User talk:Calvin999/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Who's That Chick? GA review

As you are the nominator, I figure I should tell you that I will be reviewing this article. Toa Nidhiki05 01:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Birthday Cake (song) in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. —Hahc21 15:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
· · ·

Your GA nomination of The Silence (song)

The article The Silence (song) that you put up for good article nomination has been put on hold . There are some prose and citation issues that are keeping the article from reaching good article status. You will have the general seven days to address these issues, otherwise the article will fail. See this for more information on what needs to be fixed. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 00:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There are now only a couple of issues that need to be addressed for this article to reach good article status. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 16:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Since all of the issues have now been addressed, I put the article into good article status. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hurt: The EP

The article Hurt: The EP that you put up for good article nomination has been put on hold . There are some prose and reference formatting issues that are keeping the article from reaching good article status. You will have the general seven days to address these issues and/or debate the points you believe do not concern good article status. See this for more information on what needs to be fixed. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 23:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

All of the issues have been addressed, so I have passed the article into good article status. Continue to keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

E.T.

Just wondering how come you reverted me on that lol. The reviewer said that he's withdrawing the nomination so I removed it, or was it already too late?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the edit summary for it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright thanks--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If it hasn't been reviewed yet and is still in the nominations list waiting for someone to review it, then the nominator can remove it. But once it has started to be reviewed, and a reviewer has put time into reviewing, and the nominator then wants to withdraw, you have to fail it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay thank you :)! That's what I thought, but I figured id be smart and ask you before I RV it.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

GA's

Hey Calvin! Not being pushy, but do you know when you'll start the GA's? It's just I'm kinda busy right now and I was hoping to get them done relatively quick, thank you :)--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've just been unfairly blocked for 7 days, so I can't do them now. I was going to do them tomorrow. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And it looks like Status has eagerly jumped on reviewing California Gurls instead of me, so... Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

As you were warned about and recently blocked for, attempting to own articles is unacceptable. You clearly haven't understood this and have continued to edit war and revert other editors without discussion as evidenced on Break It Off. This is also evidenced to a lesser extent on other articles. To prevent further disruption, you have been blocked once again for a period of 1 week. You may continue to edit after your block expires, but further disruption along these lines will likely lead to an extended or indefinite block.

You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Calvin999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This has come really out of the blue. Where have I been WP:OWN on Break It Off? I made 2 reverts on 16th June, and one on 21st June. How is that edit warring? I didn't even cross the three revert rule in 24 hours. I think that is really unfair. I also think it's unfair that Easy4Me also made two reverts, and hasn't even been given so much as a warning, so it's okay for him then to not use a talk page? It's hardly disruption, 3 reverts over a 5 day period for a just cause in which I am right. I'm sorry but you've clearly got it in for me. I think you saying that 3 reverts over a 5 day period on one article as being disruptive, attempting to own (which, in this case, is nowhere near WP:OWN) and being a bully is a pretty weak argument, and further proves my point that you a blocking me for the sake of it. I think I should be unblocked because contrary to one persons belief, I am good and loyal Wikipedian. I am online everyday making constructive edits, and work hard on articles to being them to GA status, as I hate seeing singer's songs which I love in poor condition. It's automatic for me to come on Wikipedia everyday when I have some spare time, and not coming on for 7 days would be really hard for me. I'd rather be improving articles than letting IPs and other users making unconstructive edits to them. I know certain people will say this is not relevant, but I have made 41 articles a GA, so I am clearly not the disruptive, bullying and owning person that I am being made out to be. If I was, I'm sure I wouldn't have been able to promote 41 articles. I'm still not even sure how what I have been blocked for even comes into this block, but I won't repeat myself. And one of my GAN's just been selected to be reviewed, and I can't make suggested improvements lol.

Accept reason:

User accepts 1RR for 6 months to address WP:OWN issues. Toddst1 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just it: You have to allow others, including IP editors, to make edits that you may not like. You're not allowed to continue to revert them because you are convinced your ideas are better. You need to discuss, reach consensus with other editors and abide by the consensus.

