User talk:Calvin999/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 29

A cheeseburger for you!

hi Calvin this is dfrr i think you will like this cheeseburger. Dfrr (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.  — ₳aron 07:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John Cunningham (RAF officer)

Hello! Your submission of John Cunningham (RAF officer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A consolation barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Hi Aaron, I just checked back at the Only Girl (In the World) FA nomination, and noticed it didn't go through this time. Sincerely hope it won't take you ten candidacies to get this one through! Here's a recognition for the hard work you've already put in there, and across the Wiki. Good luck.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha. Thank you :)  — ₳aron 10:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/American Oxygen

Please see my comments there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverts (Nicki Minaj)

If you would have read my edit summary, you would have seen that reverting my revert was not immediately necessary. I suggested having a conversation on Nicki Minaj's talk page, of which, is currently underway. Simply participating there would have been more helpful. For future reference, it is best to form a consensus instead of engaging in an unnecessary edit war. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A conversation isn't needed and a consensus isn't needed. She was born in Trinidad, she identifies and being Trinidadian and not American, and as we have never seen any documentation saying she has American citizenship. Rihanna was born in Barbados, identifies as being Barbadian, and thus we say Barbadian throughout her articles, despite living in America.  — ₳aron 08:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

We also know that she moved Queens, New York, when she was 5 with her family that legally immigrated to the United States. In order to attend public schools, she would have had to be an American citizen. Where she was born does not override the location in which she became notable per MOS:BLPLEAD. Furthermore, we have reliable, secondary sources that refer to her as an American artist. On Wikipedia, secondary sources override primary when the two are in disagreement, and/or when the number of secondary sources is significant. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is her documentation or copy of it saying she has attained American citizenship? Even if this is provided, it makes her Trinidadian-American, or Trinidadian (with American citizenship) for her bio info box. You can't escape the fact that she was born in Trinidad to Trinidadian parents with a Trinidadian passport. You can't just omit the Trinidadian part out because she lives in the United States now. It doesn't work like that. The people who refer to her as solely American, as you mention, are massively misinformed. She is not American in any form.  — ₳aron 08:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you not look at the primary Nicki Minaj article you reverted in this edit? It stated "Trinidadian-born American", which is correct. Remember, this is not about your opinion or mine. This is about what reliable sources state, whether they are wrong or not. This is a fundamental principle that governs policy on Wikipedia. We should be able to trust that secondary sources are properly vetting this information. We do not need to do the research ourselves or have direct access to primary sources.

I suggest making a change to how we've approached this. In all the song articles, we can change it to simply say, "[Song title] is a song by Nicki Minaj". Her nationality and citizenship is not important there. The artist's primary article is where that distinction matters. From here on out, let's continue this discussion at Nicki Minaj's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

But the reverts you made reverted them to solely American, not Trinidadian-American. All song articles use the nationality of the artist. I think it's best to have her bio as "Trinidadian songwriter and rapper", and the info box should say "Trinidadian (with American citizenship)", providing that sufficient documentation can be sourced saying that she does in fact have American citizenship. This is the correct way to say include it.  — ₳aron 09:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we're not getting anywhere. You are ignoring Wikipedia policy concerning reliable sources. You are also ignoring the Manual of Style guideline I referenced above, MOS:BLPLEAD, which states, "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident" should be used. I'm going to continue the discussion at Nicki's talk page. If you'd like to join the discussion there, please do. We need to give this maximum visibility, and your talk page isn't going to accomplish that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

But she is clearly a citizen and national of Trinidad, too, so as long as a source for her being an American citizen can be found, it would be fine to include both nationalities. Angela Lansbury attained American citizenship, so she is referred to as being British-American.  — ₳aron 09:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I need an Administrator to do something for me please! If you see this, please comment back here!

