User talk:Calvin999/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Skyfall

Don't do that again and don't leave a sniffy and pointless summary again. If you disagree with the nomination then raise the questions you have either in the article's or my talk page, or feel free to do some work on it yourself to improve. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if you won't do anything then I will review it and see what the outcome is of your lapse attitude.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WTF are you on about, my "lapse attitude"? You leave a ridiculous edit summary without bothering to discuss in the right way or in the right place, and you complain about my attitude? As I have already said, if you have a problem with the article, raise questions on the article's talk page or on mine and try and work towards a positive goal, not threaten to undertake what will be an obviously biased review. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice discussion. Well done on going to the talk page to discuss the article, as was requested twice. I look forward to a wholly unbiased review... - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous. I looked at the revision history of before you started editing and when you had finished, and the article is virtually the same with the same problems and issues. In its present state, it is awful. I asked politely for you to just go and actually spend time on it before nominating it. Not enough work has been done by a long mile in order to secure its GA icon on the article. As you are someone who has 38 GAs and several FLs/FAs, I would have thought you would know how to improve an article. Judging by your "work" on "Skyfall", I'm worried about the condition of those articles which you have worked on. My review won't be bias and it will be full and complete for the whole article. But your decision to ignore my advice has resulted in this action. You should have just listened, actually improve the article, and then nominated it.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the state of your English, I'm not convinced that you'll be the best judge on this, and as for "How about not edit conflicting it me", I would have thought that you would have enough knowledge of Wiki that you'll appreciate ECs happen frequently and are never deliberate. As to your snide little insult of "I'm worried about the condition of those articles which you have worked on", I am disgusted that you should stoop so low as to insult the work of other editors without any basis of knowledge whatsoever. I strongly suggest that you withdraw from the review process as I have severe doubts that your review will be in the article's best interest. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh big deal, I made a typo in an edit summary. Bit different to in an article which is seen by innumerable people. Well perhaps if you had of actually made some sort of effort on "Skyfall" then you wouldn't have made me think that. I love the song and I would like to it at its best. So don't accuse me of being incapable to review if you felt I was accusing you of being a bad editor. It's slightly hypocritical. I have also successfully made 57 articles a GA and have reviewed 90, so I think I am a little more than capable.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:TEA, both of you. That's my suggestion. Aaron, Schro is fantastic at writing works on literature (especially James Bond); Schro, Aaron is fairly well versed in music articles (although yes, Aaron, your grammar could be improved). You both have your own specialties, and they overlap here. I think, if you were to work collaboratively, the article would be the better for it. Draw in a third opinion if you need to... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Crisco, you are, of course right. Aaron, I have asked a couple of times for a discussion on the talk page and I still maintain that is the best way forward on this. As an aside, comments such as "perhaps if you had of actually made some sort of effort on "Skyfall"" really don't help the situation, especially as my first edit on this article was on 4 October last year and I've made more edits than anyone else, with 72, although I will be the first to admit that there is still some polishing tat needs to be done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• If I get the time later tonight I'll try and stop by to see what the ruckus is about, then weigh in (and maybe copyedit). Right now, tea. Speaking of which, I have cinnamon sticks and Orange Pekoe (I think) downstairs... makes for a good mix. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  Both of you, this is just a talk page. It doesn't matter how I write. For the record, I wouldn't have been given first class marks at my university if I couldn't apply grammar correctly. You may be experienced in writing articles about films, but I am experienced in writing about songs, and they are two completely different things to write about. How you've approached "Skyfall" is rather awful. It looks exactly the same as before you started and the structure is bad. The revision history shows how little time you put into it. For a while I've wanted to work on it because I love the song, but I don't think I would be able to work with you, despite the fact that I could without a doubt improve on the article considering its "my bag", for want of a better expression. I would rather review it and tell you how to improve it formally, because as I think you have proven, you would not listen to me if we were to work collaboratively on the article. You only want me to talk about it on the talk page so you can apply what I say so that it passes GAN first time. I'm very good at reading people.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not saying you need to improve your grammar on this talk page, but in article space... I think you are still taking too much of a battlefield mentality here: " You may be experienced in writing articles about films, but I am experienced in writing about songs, and they are two completely different things to write about."... not a "how about I show you the ropes?" in there. You could point out to Schro that there needs to be discussion of the lyrics, for example, and the melody, instruments used, etc. A link to WP:SONG, at the very least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  For your last statement... AGF needed. When you submit you articles for FAC, you don't expect the reviewers to fail right off the bat without discussing it at least a little, right? Same with the GA review process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, I see you've been ignoring AGF since earlier today. Fantastic... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) When I removed the nomination with a reason as to why, he could have asked me then "How could I improve it? How should I structure a song article?" But instead, he reverted me, which basically says that he thinks I'm wrong, as you don't revert people for being right. Works both ways. To be honest, too much is wrong with the article for me to list on his talk page bouncing comments back and forth. I will leave a formal review for it on the GAN page. For you second round of comments, that was what this is all about. I've seen people remove other's GANs and I've had mine removed as well.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  Then others were wrong in removing the GAN nomination without actually doing a formal/semi-formal review (even a quick fail). There is nothing in the policies or guidelines to allow the removal of a GAN without a review; such removals seem to be done based on discussion at WT:GAN. Yes, I agree the article has issues, but you can both likely work it out if you take the time to patiently go through them. Remember "Cockiness (Love It)", "Fading", and your other song articles I've reviewed? Those didn't pass overnight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  It's not likely that we will work together. Besides, I've already created the GAN page.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  Don't make it for a lack of trying. Yes, I've noted that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've been thinking of doing the article for a while, but after seeing how he has reacted to my suggestion of actually improving the article before nominating, I don't want to. Besides, I know it would be me who does all the work anyway. I'm done with talking about this.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Aaron, on a number of occasions I have asked you to discuss your concerns on the talk page, in order to approach this in a collaborative way, and I am a little confused as to why you are refusing to discuss this on the talk page. Just for the record, I have put in considerable effort in getting a large number of Bond-related articles up to GA: films, books and biographies. On the majority of these articles I have worked with one or two other editors, to ensure the articles reach the desired standard. I have undertaken an awful lot of work on these, rather than leaving it to others, as writing the articles is what I enjoy. If the article can be worked on to pass GA first time, then surely that is a good thing, unless you think that there is some hideous motive for trying to improve an article? - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Schro, on a number of occasions I have said that I will give it a formal review. You may have put in a lot of work on the films, books, and biographies, but you haven't on "Skyfall". The revision history speaks for itself and I'm not the only one who thinks so either. Articles should be of GA standard before they are nominated. It's too late now anyway, even if I did want to work on this with you in order to show how a song article should be structured, my name is on the review. Unless you get someone to delete the review so that you can ask me to help show you how it should be done.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Who's done the theme songs? I noticed some of them are GAs as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• "You Know My Name" is a GA, shockingly.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• See, I made a suggestion which would help you, but neither of you have replied to it, even though you would have both seen that I replied as you edited on Wikipedia after I posted. Both saying how I should offer to help, I do, yet neither comment.  — AARON • ^TALK 19:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Aaron, I'm going to drag you back to the WP:AGF point once again. I'm not ignoring your comment at all, but I do have a job that unfortunately gets in the way of spending as much time on wiki as I would like. I have made a couple of mundane edits while trying to sort out a case for a client and my mind has not been able to focus properly on your thread. I will come back to it shortly. I'm also trying to ignore your minor sniping, which isn't helping me take your comments with anything but a pinch of salt at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well see it from my point of view. We was exchanging comments for quite a while, then as soon as I said I would help, I heard nothing for three hours.  — AARON • ^TALK 19:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Give me half an hour to clear some stuff up and I'll get back to you on your suggested way forward. - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• In relation to your deletion suggestion, we can ask Wizardman to delete the review page, which I think he has done before at a reviewer's request. This shouldn't be a problem, especially as you are reviewing an article to which you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, which is a good enough ground for him to do it.
• There is a second option, which is that you undertake the formal review and give the same guidance within your role as GA reviewer. There is nothing to stop you as a reviewer in guiding the article towards GA, while not actually doing any of the editing yourself. This will allow you to keep your objectivity as the reviewer, while I do all the heavy lifting.
• Either way, I would be extremely grateful for guidance on the development of a song article to GA standard, which I have not done previously. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• I can do a formal review, but it seems a bit pointless for me to write everything out and get you to do it, when I could just do it myself.  — AARON • ^TALK 20:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about guidance towards the correct structure and points towards areas for improvement, rather than you writing everything out. If you don't want to do that, then you'll have to request that Wizardman delete the page on the basis that you are reviewing an article to which you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, which you shouldn't really be doing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall significantly contributing to this article??  — AARON • ^TALK 22:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well then, just ask to withdraw and for him to delete the page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll only do that if you want me to help you show how to structure a song article.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, I would be extremely grateful for guidance on the development of a song article to GA standard, which I have not done previously. - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Calvin999. You have new messages at Talk:Love Without Tragedy / Mother Mary/GA1.
Message added 18:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jump (Rihanna song)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I See You GA Review

Check it. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 04:05, 3 April 2013 (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.