As I Help When I Can (talk · contribs) put it on User_talk:Status#Re:_The_Silence, you don't care about others' opinions yet persist in enforcing yours as if it is more valuable than others'. You've had two admins, Bwilkins (talk · contribs) and me, try to explain this to you in addition to many of your peers but your behavior has not changed. Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point. If an editor makes a constructive edit, I welcome with arms open. If an editor makes an unconstructive edit, I revert or change. It's not a case of "my idea is better." I think my behavior has changed. I leave more constructive edit summaries, and I'm helping out in the GAN backlog to try and balance it out with my own nominations. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion it was unconstructive. If it wasn't vandalism, then you have no right enforcing your opinion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Calvin, you know I've considered blocking you before over this. Still, I'm sitting here considering what it would take for me to unblock you now. I certainly won't just swoop in and do it, because I share many of Bwilkins's and Todd's concerns. Would you consider accepting a 6 month 1RR restriction in exchange for an earlier unblock? I think you are a generally valuable editor, but it does seem like it is difficult for you to accept other editors disagreeing with you over minor things.—Kww(talk) 00:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It depends how early the block is lifted, or I will take a 6 month RR restriction which means I can't revert anyone to be unblocked as soon as you read this. And why do I have a sock puppet tag on my user page???? I'm sorry, but that is complete and utter nonsense. Why would I use another account when I've worked so damn hard on this account? I'm sorry but Toddst1 wants me off of Wikipedia and it's so obvious too. You say I'm valued, but I'm clearly not. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just looked on Break it Off and seen that an IP has made edits. I've been in a pub and a bar for the past 5 hours, so I'd like to know where I've been able to gain access to a computer. I'm actually really insulted. Toddst1 is labeling and accusing me of something I haven't done. I feel very victimsed at the moment, I'm actually lost for words. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the sockpuppeteer tag, because it looks like a joe job to me. If you accept a 6 month 1RR restriction, I'll unblock as soon as I see it. It's getting close to my bedtime, so that may be 8 hours from now, but no longer.—Kww(talk) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, I don't want you off wikipedia. If I did, I would have just indeffed you with your third strike. As Kww put it, you are a generally valuable editor, but it is clear that it is difficult for you to accept other editors disagreeing with you over minor things. You need to get past that if you're going to continue editing. Kww's suggestion is a good one.

Regarding the sock tag, it seems equally likely that you were being set up by one of the many editors you've pissed off as you were socking yourself. I've seen both happen. A less experienced admin might have indeffed you for that issue as well.

That being said, how do we get you past your interaction issues? Toddst1 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Kww: Yes I accept. Toddst1: If you knew I was being set up, why did you slap a sock puppet tag on my user page? And I don't think someone who I had "pissed off" (like who? no one is blocked) would say to "free" me. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 01:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't say I knew you were being set up. I said it seemed like a possibility. In case you didn't read that either, the tag said "It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts." I didn't say anything about any conclusions. Unproven sock tags can always be removed, but if they don't exist it's extremely difficult to track any potential sock farms.

I've unblocked you. At the moment, there is no autoblock in place. Post a notice if one catches you. Toddst1 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A what? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 01:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autoblock. You'd know it if you had one. Toddst1 (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an IP so I don't see the relevance. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 01:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The good news is it appears that you don't need to. Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Collide (Leona Lewis and Avicii song)

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold. For comment on the issues that need to be addressed, click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 04:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-retirement notice

I'm taking semi-retirement because in light of recent events, I think it's better if I limit my usage of editing on Wikipedia. I don't want to retire completely because I love editing too much to not update chart positions every week! Lol. But I do think I spend too much time here and that I am getting too complacent in the way I edit, which has been pointed out to me. I think some time away and reducing my amount of edits will do me a lot of good and hopefully change how I approach editing. I'd rather edit a little and remain interested, than edit a lot and not be interested. Because I am dedicated to Wikiproject Rihanna, I feel like I'm putting so much energy into her articles but not really getting much out of it or recognition, and everyone likes to get recognition for something as it motivates you to want to do more. I will still come on Wikipedia, but I won't be able to respond to things as quickly as I usually do. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hope you have fun while on break. Maybe going out to the beach well do some good :D Nonetheless, your work on Rihanna is well appreciated. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't live near a beach :(. Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

LOLZ well take a road trip with some friends :D Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, well it's a bit far away, but I'm getting a new car in September, and I'm gunna drive to Paris for the weekend for a little road trip :). Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple violations of voluntary 1RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violating your 1RR restriction (within 24 hours of agreeing to it) on Talk:California Gurls/GA1 and Talk:Super Bass/GA1. Usually violations of restrictions are automatic indef blocks. I had hopes you would have done better. Please be advised, your 1RR remains in effect after this block expires. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• ???? Seriously? The blocks are getting old now. The first couple of blocks were probably in line, but this in my opinion is just unnecessary. The purpose is to help with the project and build up an encyclopedia. What good is it to block the editors every couple of days? I'm just empathising here. Till I Go Home ^talk 04:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I empathize too, but when you make a promise, you'd better see it out. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That counts as a revert? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You absolutely asserted ownership on those two pages over someone's objections by twice undoing the effects of one or more edits, which effectively ruslted in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. Same problem, different day, new block.