Thanks!  — ₳aron 08:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Bogus speedy deletion tags

Do not re-add declined, bogus speedy deletion tags to articles, as you did at I Am (Leona Lewis album). WilyD 11:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Show me where it got decline? Because I can't see who did it.  — ₳aron 11:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, giving me bogus template warrings, redirecting pages from the mainspace to elsewhere, re-adding bogus speedy deletion tags, and so on, leaves me wondering whether to it'd be wiser to block you or protect the page to prevent your continued disruption. WilyD 11:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

At no point have I seen anyone say "I'm closing this deletion request". I'm giving you warnings because you are not paying attention! A mainspace article used to exist which I was editing, and it was moved to the draft space a few months ago, the same draft which has the entire edit history of multiple editors for months and months. Some Leona fan/new editor has blazed in hurriedly created an article which nothing more than an info box and some confirmed songs, who has since copied and pasted all that me and others have been working on for months in the draft, and you keep adding it all back and accusing me of blanking, when it was never there in the first place! I listed the new mainspace one for deletion because it's not fair or correct to simply copy and paste 10,000 characters worth of prose from the draft and not give due credit, it creates a problem with the history. Plus, the album has no release date yet, which make the mainspace one you accuse me of blanking not notable according to guidelines, which is why it was placed in a draft space in the first place! Do you understand now??  — ₳aron 11:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixing cut and paste moves ain't hard. That doesn't justify adding bogus speedy deletion tags, nor re-adding declined speedy deletion tags. I'll fix the cut and paste move. If you engage in any more disruption there, I'll take away your ability to do so, by blocking your account and/or protecting the page. WilyD 11:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well it was duplicated content. And why have you moved it into mainspace?? It doesn't have a release date, so it fails music articles notability guidelines!! That's why it was placed into a draft!! Now IP users are going to attack and bombard the article with a load of unneeded, unsourced and poorly written information. That's why I wasn't asking for a history merge, it's too early. And don't threaten me, it's not appreciated. All I'm doing is adhering to policy and guidelines (which you are now violating because the album doesn't have a release date).  — ₳aron 11:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a warning (because we're all happier when editors voluntarily stop disrupting the encyclopaedia). Adding invalid speedy deletion tags to articles is not adhering to policy or guideline. Placing invalid warning template on user talk pages is not adhering to guidelines and policies. Redirecting pages from the mainspace to other namespaces is not adhering to policies and guidelines. All of these things are unacceptable disruption. If you want it moved back to draft space, start a discussion on the talk and get a consensus. The article appears to meet WP:N and looks in decent shape, so there's compelling reason to unilaterally move it to draft. That you don't want other editors editing is, frankly, tough, see WP:OWN. A history merge is necessary to meet the licensing conditions, so there's nothing to discuss on that issue. The licensing isn't negotiable. WilyD 12:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's written like a threat, and I haven't been disruptive. If anything, it was the other user who was being disruptive. At least I said why I was removing the pasted content. Have you given him a slap on the wrist, too? Probably not. I clicked the most relevant tag for deletion that I deemed it to be, which was that the same content was already in the draft space. How am I not adhering to policy? We don't include music articles with no release date in mainspace, and that is exactly what you have done. So you are not adhering to policy. It's funny, because someone else moved it to the draft space for the exact reason for which you think it should be in mainspace. How confusing is that. Who is adhering to policy and who isn't? It's certainly not you. You are purposely going against music article criteria for having it in mainspace without a release date or even a national chart. What do you have to say to that? This is what I have to say: Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Unreleased material (Emphasis on the "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." part).  — ₳aron 13:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari/GA1

It is over four weeks since you opened this review, yet nothing has been done with it. If you'd prefer, I can arrange to put it back into the nominations pool with no loss of seniority. If you do plan to do the review, please start it soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Aaron, I've just found a couple more GAN reviews that were opened the day before the first one that you also haven't done anything with. May I suggest that until you do these reviews—or until you've relinquished them back to the nomination pool—that you refrain from starting any more reviews, as you did a couple of days ago with Talk:Princess Alice of the United Kingdom/GA1? The ones still awaiting attention after nearly a month:

• Talk:Amadeus VI, Count of Savoy/GA1 (March 18)
• Talk:Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours/GA2 (March 18)

I hope you can devote the necessary time to the three from March before moving on to Princess Alice. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I will don't worry. I've got more than 160 reviews to my name, far more than any other people that I can see at first glance in the nominations list. That shows that I do do reviews. As I've said before, I have been really ill for about 3 weeks and am getting better now, so I haven't been online for either long periods of time or at all. If I open a review, it will get done, whether it's the next day or next month. It's a guarantee that I will do it instead of the nominator potentially waiting three or four months or longer (which does happen). They will all be done this weekend.  — ₳aron 08:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Aaron, sorry to hear you've been ill. Thanks for confirming that you will get these old reviews started in the near future. Hope you're fully recovered soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for American Oxygen