Replied.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Calvin999. You have new messages at Talk:Rock Me (One Direction song)/GA1.
Message added — Robin (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thanks for passing "Miss Independent" to GA status! Chihciboy (talk) 08:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song)/GA1

See Talk:Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song)/GA1 review. — Robin (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Calvin999. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Kelly Clarkson/archive1.
Message added 11:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I fixed the references based on your comments. You can check it now. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Champion

Thank you very much for reviewing it, sorry it took so long for me to finish it though, I very much appreciated you reviewing it for me! If you ever need a favor, feel free to ask! (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song)

It looks like this is gonna be a single. A bunch of official remixes were leaked; labels only commission remixes for singles. And seeing as how it is peaking so high on the dance chart, it seems like some of the remixes were already issued. Zach 19:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily "Breaking Dishes" is an example of a song that had remixes but never became or was never planned as a single. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Christina has already started working on a new album, so I doubt this will get single release, live promo, music video etc. I think they just saw it was doing well in dance outlets and are taking advantages of it.  — AARON • ^TALK 20:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A radio DJ apparently said it is being sent to radio this month. Remixes of "Breakin' Dishes" were issued to promote Good Girl Gone Bad: The Remixes, but a full release did not happen. "Christina has already started working on a new album", according to? Zach 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite well connected lol  — AARON • ^TALK 20:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

She's apparently readying a new album for April 2014, with a brand new single in November 2013. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs written by Emeli Sandé/archive1

If anyone gets the chance to look at the candidate and leave comments that would be great.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You most certainly deserve this barnstar. All the best with your nominations. — Robin (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lists at FLC

If you have time or interest, feel free to take a look at my two lists at FLC: List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple and List of songs recorded by Pink Martini. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I will at some point this week.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Calvin999. You have new messages at Talk:Go Missin'/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Et3rnal 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Requests for Comment: Proposal for rewording WP:NSONG

Hi, an RfC has begun which proposes rewording WP:NSONG. As you participated in a related discussion, I invite you to join the RfC conversation. Regards,  Gong show 04:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Kelly Clarkson FLC

Hi Aaron! In case you missed it, I left a response on the FLC page. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Run (Snow Patrol song)

Hello! Your submission of Run (Snow Patrol 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) 16:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review for Half of Me

Hi there! Just letting you know that I have started the GA review for "Half of Me", and will be leaving feedback shortly. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well that went quicker than expected! I've put it on hold for a week for some minor issues, but I'm sure this can all be easily fixed! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the adjustments; I have passed the article! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 20:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite leads

Hey Calvin999,

Thanks for getting back to me about that citation on Stop Crying Your Heart Out.

I wanted to contact you for further information, I'm totally new and learning as I go on, sometimes I make mistakes but I'm always looking to learn from them.

Can you explain what you mean by "We don't cite leads"? or could you link me to the appropriate WP: article?

That would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Alastair B. Campbell (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead, as in the paragraph(s) at the very top, should not include footnotes or references. It is a summary of the whole article.  — AARON • ^TALK 20:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Does that apply to anything, or just certain topics/sections? I have seen other articles with citations in the opening sentence of a section. Alastair B. Campbell (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It does for the Music articles that I edit. I haven't seen footnotes in other subject areas either though. They shouldn't really, as they get in the way of the summary. As long as the information is sourced throughout the article, it's fine.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the explanation and sorry for getting in your way. FYI, the article I was mentioning in particular was Philosophy, it has two citations right after the first sentence. It's likely that I have misunderstood/have no idea what I'm talking about though! Cheers. Alastair B. Campbell (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I just know that for Music articles, we don't do it. There's no need to cite in the lead, because it should all be cited in the subsequent sections.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Lovebird

Were you planning to GA nom the article? I was too... now that "Trouble" has passed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That is the intention, yes.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've worked on it a fair bit but cant really stop others from nominating articles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