Yes, the blocks have gotten old now. So has the ownership and edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Even though I was the original reviewer and I created the review pages. Okay, well, I'm going to log out for two weeks so I can't look on Wikipedia. It will save me wanting to be able to edit even though I can't. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. The correct thing to do if you wanted to be the reviewer would have been to leave a note on Status' talk page saying you'd like to resume your role as reviewer, rather than just going in and asserting your desire by making the change. If s/he disagreed, you would discuss it but you should be prepared to respectfully disagree and walk away, without making the change. This is how we do it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Another option would have been to go to the GAN talk page and point out what happened to Hahc and Wizardman; given that there's a drive going on, the removal of these reviews from you after you'd signed up for them could have been challenged, since a week's block is a questionable reason for doing so as you would easily have been able to finish the reviews in a reasonable time frame. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User: Status was unwilling to let me review even though he didn't ask me if he could take over, and also exercised ownership by reverting twice on both review articles and edit warred, however, that has gone unnoticed. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have been more than willing to let Calvin take the reviews back, but he did so without asking or discussing with me. And when I reverted such action he did, he reverted me back once again calling my reviews "poorly". As I told him (which he clearly doesn't understand, because according to him, everyone is out to get him) I only took them over because the reviewer wanted the reviews done as quickly as could be done, since they had other things to do. Statυs (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the first time you have said about letting me do them, so don't make it sound like you was going to. As from our conversation on your talk page, you were certainly not willing to let me review it. Status, you are failing to understand, I was going to review them. You never asked me if you could take over. I notice that Super Bass still isn't completely reviewed yet. If you had of just let me review it like I was going to, I would have had it certainly completely reviewed and on hold by now, and probably a GA. So you taking over me in order to fulfill the nominators request to have it done ASAP hasn't actually come to fruition. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe I said I would have been willing if you just asked me about it first. Instead, you were all "taking back my review because it is all mine". Then you criticized my reviews, and told me how much I was "copying" your review "format", whatever the hell that even means; especially since I have been reviewing in the same way since I first started in December 2010. "Super Bass" has the same issues that "California Girls" has. The references are terrible, so I told the user to fix those up first before I review the prose of the article. Clearly, the user is now in their busy state, and that is not my fault. If I got myself blocked and someone offered to take on the reviews that I never began yet, I would be more than pleased and would thank the user. Statυs (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Calvin, you weren't blocked for what Status did or didn't do. You were blocked for what you did. It's clear at this point you haven't internalized the things you have been blocked for.

Let me be very clear: You have a acute problem with trying to WP:OWN things on Wikipedia - articles, reviews, whatever. You edit war over owning them. Because you keep doing those things, you are now blocked and will be subject to a 1RR editing restriction for the next 6 months - assuming you don't get reblocked. If you don't change the way you approach editing here - at a basic level - you won't be editing much in the future. It's as simple as that.

Please take the next two weeks to think about how you work with folks here and how your interactions with others can be vastly improved. You can fix this if you want to. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Calvin, Status, there's no need to argue. There will be plenty more nominations to come. In Calvin's defense, he was the original reviewer, but I don't think Status meant any harm in taking over the reviews since he got blocked. It's all just a misunderstanding. What's the real issue here is a lengthy block (imo) for this altercation. I don't think he wanted to break his restriction, he just wanted the review back probably. Till I Go Home ^talk 02:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, all he could have said to me was "I'm no longer blocked, since you didn't do very much with the reviewer, would you mind if I took them back?" and I would have complied. But that's not what he did. The block is at its length because of previous offenses. The more blocks you have, the longer they go up for. Statυs (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'm sorry I was just expressing my view on the matter pleasedonthatemelol. Till I Go Home ^talk 08:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll address the so-called "lengthy" nature. Wikipedia's block system works on escalation - they get longer each time. After all, most users are never blocked, and those that do are expected to amend their behaviour after the first one. Calvin was blocked for a day on June 7 for edit-warring and attempting to bully. On June 11, it happened again: escalated to 2 days. On the 21st it happened again: was given a week. Calvin agreed to restrictions in order to get that block removed, and went right back to the same behaviour - hence a month block as escalation. 4 blocks in less than a month for the exact same behaviour is what led to the length of block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bwilkins. Well put. Minor correction: he's only blocked for 2 weeks. I seriously considered a month but in a moment of light-handedness only hit the 2-week PDL element. As Bwilkins said, a month would not be out of line given the pattern of disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis

I'll remove this for the time being, of course feel free to recreate it when you're unblocked. Instead of "failing" it, I'll just delete it to save us both a little bit of hassle. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Hahc21 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Calvin,

I mentioned you here Penyulap ☏ 06:41, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For whoever sees this