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious

music of the sun
Thank you, Aaron, for quality articles such as S&M and Love the Way You Lie, List of songs recorded by Rihanna, List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande and American Oxygen, for good topics such as Music of the Sun, for reviewing GAs - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much!  — ₳aron 09:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Only Girl (In the World)

Hello there,

Following on your from your message to me asking me to refer to WP:USCHARTS, I noticed it is advised that a "singlechart" template is to be used 'where possible'. I thought it would be correct to alter the charts on Only Girl (In the World) to this template having previously seen it.

Many apologies if I was at fault.

Ellis.o22 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It can work sometimes, but for some of them, I've used a written article. Also, using the template forces Billboard to be linked every time in the table, which causes WP:OVERLINK. That's why I prefer not to use the template. I don't always reference to the artist chart history, either, perhaps to an archive date. When I've left messages to you before, it's been about included Dance Airplay with the other dance charts are present, for example, not about templates.  — ₳aron 12:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Caligari review

Thanks for reviewing The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari! I believe I've responded to all your comments at the GAN, but let me know if you had any more thoughts! — Hunter Kahn 18:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the review, and thanks for the barnstar as well! — Hunter Kahn 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SHMG

Whats unconstructive of my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyRozay (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) see WP:NALBUMS; an album doesn't warrant a separate article without a confirmed title, full tracklist, and release date. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm 23 today!

Wahhhhh  — ₳aron 07:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy your birthday! Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :)  — ₳aron 18:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy birthday, all the best. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.  — ₳aron 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For reviewing and improving so many GA-nominations. Keep up the amazing work, buddy. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!  — ₳aron 17:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Harrias ^talk 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Fidel Castro

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Pentemont Abbey

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Re:DYK Medal

Hallo ₳aron,
thanks a lot, much appreciated! Actually I already lost my hopes to get it :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That's okay :) I dished about 7 of them out! Thought I'd give the table an update.  — ₳aron 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

FA comments

Hi Aaron. Can you leave comments or vote on Master of Puppets, an FA candidate of mine? The review page is here. Appreciate your time.--Retrohead (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I will try and get to it at some point.  — ₳aron 09:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Lorde/archive3

Would you mind leaving some comments? Thanks, HĐ (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I will at some point soon.  — ₳aron 10:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Shetland (cattle)

Hi Calvin,

You may want to quick fail the GAN for Shetland (cattle), because I just discovered that from the beginning, the article was a complete copyright violation of this page. (I must admit that I'm rather disappointed at all the wasted time and effort I put into copy editing the article only to find this.) --Biblioworm 20:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll quick fail it. I can't get that link to work though?  — ₳aron 08:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1

Would you mind leaving some comments? Thanks, All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 05:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the first three albums has been discussed at length on Talk:Title (Meghan Trainor album). With the consensus to list the three albums, it was decided that Trainor has enough material for a discography. It saddens me that there is nothing in your comment that I can improve on. Can I please get a reply from you as to how Trainor is less notable than Lorde, Iggy, Charli, AshleyTisdale and Carly? I believe that the FL is not the place to discuss deletion. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 11:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi MaranoFan. I wasn't apart of those discussions about listing those three albums in her discography so I can't comment on that. My oppose is not representative of me thinking that you haven't worked hard or that there is nothing you can improve on. I can see you've spent time on it (I know it is time consuming when multiple tables are involved), and there were things I can see an issue with. But, as I believe the list is not notable, I didn't see the point of listing things to improve, because, with respect, you can't just make up new material to include in order for me to think that it would become notable. With regard to the other singers you mention, it kind of falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We aren't talking about those singers respective discographies here, we are talking about Trainor's, and my oppose with the reasons given still stands. However, when people say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to me, it does annoy me, so I will give a comment about each of those singer's discographies that you mention. Lorde's I would have opposed on the same basis as Trainor's; Iggy Azalea's I would have supported, because she has released essentially two albums (both have different material), has released more singles and has made a lot of guest appearances; Charli XCX I would support because has released two albums, a fair amount of singles, multiple guest appearances and multiple songwriting credits for other singers; Ashley Tisdale I would support per Azalea and XCX with regard to two albums and a lot more singles than Trainor; Carly Rae Jepsen I would probably abstain from voting, because yes she has released two albums with a third on the way, but she hasn't released many singles. Meghan Trainor has the smallest discography out of all those whom you mention.  — ₳aron 11:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew II of Hungary

