have restored them in the wake of me preparing the article for FA status. Just a "thank you" for being so factually accurate. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi do not remove genre of Sk8er Boi without a consensus because Sk8er Boi had a genre which was skate punk from a reliable source! Thanx! OpionsAreFreeSpeech (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OpionsAreFreeSpeech: It was absolutely not reliably sourced. See WP:ALLMUSIC. So I will keep removing it until you find a better source. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic has been considered reliable so you might wanna stay in your lane because almost every album, EP & song article has at least an AllMusic source! You might wanna rethink this through! OpionsAreFreeSpeech (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OpionsAreFreeSpeech: "Because it's on almost every article" is the weakest excuse in the book. That's not how it works. No summary genres or user reviews. Professional AllMusic reviews only. End of story. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understood that I wasn’t making excuses! I got educated! You don’t need to be rude! I thought I was trying to help! OpionsAreFreeSpeech (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a more reliable source where it says that Sk8er Boi is skate punk! It’s this link right here ->

Title: Top 10 Avril Lavigne Songs

URL: https://www.classicrockhistory.com/top-10-avril-lavigne-songs/ OpionsAreFreeSpeech (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the hatnote to the 3 of Hearts (album) article. I wonder if Love Is Enough should be converted to a disambiguation page? Neither the 3 of Hearts version or the Jimmy Barnes version have an article, and I doubt that either of them would be the primary topic. I would also not be surprised if other artists have released songs with this title or just other things in general have this title (as it is hardly unique or creative). I just wanted to get your perspective on it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I don't think it's necessary right now. I added the hatnote mostly because Barnes is one of Australia's most successful musicians (and the fact it was released from a six-times platinum album), so I figured it would get the most traffic out of any songs with the title. Besides 3 of Hearts' and Barnes' songs, it looks like there are five others singles with the title "Love Is Enough", but they don't seem to have experienced long-term success. Personally, I'd rather retarget the redirect to Two Fires, because Barnes' song was a top-50 hit in all of Australia, but 3 of Hearts' song was only a top-50 hit on the US Country Airplay chart. Regardless, both versions did chart somewhere, but other than these two instances, I don't think anyone would be looking for anything other songs with this title. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping and for the reply. I agree with everything that you said. You are right in that a disambiguation page would be unnecessary and would likely not get enough use to justify making it. Feel free to retarget the redirect and move the hatnote. I would have no objection to that. If I am being honest, I completely forgot that I made the redirect in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I'm going to be bold and retarget, because Barnes' song seems like the more popular of the two. I'll also move the hatnote from 3 of Hearts to Two Fires. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Barnes is also far more popular than 3 of Hearts. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]