This is WP:OR, yet no one has noticed. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You may not edit by proxy. If you wish me to disable your access to this talkpage, keep it up. = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 20:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know I can't edit, I'm blocked, hence why I wrote it here. How is saying that someone has added original research to an article something which equates to me having my talk page disabled??? 22:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Because the ONLY reason you have access to this page is to request unblock. Asking someone else to make an edit, or alerting others to make the edit is editing by proxy, and will lead to this page being locked for the duration of the block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you should have explained that to me first instead of simply saying that you will revoke my access to my talk page without explanation, as I didn't know. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing WP:OR from an article is more important than blocking someone's talk page. Wikipedia's policies/rules aside, it looks very awkward to come here and tell him that he can't write on his own talk page. Just saying. Till I Go Home ^talk 04:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Home is right. I think that if a blocked user uses their talk page to notice other users of original research on an article, is an exemplary case when we must ignore all rules. This actions can never be done in bad faith, and shows the commitment the user has with the project. I'm not trying to protect Calvin, as I speak in general, but I think this principle applies here. —Hahc21 04:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? No. Someone else had already fixed it without looking here. Let's not all kid ourselves: none of us is irreplaceable, and suggesting that because a small problem has existed that it won't eventually be fixed. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I don't think it's fair to condone me for trying to help remove WP:OR. Also, it was reverted half an hour after you responded to me BWilikins, and over an hour after I first presented it here, so who's to say that someone didn't see this? Regardless, it's been reverted now. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when and who removed the original research. The intention is what i'm talking about. I'm pretty sure that such recommendation cannot qualify as "abuse of talk page" in any way. I've seen many blocks before and it is the first time i see the user is refused to edit it's own talk page for writing out OR from pages he/she has read within their block. Again, i'm not talking about Calvin but in general. I think you're overreacting here. I'm a bit suspicious some COI may be in here, so i'll do a research to see what I find. —Hahc21 01:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, is this what Wikipedia has turned into during my absence? Incredible! So editors will now get blocked for requesting others to remove original research? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at Calvin's block log, and saw that he has now been blocked from editing his own talk page. This is really sad and disgusting. I'm very shocked and disappointed right now. I find this to be abuse of administrative power. Till I Go Home ^talk 07:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation, and I see no abuse of administrative power. I strongly considered using blocks to deal with the situation when Calvin999 was preventing most of PhoenixJHudson's edits from being retained. Toddst1 and Bwilkins eventually reached the conclusion that blocks had become necessary to deal with the more general problem. While blocked, Calvin used his talk page to encourage specific edits on article pages. He isn't permitted to do that. His comments made it clear that he was not going to use his talk page to discuss his block terms, which is the only permitted use his talk page has while he is blocked. Since he isn't going to use it for its only legitimate purpose, Bwilkins took his editing rights away. I will caution you all that if Calvin999 is in contact with you through other channels, you are not permitted to perform edits at his suggestion.—Kww(talk) 07:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He threatened to block him on 26 June 2012, and did so on 28 June 2012. I find this suspicious considering Calvin hardly made any other edits after replying to B Wilkins. And I'm not the only one who thinks that blocking someone's talk page because they're trying to help the project is ridiculous. Till I Go Home ^talk 08:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

He only changed an existing block on June 28: Calvin was blocked on June 22, and that block is in effect until July 6. And no, blocked users aren't permitted to attempt to help the project. That's part of what being blocked is about.—Kww(talk) 10:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about blocking the talk page. Per WP:IAR, "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Till I Go Home ^talk 11:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how is not doing that considered "abuse of administrative power" or "suspicious"? Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

? He notified on his talk page of WP:OR in which WP:IAR applies. And I saw your edit summary, It was not a personal attack. Saying "I find this to be ..." and "this is..." are different things. Till I Go Home ^talk 01:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a classic case of admin abuse - hurling unfounded, baseless accusations against an admin performing their actions by the book. Yes, a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but i'm not able to find a guideline saying that "a blocked user can only use their talkpage to discuss the matter of the block or any related topic about it. A user who uses their talkpage for any other purpuse may be blocked from editing their talkpage either." Can anyone point me to it since I can't find it? Thanks. —Hahc21 01:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1, I have a very specific question. At what point did Calvin999/Aaron do something that violated policy or threatened to cause harm to the encyclopedia after 20:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)? That was the time that Bwilkins said "You may not edit by proxy. If you wish me to disable your access to this talkpage, keep it up."

Also, in reference to the statement "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked", I'm trying to find the guidelines or policies that match up with that statement. I've looked at Wikipedia:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goals, and at Wikipedia:User_talk_page#User_talk_pages as well as WP:MEAT to see how this editor continued to behave in a way that way detrimental after the warning issued at 20:13, 26 June. If you have a particular diff or something, I would be happy to review it. -- Avanu (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calvin999&diff=499738589&oldid=499738289 certainly didn't leave me feeling that Calvin999 understood that he shouldn't use his talk page to solicit proxy editing.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

So are we blocking people for not understanding or for some action they take? -- Avanu (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, i've read all guidelines i've found and none of them covers the block from editing the talk page. This is a very unusual case. I'm still searching to find what supports Bwilkins actions. —Hahc21 21:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