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Stoppit

Lookit, thanks for listing it at ANI, I have replied there. I never made a personal attack against you, certainly against your arguments, but that is the rough and tumble of RfD. I was never incivil or rude to you and the record shows that. Can't we just get along and make the encylopaedia better? I have held out the olive branch and you have turned that down. There is nothing else I can do. If I have genuinely hurt you, I sincerely say sorry, because that is not my aim: I want to improve Wikipedia and argue vigorously but politely. I never swore at you, I never cast aspersions at you, never said anything wrong about you, so there was no personal attack. I was just arguing, as we do, for what I thought was the best outcome for various redirects. I may have a different style from you, but I am sure we are both aiming to make Wikipedia better and that people come in different directions is good, not bad. But you have to get used to the cut and thrust of it. I don't take personal offence when someone disagrees with me: if you look at WP:RFD, you'll see even on the current listings I changed my mind because User:Tavix had a better suggestion than I did. I'm quite willing to be wrong but I am not nasty. Si Trew (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, but you are, Si. You just seem not to realise it. Like me, you can be extremely gruff sometimes and in venues such as deletion discussions it really doesn't work very well. Aaron, best just to ignore when this sort of thing happens: RfD is a particularly rarified area and Si has made it his home. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush. It's such a shame to see something like this happen. If only some humility had been shown toward me, none of this would be going on. I know I didn't do anything or say anything wrong, so I know I can sleep well at night.  — ₳aron 23:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving to prohibit me from editing then leaving a stinking notice thanking me? Now that is bad faith. How pathetic. I don't know what's happening to the quality of editors on here. Ivanvector  — Calvin999 19:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion

Since your AfD nomination of the Meghan Trainor discography has been mentioned by a few editors, you may wish to comment here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice to anyone who has come here to warn me, gang up on me, accuse me of anything or otherwise negative comments

I'm not interested. No one is bothering to come and politely talk to me about what is supposed to have happened. I don't even know where it has come from, or what even has happened fully. All I know is that my name is causing tension on ANI and two AFDs, and I don't know why. Slapping warnings on my talk is very bad faith. I'm an editor with 5 years experience, and I am a heavy contributor to Wikipedia. Any such post will be removed. A warning isn't going to help me or you or anyone else resolve this. People who aren't even involved in what's going on are getting involved when they don't know what they are talking about.

Unless you've come here to calmly, politely, nicely discuss with me what is happening, or to inform me of new details about any of my nominations for review, then I will not engage in the conversation.  — Calvin999 15:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Since you admittedly don't know what has happened, let me explain. In this edit, which was made by your account, you made one brief comment and three comments by other users were removed. You say you've been here for 5 years, so I'm sure you know how to read diffs. It may have been a mistake, but you can see that it clearly happened. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hang in there and allow me to raise a glass in toast to you. Don't let the nitpickers get you down, mate! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness. To think all of this has come about over two tiny things... I literally don't know what's going on. No one over at that ANI thread can even be bothered to come and talk to me, instead, they are all ganging up on me and talking stuff amongst themselves.  — Calvin999 14:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no different in the way they are defending an editor who has left nothing but disruption in their wake and are, instead, vilifying those standing up to the disruption. I have noted that they are not vilifying an administrator, Drmies, for taking the same stand. That says volumes, don't you think? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You definitely didn't deserve that much heat, Calvin. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SNUGGUMS, but I'm still getting heat.  — Calvin999 12:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Blank Space

Can you take part in a discussion at Blank Space's talk page? The thread is Talk:Blank_Space#Cover_Versions. Thank you in advance. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my input, I'm not getting involved in discussions for the time being per recent issues by others against me. Sorry.  — Calvin999 13:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Overview of Lorde/archive1