We both have. I've edited it 31 times and you have 37. I'll co-nom with you was you have done a lot with it a few months ago.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Would that be ok? There's a few things we can add, particularly to the music video section but I guess its not far off. I'd like to do the album next but it probably needs a HUGE copy edit. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well you was hinting at it so... Lol. If the album is made a GA then it can be nominated for Good Topic, as "Trouble", "Glassheart" and "Collide" are GAs.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't think of that. I'll continue doing little bits and bobs on the album then and then once "Lovebird" is done I can spend more time on it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I need a source for "Lovebird" at Metro Radio, and a better one for La Voz, preferably one where it also says she sung "Happy" with the contestants.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be better if the article was structured "Background and release" and then "recording and composition"? To me that makes more sense. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Er, no? Because a song is recorded before it is released. I'll tell you what doesn't make sense though, having two tiny sub-titled sections for Promotion. Having sub-sections as tiny as this is visually and aesthetically disruptive.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not disruptive, actually it makes sense in terms of navigating the article and they're not that small in terms of size. Also I understand what you are saying but the majority of song GAs have a background section which is about the origins of the song followed by a composition and recording section. These two things fit well together because the record is about the instruments/melody etc and the composition is about the lyrics and content of the song. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

But there is such little information about the Promotion I just don't think it warrants being split as abruptly.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've remerged under 'Live performances and music video' but I standby the comment about the other sections. Critical Reception and Composition don't belong together now that there is more information about the critical response etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The composition section is too small to be standalone. And Recording can't go with composition because Recording is background info. Don't you know how to structure an article and not make it look weak or clumsy? There's nothing wrong with putting them together. Having them as separate sections, when the section is already small and the article itself isn't that long, makes it look as though there is less info when it is all split up. I did it like it intentionally.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm discussing with you. I disagree that recording and background are the same thing. I am stating that in lots of GA articles the recording and composition goes together because one is about the melody whilst the other is about the lyrics. This would be that the sections would go: Background and release, recording and composition, critical reception etc. You seem to be somehow suggesting that the recording happens before the composition which makes no sense. I too have nominated for GAs in the past and the majority I see don't merge a background and recording section and get called "weak or clumsy" < that comment somehow makes it seem as if you're implying that I don't know how to edit. I find your attitude really brazen. Look I understand you're doing well with GAs and stuff but you used to be really friendly. It seems like getting all these GAs has made you really snappy and condescending and its hard to work with you if you make comments like "Don't you know how to structure an article and not make it look weak or clumsy?" The answer is I DO, all my GAs are well-structure etc. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how Recording info isn't background info. It's about how the song came together and who was involved, which is background info. We obviously have different ideas about how it should be structured. I have my way of doing it, and you have yours. I guess I'm just annoyed at how you saw I was working on the article because it was in a poor condition, suddenly decided that you wanted to work on it and massively hinted at me suggesting co-nom in how you worded things, said how "we" can improve it, yet you didn't contribute anything to the prose, which I near 99% re-wrote. I left a message saying I'd done the article, you didn't say anything. I left a message making conversation about how it's getting German release and hopefully will chart, and you didn't say anything. I left several replies on my Emeli Sande FLC, and you haven't replied. You've caught me on a really bad day today.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I refute the notion that the article was in a poor condition and I jumped on the bandwagon as soon as you started editing. I had always intended to work on the article as soon as "Trouble" got promoted to GA, which is did within the last few days. I did a lot of work on the article over November and December time and then turned my attention to getting "Trouble" to GA. Just because I'm not doing the wikicup and I don't have the same sense of urgency to get articles through GA doesn't mean I don't care etc. The article wasn't in "poor condition" as you claimed before you edited. It needed copy editing, something which most articles do before going to GA and inevitably you re-wrote most of the article because you wanted to take it GA as your work, i.e. in the format you're most used to editing with. All of this is fine but please don't claim you're some kind of shining knight for articles because of your volume of GA articles. I haven't responded to the Sandé FL cause I'm waiting to see it completed. I've spent a lot of time working on the Leona Glassheart era, and of course I'm happy that others cared to e.g. getting "Collide" to GA, but we should be collaborating instead of trying to "bulldoze" one another. I'm sorry you're having a bad day but don't take it out on wikipedia. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

P.s. the layout seems more coherent and logical now. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't claimed to be a "shining knight" for GAs, you're the one saying that. It's true that the article was not in a good condition, it had become neglected. Whether I'm in the cup or not, I've always worked on articles. Drawing a line and stepping over this now.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No you have, but you seem to be acting like a walking epitome of knowledge insinuating that you know best etc. It's not the point that you in the cup, its the point that you've saying I've contributed nothing to "Lovebird" since it was nominated/you copy edited it. It doesn't matter now because whether you copy edited or I did, its in better shape and it is GA-worthy now thanks to both of our contributions. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've not spoken about how many GAs I have at all, it's you who has been saying it. But whatever, line is drawn now and we are moving on from this. If you want to work on Glassheart together and make it a Good Topic, then great.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Musicweek.com

Have you subscribed there? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No?  — AARON • ^TALK 10:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have the Oasis album Heathen Chemistry booklet ?!?!