When an editor shows after a warning that he does not understand why his behaviour was disruptive, a block is sometimes appropriate. In a case like this, where the block is already in place and the only thing that is being added is a lock of the talk page, the threshold is extremely low.—Kww(talk) 21:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said, my question was more at Toddst1, who said "hurling unfounded, baseless accusations against an admin performing their actions by the book" Particularly, that by the book part was something that caught my attention. If we are going 'by the book', it would be good to see where our book says 'not understanding something' gets you a block. (Especially since blocks are supposed to be given to prevent, not punish.) Now, if it was not strictly 'by the book', it seems like the block rationale should have posted here after the block was made or amended. I have not seen that either. So, it is strictly the block summary alone that we have to go on, and it just says "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked". Not sure when that specific use occured but I assume it was sometime between 20:13 on the 26th and 11:22 on the 28th. But in looking at the comments, I don't the offense. Also, I didn't see that other editors were in consensus agreement that Calvin999/Aaron's actions were reprehensible or detrimental. In fact, several seemed to think it was reasonable. Maybe not smart to argue with an admin, but reasonable nonetheless. -- Avanu (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, i just wanted to note. Toddst1 said: "baseless accusations against an admin", and i want to say: "baseless rationale to perform a needless block which seems not to be supported by any guideline and, additionally, made to prevent instead of punishing." I won't touch the "by the book" part because i think it's pretty obvious it wasn't by the book. Cheers! —Hahc21 21:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, perhaps the example here is a good guide User talk:AndyTheGrump Penyulap ☏ 06:24, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

It seems that BWilkins is on a vacation or something, since he is not answering my simple request made on June 28. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Collide (Leona Lewis and Avicii song)

Hey, Calvin999. I know you are blocked right now, but I just wanted to inform you that this article you put up for good article nomination has passed , since some of your peers helped address the issues. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 17:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll even add to your user page if you'd like. Nobody Ent 21:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. To which page? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Calvin999 Nobody Ent 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's not considered an "instruction" or a "request" on my part. I've been there already last week, and look what happened! Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It was nice of you to do that. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access

Talk page access restored. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not that I'm not pleased, but why?! Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Because he's never read this guideline :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you hadn't either, as no one agreed with the block of my talk page made by you, like. And this is what I mean why a less than personable stance, especially with the sarcastic use of ":-)". Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, first I'm not sure why you would find it "non-personable" when that comment was directed at someone other than you, and second I'm not sure how you could ever conceive that smiley to be sarcastic in any way. I think you're looking for things that aren't there so you can justify something that doesn't exist. (Oh, and to claim "no-one" agreed is a big stretch...guidelines AND a few other editors did) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is with reading text on a screen Bwilkins, like reading a text on a phone or an email, is that you don't know how the person intends something to come across, as it is not spoken, and it is therefore open to interpretation to the intended recipient, and that's how I interpreted it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the phrase "...because he..." clearly means it was not intended for you, doesn't it ... no matter how you read it? Again, you're digging for reasons here when I'm the one helping you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Check your email. Nyttend (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calvin999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not due to be unblocked until Friday night, but I'm submitting an unblock request now. I haven't been able to edit any article for 12 days now, and I think I've served enough block time. It has actually done me good and it was a much needed break away from editing and drama, but I want to be able to edit again now.

Decline reason:

The only real reason pffered here is "time served" which in no way adresses the reason you were blocked. I don't see anything any more compelling in the discussion below. You wanted an answer, here it is. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Not the worst unblock request I've seen but not the best, and I'm not optimistic you'll be successful. It's best to address the specific reason you were blocked and what steps you'll take in the future to avoid repeating. Although the full issue isn't exactly clear to me, from the statement Toddst1 made when blocking and you're prior warning, I'd suggest something like "I will discuss other editors' good faith edits I disagree with on the talk page before reverting them." This would allow you to revert vandalism, BLP violations and unsourced additions and the like, but differences like pop and dancehall and dancehall and pop you'd have to wait a bit on before reverting, if you can reach consensus on the change. Nobody Ent 14:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've pretty much said it all in the couple of unblock requests already. The condition of my unblock, the 1RR for 6 months, is a reason in itself. It leaves me no choice but to discuss things. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

[message meant to be left earlier, but postponed until now due to bad Internet connexion] Got your email, but I'm confused: if you want to say something in the email, why don't you just say it? And if you want to be unblocked, why not transclude the template? I'm willing to help where appropriate, but the blocking admin is Toddst1 and you might do well to email him. Nyttend (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The email I sent you is nothing to do with my block or Toddst1, and is something I'd like to remain private via email and not on my talk page please, that's why I emailed you, so don't discuss it here. Thanks. And I have nothing to email Todsst1 with or for, I find his administrative responsibility questionable, see here and here. (P.S. I didn't know I had to transclude the template?).Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You have a request for unblock active, and then go and say what you have just said above? Really? Note, I also concur with the Ent that the unblock does not quite cover the issues correctly - see WP:GAB and feel free to fix the request. Note the fix I made to the unblock template for you to make it actually appear correctly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "go and say what you have just said above?". And yeah I saw, all I did was copy and paste the unblock template as it was presented (now in my archive), so how was I supposed to know that it apparently needed fixing? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What do I mean? You trash the blocking admin - which is usually an automatic decline. You know the template needed fixing because the block notice gave instructions here in your archives that certainly did not include "tlx". Are you going to fix your unblock request as suggested, or is it easier to just decline it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not "trashing" by any means. I find it really unacceptable that several people, including you, have adopted less than personable stances with me, but when I merely state a fact (which is no different to that extremely large thread about his capabilities on the ANI which I've obviously had no involvement with), I'm "trashing", a term which I have never even heard of before. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? "Less than personable"?? Remember that I am the one who actually made your unblock request active. I am the one who is trying to help you become unblocked early by fixing your request, and giving you advice how to amend it to be successful. If that's your definition of "less than personable", I'd hate to see your criteria for "personable" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@BWilkins: You're here arguing with him. But it also seems like you're trying to be honest with him. Let's see if there are some better ways to say this stuff, and each one of you can be more helpful to the other that way? Good luck. -- Avanu (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you misread my comment above. It was indented under BWilkins name, but I've clarified that now. And as for that other thing I said (you commented via email), it is true, and I think BWilkins is trying to offer advice, however gruffly, as are some of these others. I think you got a raw deal on part of this, but sadly this is a part of Wikipedia that many active editors end up running into eventually. Good luck, and I'll try and be more clear. -- Avanu (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To be super clear, that link he posted to Wikipedia:AAB is just one more thing to be read. Wikipedia is bound down with so many rules and guidelines and policies and pillars, and yet, we are WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Sure we aren't.