Would you mind leaving some comments? Thanks, Simon (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my input, I'm not getting involved in nominations for the time being per recent issues by others against me. Sorry.  — Calvin999 13:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Osorkon IV

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Thelma (1910 film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Calvin999, per the FAC instructions you are supposed to wait at least two weeks before nominating another article when you have something archived at FAC. I don't see any particular reason to give an exception to the rule in this case, so I will be removing your nomination. Thanks. --Laser brain (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Another article? I thought it just applied to the one I had nominated previously? Not other articles?  — Calvin999 21:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's any other article. From the instructions: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator". Thanks. --Laser brain (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a bit silly really isn't it. I can understand not being allowed to re-nominate an archived nomination to give time to work on it, but not on a completely different article. 07:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion that resulted in that rule is about five years old now: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive43 (specifically, the section "Restrict nominations from an editor after an archived nom". I wonder if it's outlived its usefulness. --Laser brain (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is outdated. I don't see why it should apply to a separate article.  — Calvin999 11:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of You're Mine (Eternal)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article You're Mine (Eternal) you 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hey, it looks like your eager to start reviewing articles for the GA Cup, however, since the GA Cup does not start until July 1, any reviews started before hand do not count. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! :) --Dom497 (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay. I misread it as 1 June! I thought it was strange that only about 10 people were signed up.  — Calvin999 15:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Never thought I would see someone use the talkback template again...LOL!!! Anyways, no worries; just over three weeks to go!--Dom497 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? I use it all the time!  — Calvin999 10:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Angel Haze discography FL nom

Hi, have addressed all comments you left at the nomination for Angel Haze discography, is there anything else that you can see needs fixing for you to !vote support? Thanks for looking into it so well by the way, really helped me out . Azealia911 _talk 19:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Azealia911 If you wouldn't mind looking at my nomination, too, I'd appreciate it.  — Calvin999 20:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Thelma (1910 film)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey!

Would you mind looking at this. I'd appreciate it. Thanks!—Prashant 18:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure.  — Calvin999 19:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Although it's very, very, very, very late to give it, I'm awarding this barnstar to you for making S&M, a song I love very very much, an FA. FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah thank you! Very kind.  — Calvin999 19:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could looked at my nomination for "Only Girl (In the World)"? FrB.TG  — Calvin999 19:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar! I worked a lot on that article, so it's much appreciated. As for the "Dear Future Husband" article, I will look over your suggestions for its improvement and start working on it. Anyway, thanks for reviewing both these articles. --Markhoris (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of You're Mine (Eternal)

The article You're Mine (Eternal) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:You're Mine (Eternal) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of You're Mine (Eternal)

The article You're Mine (Eternal) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:You're Mine (Eternal) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Article on Babur

Please take a look at Babur and also the talk page of this article to see whether you agree with the general shape the article is taking now. I am writing to you because you made some edits on this page which i agree with. Soham321 (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321 I've said I want no further involvement with it. I've said all have to say about it.  — Calvin999 08:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bitch Better Have My Money

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI

You've been mentioned at WP:ANI with regard to the Babur article. You should have been informed by the person who mentioned you. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Anushka Sharma

Hey, can you please review it for GA? - Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1

I request to give your suggestions to improve this article here. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Living for Love

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Honeymoon (Lana Del Rey album) redirect

Hello, I'm a little curious why you redirected Honeymoon (Lana Del Rey album) to Lana Del Rey when the original article had reasonable notability and it had reliable sources. I haven't reverted the edit but I just wanna know the reason behind the edit. --Anarchyte 10:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hello. It has no track listing, no artwork, not enough sources, no release date, and no title, to name but a few things. It is not notable until it has a confirmed and official track list, a release date and a title. "September 2015" is not reliable or specific enough, and is subject to change. Anyone who reinstalls the article and removes the redirect will be warned on their talk and reverted. Anyone who continues to do it from that point onwards will be reported. Thanks.  — Calvin999 10:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Leona - I Am

Why on earth did you revert my edits?....I saw you had a dispute with that ip user cause there was no tracklist and you were right to redirect.....but now Amazon has the tracklist for the standard and the deluxe editions....so why did you revert?....

