Wykonawcy

Alternative Songs

Please stop re-adding the incorrect item about "The Kill". This is a contested addition and there is an ongoing discussion about its inclusion on the article's talk page. At least two reliable sources state otherwise (a Chart Beat column and the Billboard.biz chart archives). Please add to the discussion. - eo (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this notable? [1] If it is not the longest run, then why mention it at all.... especially if there are others with "more than 50 weeks"? It's too vague and doesn't belong there. I am asking you again to participate in the discussion on the Talk Page before adding it again. You're basically saying "this song spent a long time on the chart, but there may or may not be others with a longer chart run". It doesn't make sense. - eo (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This Is War

This chart position was in fact wrong and I have removed it [2] - eo (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake.--Wykonawcy (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 30 Seconds to Mars discography. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Kww(talk) 19:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not editing disruptively. The label knows the certifications that received an album. It is a reliable and verifiable source, so why don't we use it?--Wykonawcy (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Because labels lie. Constantly. The convention is to use only the official certifications archived by the certifying agency. The main point is that your change has been reverted multiple times by three different editors, and you keep adding it back in. That's edit warring, and is unacceptable. Even if you are right, that's unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)