The way Wikipedia operates in a technical fashion is *very* 1998. You shouldn't have to go click one more link to know how to appeal a block. The information should be right up front and the process should help you, not be so text-driven.

The way our processes work are very 1948 and very hippie/ochlocratic/democractic/demagogue-ish/fascist. Overly bureaucratic and overly consensus driven. Mob rule, but nice mobs usually. Like I said to Jimbo, it is a bit like trying to herd cats.

So, what I'm trying to say is that there was probably a hint of him being whatever, and my reply was obliquely telling him, don't you think that stuff is complicated enough? Just go help. -- Avanu (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not arguing, I'm trying to respond and be honest. If replying is termed as arguing... And if I am "arguing" with him, then he is to me also. It's not a one way thing. Enough now. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Tbh Avanu, that comment could have been easily interpreted as it being about me reading it myself, or about BWilkin's reading it himself. I'm pretty sure my last unblock request did not "suck". Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with text is that nobody *feels* what you say without a lot of effort. In real life, you can smile, shake hands, and simply say "I messed up" and generally people move on. Here we take 100 paragraphs of text and a bunch of misunderstandings to get only a 1/4 of what that real-life interaction can do. The word "suck" was a succinct way of saying that your request above doesn't hit the mark. I personally think you've gone through enough, that you *get it*, but Edit Warring is one of those things that people either understand or they don't. The idea that we're here to fix problems and improve is at odds with the idea that we're supposed to voluntarily stop doing that and just chat on the Talk page until everyone is convinced. It is a very slow, deliberative, and awful process, but it is how Wikipedia works. Britannica probably never worked like that. They just hired smart experts or paid a contributor and moved on. In Wikipedia, you could be an expert, but that doesn't carry any weight. Consensus does. But it is what it is. And its the rule. If you understand how to avoid edit warring, then you have no reason to continue being blocked. If you don't understand it, then you need to keep being blocked. That's that point. -- Avanu (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that my request hasn't been answered as I am unblocked tomorrow night. I'd rather someone just be honest and say that I won't be unblocked because I've only got a day and a half to wait, but that wasn't the case 2 days ago, instead of just leaving it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's unanswered because it's not WP:GAB-compliant, and because a few people are trying to help you fix it. You're not fixing it, so you're right, it might just be easier to decline it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Calvin, I agree with you. The same thing happened with me. (I'm not sure if you were watching my situation from afar or not). My unblock request was not reviewed until hours after my block was even expired. Quite bad form if you ask me. I think most administrations think that being blocked for a few more days (a day, or even hours) is no big deal. But to us, who are both very active in the community, it is. Statυs (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! Are you feeling better? This whole conflict is like almost over but not yet. I just wanted to know how's going on and talk to you a little :) —Hahc21 15:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your concern, but I don't think I can talk for talking sakes while I'm blocked. Administrator's words, not mine. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've made a lot of work debunking such rationales, and the involved admins reached the same conclusion as I. So, you won't have your TP access blocked again until policy says that, and it don't (at least till u don't make what the policy does say). Just to note. Cheers! —Hahc21 20:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What policy? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ups. Wikipedia: Blocking policy. It doesnt support your talk page block. Actually, Toddst1 and I have been asking for it to be more specifically written to avoid TP bloks not covered by that policy. —Hahc21 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

Aaron, your block is set to expire in a few short hours. I personally believe that once that happens, we're about to see a good view of your level of maturity overall, based wholly upon how you proceed. Indeed, the fact that you have a "semi-retired" tag at the top of the page, yet requested unblock shows either confusion, or some WP:DIVA tendencies - you'll get to show us either way. Of course, based on the e-mails you sent me (which I still have) concern me about your maturity level, and lean towards the diva-model.

What will, of course, be extremely concerning, will be if you make even a single edit that is similar to what led to this block in the first place - WP:OWN is seriously unloved on this project. Your next block - which I hopefully hope will never happen - will be at least a month.