Amazon I Am Deluxe Edition

Amazon I Am Standard edition

• This is not confirmed by Leona herself, or Island Records. Things posted on Amazon are liable to change, and often do so. It's not reliable for track lists.  — Calvin999 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

But Amazon gets their information directly from the record label. It just seems to me that you are not a Leona fan and your just vandalizing her articles. Numerous other articles on Wikipedia use Amazon, so I just don't really understand.

How do you know that? Why would Island reveal a track list through Amazon? I just went on Amazon and searched "Leona lewis I am" and it didn't return anything. Not that I have to explain myself to you, but I'm the one who has made the Leona Good Articles a GA in the first place. I am a fan, but fandom shouldn't come into this. You're clearly a fan who thinks only you have the right to edit the article. I'm not vandalizing, you are. You are directly ignoring the redirect and ignoring the edit history. Didn't you see that someone was blocked yesterday for doing what you're doing? Continue, and you might be blocked, too. If you feel so compelled to help constructively, then edit the Draft:I Am (Leona Lewis album), but I will be looking at the edit you make to make sure you're not adding unreliable info.  — Calvin999 08:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't see the links above?... You searched on Amazon US, that's probably why it didn't return anything...the links I posted above are from Amazon.co.uk....Anyway, I think you are really underestimating the reliability of Amazon.....It's not ebay....Amazon is a reliable site and if you ask any other user, they will tell you that it is reliable. And no I wasn't ignoring the history of the article, I saw that the ip user got blocked because there was no tracklist. But now there is a tracklist, so how dare you say I'm vandalizing? When all I'm doing is posting reliable info. And also Leona herself stated on Twitter on June 18 that the album is being available for preorder soon, and now, 1 week later it's available for pre-order on amazon, so you can see that Leona was telling the truth. And also, if the tracklist was made available on iTunes instead of Amazon, would you be also saying "Why would the label reveal the tracklist via iTunes" or will you say that iTunes is reliable?....If iTunes is reliable, then Amazon is reliable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBHMMM (talk • contribs) 08:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first link shows an unconfirmed track list, the second shows nothing. I did search on Amazon UK, actually. I've had enough experience on here to know that Amazon for track lists and release dates are not the most reliable. I'm done with trying to explain to you and you not listening. Please don't post here again. Again, the IP wasn't blocked just because there is no tracklist. The article as a whole is not notable yet, and it is premature. As I said, if you want to make helpful edits, edit the draft I posted above. Apart from that, goodbye. (And sign off your posts please, typing ~~~~)  — Calvin999 08:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - June 2015 Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following: This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here. If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP! The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded. Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification. Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work. The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

GA review of Andrianampoinimerina

Hi Calvin999, Thanks for being willing to review the Andrianampoinimerina article. He's arguably the most important figure in the history of Madagascar, so any feedback you can provide will help ensure the article is at the level this figure deserves. - Lemurbaby (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's okay. I hope to get to it by tomorrow.  — Calvin999 07:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Single on iTunes

Hello Calvin. I was completing a discography's "Singles" section and i have a question probably you would know. If a song is aviable on iTunes for digital download, should we add them in the singles section? I mean it says "Single by X" on Itunes, so does it means that it's a single? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.18.56 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Only if it has been released as a single.  — Calvin999 19:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Melt My Heart to Stone

Irrespective of whether this song should have a separate article, two of your edits were inconsistent with the procedures for proposed deletion set forth at WP:PROD. PROD is a one-shot procedure for uncontroversial deletions: it can be used only once, and can be opposed for any reason or no reason. After Erpert removed the proposed deletion notice, it should not have been replaced: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." It is suggested that the removing editor give a reason, but it is not required. See WP:DEPROD. Moreover, Erpert did give a reason [1] on the talk page. The subsequent warning you gave to Erpert was clearly improper, both because it is inconsistent with the prod procedure, and because the warning you gave applies to discussions at WP:Articles for deletion, not the removal of a prod notice. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Simply removing isn't a reason. No reason was ever given, either. What is on the talk page is not a reason, unfortunately. He simply asked why it didn't meet criteria, and said that he thought it did. Sorry, but rules are rules. And we apply WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. The article in question was a miserable fail on all counts of notability criteria, and was subsequently redirect. Any attempt to re-create it will again result in being redirected. Thanks for leaving a comment.  — Calvin999 17:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Adele

