# Talk:Dive (Usher song)

Dive at number 15 in ukraine?? I think thats not correct. I can´t find this information in the FDR Charts and i can´t the specified link open. I am pleased with new information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey929292 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Dive (Usher song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829113017/http://usherworld.com/world-premiere-of-ushers-dive-video-watch-now/ to http://usherworld.com/world-premiere-of-ushers-dive-video-watch-now/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102192234/http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&chart_Time=year to http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/download.php?nationGbn=T&chart_Time=year
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506152215/http://www.fdr.com.ua/compilation/P/566/ to http://fdr.com.ua/compilation/P/566/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/urban
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

While I am sure the IP editor (currently taking a brief break) believes this song "received universal acclaim from music critics, with overwhelming approval towards Usher's vocal performance", that is completely unsourced and likely to remain so.
First, "universal" would mean absolutely every critic everywhere. If there is a blogger in a remote village in Minsk who disagrees with the rest of the critics, it is no longer "universal". I cannot imagine a source confirming what every critic everywhere thought.
Next is "acclaim". This means enthusiastic and public praise. How you would measure enthusiasm in the praise is beyond me. Additionally, coupled with "universal", the "public" part would now require that even critics who hadn't reviewed the song to have enthusiastically praised it publicly.
How, exactly, was the approval "overwhelming"? What is the cutoff point for this metric?
All things considered, this statement is a shining example of why you've been asked by several editors to stop and discuss the issue. After your block, please discuss the issues here, on other article talk pages and/or your talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, it's my fault that I didn't discuss my edit beforehand. Sorry for that.
Secondly, do you realize that the line I edited used to indicate "universal positive acclaim"? I don't know why you're blaming me for writing down nonsense while that indication has literally been there the whole time. To some extent I feel like you're the biased one here. I mean you could at least have reverted it to the original line instead of removing the whole introduction line. That counts for all the edits I made.(82.217.67.186 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC))
Now that you have registered an account, MakeMeWannaDamian, please be sure to log on when you are editing.
"Universal acclaim" was there when you started. I removed it. You added it back.[1] When you add or restore material, you are responsible for the material. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I said that it indicated "universal positive acclaim" BEFORE I even touched it. I just wanted to add more information to that. Then you deleted the whole introduction line. My point is, then change it back to how it USED to be before I did anything.(82.217.67.186 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC))
Please be sure to log in under your user name, MakeMeWannaDamian, when you are editing.
Yes, it said "universal positive acclaim" before your first edit. It should not have. I removed it. You put it back. You should not have. It should not be in the article. I will not restore it as it is unsourcable peacockery. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Then replace it instead of removing it.(82.217.67.186 (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC))
I don't have anything to replace it with. It's a song. Review aggregators don't cover songs because no one is reading reviews of a song before investing three minutes and five seconds in simply listening to it. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Almost all songs that contain "Critical Reception" open the paragraph with such lines.(82.217.67.186 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC))
Newer songs generally attract fans and haters who want to add that critics all agree it it "the BEST. SONG. EVERRRRR!!!" or "OMG, sucks sooooo bad." Eventually, someone removes it. Older songs generally never have them to begin with. If there isn't a source for something in an article, any editor can remove it or demand an in-line citation. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)