You now have many admins, and your friends both watching, and at the same time those admins and friends want to see you succeed. My recommendation: go out and edit well, and prove the doubters wrong. Don't go the drama route. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I am WP:OWN, but if you block me for copy-editing articles for GAN then I will not be impressed. It's no different to what I've been doing for over a year or what any other editor does. After all, as we are all here to improve the project, I would like to think that revamping an article for GAN would be encouraged. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sheet music

Hello. After your block expires, can you please help me with a sheet music for the key it's in? :) Till I Go Home ^talk 11:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try my best :) lol Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay thaaanks. Here it is. Idk if you can view it. but there's two sharps to the left of the 4/4 common time thingy. Till I Go Home ^talk 04:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's A major. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks but you can you tell?! Lol. Till I Go Home 13:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC) nevermind. I did some researching, and apparently it's E minor. Till I Go Home 14:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I compared it to a few other sheets with actually has the key in the arrangement details, and they were the same as the first key on the actual sheet above it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I should be unblocked now?

It's 19:44, and my block log says I should have been unblocked at 19:32. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Current GMT is 18:59 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I live in England and it's 20:02 lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's summertime, no?—Kww(talk) 19:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I would think so (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I know what the time is lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought you would have known as well ... but then you asked about being unblocked an hour early ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Even my contributions said 20:02, look here. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, for me it says 15:02 ... contributions are shown at local time; blocks are GMT. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The local time for me was 20:02. Glad we resolved that. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we figured that well before when you first said you were still blocked. You were advised then to compare to GMT, not your local time. Um, duh. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There's your less than personal stance "Um, duh". Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

FFS, YOU have spent how many lines being completely clueless about local time vs GMT, which is frustrating as hell...I was afraid that you were dumb as a tree, but it appears you were merely provoking me so you could use your "less than personal" made up shit once again. Cut it out, boneheadedness does not become you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

... WP:DROPIT? Till I Go Home 13:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with TGIH. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis

Hey Calvin. I know we aren't BFFs or anything (far from it), but I just wanted to let you know that ASCAP changed their damn site and there are no longer exact links to any of their content. Statυs (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about that, was going to do it a few weeks ago but something prevented me... Lol. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

FLC

FLC has a one-nomination-at-a-time limit, unless a nomination has significant support, in which case a second nomination can be added at the discretion of a director. Since that isn't the case with your nomination just yet, the answer to your question is no, you can't nominate a second list at this time. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: Question

Considering that Billboard Brasil was created in 2009, most of them seem false. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of number-one dance singles of 2011 (U.S.)

Hello! Your submission of List of number-one dance singles of 2011 (U.S.) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Calvin999. You have new messages at Till I Go Home's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Till I Go Home 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hello Calvin. I've seen that you took the GA review for I Am... World Tour. Since I'm going on a vacation, (which will last 10 days) I won't be able to address your issues if you don't review the article tomorrow. So can you please review the article tomorrow? My love is love (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OKay, yeah that's fine :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. My love is love (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm starting to be boring but I'm going in 3 or 4 hours. So can you please start the review now? If you can't it's ok. Just fail the article and I'll renominate it when I come back. :D My love is love (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

OKay I'll do it now. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. :DD My love is love (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much... And please keep an eye on Beyonce's articles while I'm not here. :D My love is love (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol okay. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Dance chart lists

Please use talk pages to discuss huge changes, such as the one you made to the 2011 list. Year-end chart positions are not really relevent to the article, and are better served in individual song articles. I've reverted the 2011 list for now until some kind of consensus can be reached. I've left other formatting changes you made to the 2012 list. Thanks. - eo (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Why?? There's no reason to revert that what-so-ever. The table is hardly different except I've added the "scope row" to the date column, wrote a lead (which was non-existent), and added a few pictures. I've copy-edited it for FLC. And you've completely messed up my DYK nomination now. Great, thanks a lot. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead and pics were re-added to 2011, actually I was working on it but you got to it first (edit conflict). As with other lists (e.g. Hot 100), please refrain from summaries and pictures on a year that is still in-progress (e.g. 2012 - there have been discussions about this on Talk Pages of other lists). Would be a better idea to move on to 2010 instead and move backwards, as 2012 does not have a full year of number-ones to summarize yet. - eo (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

*Sighs*, I was just about to post a DYK nomination. The 2012 lead is written in the present tense, there's nothing wrong with having a lead. Because of your reversion, the table is not supported by any prose. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to be a dick, I swear. In past years, people were beginning to add summaries to in-progress tables and it started all kinds of edit warring and problems because, as the year progressed, pics were added, deleted, re-added, removed, people trying to summarize stuff that just wasn't complete yet. - eo (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Calvin999. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Hahc21 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna singles template

Hello there Calvin. Please could you consult the relevant discussion at Template talk:Rihanna singles? Thanks. SplashScreen (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that piece of advice. I've come to notice over the past few days :) SplashScreen (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of number-one dance singles of 2010 (U.S.)

Hello! Your submission of List of number-one dance singles of 2010 (U.S.) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Who ...