Hi Calvin (or Aaron)! I know you're busy with GA Cup, but can you take time to review List of awards and nominations received by Adele that is nominated for featured list here? -- Frankie _CHITCHAT 15:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello Calvin!
I wanted to remind you that you were reviewing an article Iggy Azalea that I nominated for GA. The review takes just a week but now more than two weeks have passed. Kindly finish your review without further ado._Musa^Talk 20:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello yes all reviews will be completed tomorrow.  — Calvin999 21:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Come Dancing" GA review

Hi Calvin999: I have a couple of questions regarding the review on the "Come Dancing" article.

• Although it is usual to simply list the person by their surname, there are two Davies brothers in the band (Ray and Dave, both of whom were mentioned multiple times throughout the article), not to mention the sister that inspired the lyrics (Irene) and uncle that was channeled in the video (Frank). I'm uncertain as to how to list them without causing confusion.
• Aside from the genres, I don't see any problems with sourcing. I'm not sure what else need work in that category.
• Many music GAs only feature the single sleeve artwork. I don't think any other pictures are needed.

I feel that most of the other issues pointed out could be fixed within a 7 day on-hold period: please advise. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I generally thought that article seemed outdated and needed bringing up to date. Although, I do think I was a bit hasty in review to fail it now that you have bought my attention to it. I will un-do the outcome and place it on hold. Thanks for coming to my talk page and discussing it with me, I appreciate it.  — Calvin999 08:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you: I'll get to work - if there are any specific issues you have with the article, let me know. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, by the way! I've done some work on the article - I've fixed the issues you pointed out above and I did a little work on the pictures. If there's anything else I need to fix, I'd be happy to oblige. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this. Thanks.  — Calvin999 07:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your recent GA review

Hi Calvin999. I heard about your recent GA review of The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Speaking as a fellow reviewer, I hope you'll take it in stride when I suggest that you alter a few aspects of your behavior before you perform your next GA review, as I hope you agree that this review could have been handled better. If it's all right, I'll briefly cover a few points:

• We start a review by reminding ourselves of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing. I believe those reviewing instructions are good and they should be followed.
• We nearly always give the nominator a little time to respond to our review, as the nominator might be able to act quickly to improve the article to GA quality according to our suggestions, which is of course our goal (unless a truly egregious offense has taken place, e.g. plagiarism or active maintenance tags).
• We do not archive the review, as others may have something to say. We, as reviewers, do not need to have the last word.
• We maintain a professional attitude, even a cheerful attitude. We do not adopt a "How dare you" attitude. In general, most nominators are easy to work with and are happy to please their reviewer.

That's it; if you have a response feel free to leave it below. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I've reviewed 198 nominations, and this is the first time I've encountered a problematic nominator. I sense your bias toward Dan56, but he hasn't exactly got everything right, either. I don't feel it is fair of you to just come here and post on my talk and not his. He shouldn't have re-opened and re-instated the nomination, he doesn't understand the definition of quick fail, he started an edit war (he only stopped because he knew he would violate the 3RR twice if he did so again), and he is being aggressive and unreasonable. He's got the hump because his nomination failed. Big deal, it's happened to all of us who nominate articles at some point or another, and we always obviously feel disheartened because we wouldn't nominate if we felt it wasn't good enough. Thank for posting here, although I did find it a bit odd that you're saying 'feel free to leave a response' to me on my own talk page! Lol.  — Calvin999 08:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, ha, it certainly is your own page; I suppose I am used to closing like that. I have never met Dan56 before. Agreed, he shouldn't have re-opened the nomination. I felt it was important enough to come directly to you and state those four suggestions above. Thank-you for knowing that I meant no disrespect. Of course, thank-you also for reviewing! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead single vs first single

Regarding your edit summary here, what exactly is the difference between the two? They tend to be used synonymously. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

First single isn't necessarily the same as lead single. "Fire Under My Feet" was released in the US, but it wasn't promoted. "Thunder" is being promoted as the lead single for the album, whereas "Fire Under My Feet" was promoted as the lead single for the album in the UK.  — Calvin999 22:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Just thought I'd ask. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Holiday notice

{{vacation3}}  — Calvin999 20:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bitch I'm Madonna

Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Meteorite (song)

Hello! Your submission of Meteorite (song) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Trying to..

.. understand this revert you did to the templates I corrected in TAOLG article. Why? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Because they didn't need "correcting". There's nothing wrong with them.  — Calvin999 09:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Usage of a template is always preferred over hard-codes for the chart jargons. Why are you against using templates I would like to know? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't say anywhere that templates must be used or that they should replace coding. I don't like how the templates can't be edited and I don't have to use them. They actually can be a problem sometimes.  — Calvin999 09:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Calvin999. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

10:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Meteorite (song)

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Dance stuff

Hey, I like what you're adding here, looks good! Just saw this addition, shouldn't J-Blow be in there somewhere? [2] - eo (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've only got as far as adding those two at the moment. Thanks for that though, I've never heard of him so wouldn't have come across him. I don't know who else has achieved a string apart from Jennifer Lopez. What do you think should be the lowest string of number-ones?  — Calvin999 12:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the penny just dropped further than ever before. J-Blow =/= J Lo.  — Calvin999 14:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dance Club Songs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hard (song). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Apology

Aaron, I owe you an apology for my comments on the "Man Down" FAC. Looking at other reviewers' inputs, I now realize that I was harsh and that the article really is a lot better than I perceived it. I know I created quite a mess, and whether or not you forgive and forget, I just want us to move on, on a positive note. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I accept your apology and I've already forgotten about it. I know from previous work I've seen you do that you edit and edit and edit to achieve perfection, so I could kind of understand what you was doing because that's what you do with articles you work on.  — Calvin999 15:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Aaron. The Wikipedian Penguin 18:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Bourgeois Blues/GA1

Calvin999, if its not much of a bother, would you mind giving two cents in the above GA review I'm conducting? Basically the nominator and another co-editor of the article is questioning my concerns about sentences being unsourced and whether or not music composition requires a source. Well I did explain to the best of my ability and would also be grateful if you can voice your opinion on this. Thanks for "Devil Pray". —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep  — Calvin999 13:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey

These statistics were published in Billboard. They aren't online, but were published a long time ago. (Utzdman55 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC))

Hi. Billboard never refers to any of these people having that many number-one's. This is a list of Hot 100 achievements, not pre-Hot 100 achievements.  — Calvin999 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm sure Billboard says something somewhere about those #1s, but why go through all of the trouble of making two pages when you could put it in one? You have Pre-Hot 100 charts there anyway from slightly before the Hot 100. Why not just change the name to List of Billboard chart achievements and milestones? (Utzdman55 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC))

I've never seen Billboard articles mention those singers. And we have to draw the line somewhere, the article is already extremely long.  — Calvin999 23:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Billboard articles don't mention them, but the statistics do. Tsort.info, the source site, gathered data from a complete database of popular music (1890 on) from Billboard published by an organization called Bullfrog. The site is down, though I went through the internet archive and downloaded the master file of every song that has ever charted on Billboard. Each song has a "Whitburn" number, from Joel Whitburn, a chart stat finder whose books are already in the article as additional sources. The PDF file is 15,888 pages long. Adding here isn't really adding. The list only keeps the top 10 or 5. Since the data is correct and available that we should put it to use in this article. See here [3] for more information. This page should encompass all of popular music so it is unbiased as possible. Let me know what you think. (Utzdman55 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC))

I've already said what I think.  — Calvin999 11:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Auld Lange Syne (Mariah Carey).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Auld Lange Syne (Mariah Carey).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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne

I did tell you. It's right there in the edit summary. If you don't want people turning up with tags, don't upload non-free images without rationales- you've really got no business getting grumpy with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not getting grumpy. But simply saying it needs rationale is not what I said. I said not telling me how or where to do it. I had to look at other examples to work it out for myself. I've uploaded artwork before and no-one has ever told me to put rationale in. They must have just added it themselves.  — Calvin999 07:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of When Christmas Comes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article When Christmas Comes you 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eurofan88 -- Eurofan88 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of When Christmas Comes

The article When Christmas Comes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:When Christmas Comes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eurofan88 -- Eurofan88 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)