... is Splash Green? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, Splash Screen. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

He looks so disciplined. I don't know if this is the right word. We have all been here for ages and he acts like he is the one going to teach us. Time for me to return I guess, eh? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Yes Jivesh, returnnnnnnn. Come on msn :). Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This time I am more than serious. I am coming back. I really miss this place Aaron. I miss you all so much especially you, Tom and Penguin. Tell me more about our new Mr. Know It All. *evil laughs* For some reason, I don't have access to msn currently. :( Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

:(. Email instead? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to my Hotmail either. I am sure it's related to some temporary technical problems. Hey, have you heard this? I love it. The instrumental slays my life. Hahahahahah. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's only just come over to the UK in the past week. I really like it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey who is this SG? ?Is he new around here? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

SG?? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Splash dude? I think SG will work fine, right? Lolzz. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh no!!! It should be SS. :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, you make me laugh. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ballarat Miners

I have addressed concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Ballarat Miners. Please comment. --LauraHale (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

See WP:ANI#Time for interaction ban? Users SplashScreen, Tomica and Status where you were mentioned. Toddst1 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What is an interaction ban? And I'm pleased it's being noted that I am working hard to stay within my editing restrictions. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:IBAN. I wanted to acknowledge your efforts here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I want to get involved with this to be honest. And thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably a wise move. It's customary to notify editors if they've been mentioned on a drama board. You've been notified, no need to reply. Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to uploaded a music video screenshot?

Please? :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you use a Windows 7 computer, there is an application called 'Snipping Tool'; I believe it comes with the OS and it may be on Vista as well. Get to the part of the video you want to get a screenshot of and pause, then open up the application and use the tool to clip the part of the image you want to use. Toa Nidhiki05 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to upload the screen shot to Wikipedia though. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah; well, I don't like the new upload file tool so I use the old version. There is an option on there for music video screenshots. The form can be filled in with information to confirm its fair-use status. Toa Nidhiki05 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks I'll try and do it. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of I Will Be

Hello! Your submission of I Will Be at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of number-one R&B singles of 2011 (U.S.)

Hello! Your submission of List of number-one R&B singles of 2011 (U.S.) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LauraHale (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Will Be

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 20:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of number-one dance singles of 2011 (U.S.)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Got You (Leona Lewis song)

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. For comments, please click here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have passed both articles that you nominated. Keep up the good work! Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 00:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: I Will Be

As I finish the article Miguel Ángel Mancera (basically this section is missing references), I'll help you. Also, I noticed you are improving LL articles, if it is in your plans, I'd like to help you with Run (Snow Patrol song), I've found some references about SP version. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Yeah that's cool :-). "Run" is a large article. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. I was thinking about IWB, considering this is an Avril Lavigne song, why we don't try to talk about the Lavigne version (if there is information). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any background info on Avril's version. She's never spoken about it, and neither has Dr. Luke. It was also only an iTunes pre-order track, hence why there aren't any reviews about it. No information about it on Musicnotes either, as Leona covered it. I looked for info so that I maybe write a bit about the Background of the song, but couldn't find anything. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't, I just made a quick c/e. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but you might have done some of his points without realising lol Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? That was weird. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My classes start on 13 August, I'd like to begin as soon as possible. Congrast on "I Got You" and "I Will Be" :). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay cool. I'm free pretty much whenever. And thanks :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of number-one dance singles of 2010 (U.S.)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for I Will Be

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Calvin999

Hi Calvin: just to let you know, I have removed two of the GA nominations for which you have claimed points. I'm sure the reviews themselves were fine, it's just that, as more "rubber stamp" reviews, they're not eligible for WikiCup points. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So it's kinda seen as a bad thing if the article is practically perfect and there isn't anything to comment on? Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, it's just not eligible for points; the same is true of very short fails, as well. There are an awful lot of worthwhile things one can do on Wikipedia which are not eligible for points in the WikiCup- vandal fighting, stub creation, participation in peer review, new page patrol and so on are some other examples. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mariah Carey Single Cover - "Triumphant (Ge 'Em)".jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Mariah Carey Single Cover - "Triumphant (Ge 'Em)".jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Overloaded: The Singles Collection

I expanded the article a LOT, it might need another look at. Till I Go Home 13:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It won't add any prose, but a release history table would be good to add just for reference. See Loud (Rihanna album) for example. Also, according to the DYK check, the article is still not 5x expanded :-/, which isn't good news for your DYK nomination. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, the reviewer said it needed to be 1890 words it's 1895 currently. Till I Go Home 13:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going by what the DYK check said  :-/ Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've added the release table./ Till I Go Home 07:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Channel Orange

Would the end of its run on the music charts indicate stability for GAN? B/c everything else, including promotion/singles (according to Ocean), are set, except potential year-end accolades. Dan56 (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Stability in editing. GAN 3 weeks after an albums release is too soon. You should wait one or two months, at least, because you don't know what information might come up between now and then. It's the same as making a song a GA before it becomes a single, as it changes too much and affects its GA status. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)