If you do then can you tell me what the credits and personnel are for "Stop Crying Your Heart Out", "Thank You for the Good Times" and "Shout It Out Loud" in the booklet please? Either on "Stop Crying Your Heart Out's talk page or on my user talk please, it would be very appreciated.

I found this. Apparently it's the booklet, but I don't know if it can help you much. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the shittest booklet ever! Lol. Thanks for looking though.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you read the credits for each one?  — AARON • ^TALK 10:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really, the letters are so small, I thought you could use zooming with an external application. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I zoomed in but it's really hard to see  — AARON • ^TALK 15:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently cause Oasis are English band (and English booklets are weird sometimes), every song has the same credit (as noted down), there are varieties where noted only. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wings (Little Mix song)

Hey there, I've noticed your great contributions on Rihanna's articles and I was wondering if you could help me out a little. I'm currently expanding on Wings (Little Mix song), and need help on adding info to the song's composition. Namely, the info found on Musicnotes.com (song key, vocal span, bpm, common time) etc. Please, I'd appreciate it so much! - littlemixlove (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sometime this week.  — AARON • ^TALK 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You're the best! Thank you! - littlemixlove (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you've nominated it for GA, if you still want me to look at it I can. but I saw the lead says 30 on US Pop songs and 29 in the table, and 5 on the US Bubbling Under and 98 on the Hot 100 in table? There are inconsistencies in key information here, and they should be there. What one's are right?  — AARON • ^TALK 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I am editing from Opera Mini so I have difficulties with editing the lead and infobox sections. The one in the chart table is correct, I will update it as soon as I have pc access. - littlemixlove (talk 19:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone upload some audio samples for me please?

-)  — AARON • ^TALK 09:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

GA nominee

I think 2 articles: Army of Me (Christina Aguilera song) and Blank Page are suitable for GA. Could you please nominate them for GA? 183.80.225.135 (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

They aren't suitable for GA.  — AARON • ^TALK 08:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain more? I don't understand (Sorry for my bad English :P) 183.80.225.135 (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for List of songs written by Emeli Sandé

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Leona Lewis Art on Ice 2013.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Leona Lewis Art on Ice 2013.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: Wikiproject Leona Lewis

I don't know how those pages are created, but maybe you can try manually instead. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stop Crying Your Heart Out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 01:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Nobody Knows Me/GA1

Aaron, it's been 12 days since you initiated the review, but haven't posted anything since. Are you planning on reviewing it soon, or should it be returned to the reviewing pool? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The same is true of Talk:Wide Awake (Katy Perry song)/GA1, so same question. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I will be. It's no uncommon, people have initiated reviews of my GANs and not touched them for nearly 2 weeks.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Run (Snow Patrol song)

Hello! Your submission of Run (Snow Patrol 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! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 17:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wide Awake

I had originally gone to denominate it, until I noticed that you had picked it up. I haven't worked on it because I've been working on my other GA's, and since you hadn't even wrote anything about it for over a month I decide to give up. However, try not to be so rude, considering you had forgotten you were even the reviewer. (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten at all. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. I picked it up on the 6th April and failed it on the 19th, saying I didn't comment for "over a month" is a slight exaggeration.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wings GA review

Hi Aaron, thanks for offering to review Wings (Little Mix song). I realize you are very busy but when do you plan on doing the review? I would like to know if I can move on to working on other articles or will you be reviewing it soon? It would be preferable for me to attend to your review before I start working on other Little Mix articles so that I have an idea of which faults to avoid in the future. Thanks! Littlemixlove (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I will do it ASAP  — AARON • ^TALK 07:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy 21st Birthday to meeeeeeeeeeeee

Lol 09:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy birthday Aaron enjoy it ^_^ Till 11:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Have a good one Aaron! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

HBD, let your wishes come true this year ! ;) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys.  — AARON • ^TALK 17:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy birthday buddy. Enjoy. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-)  — AARON • ^TALK 17:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy day of birth (^_^) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks  — AARON • ^TALK 07:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Happy B'Day! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 19:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy (belated) birthday!

Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have time for a GA review?

Hey there! I see that you work with a lot of music-related articles, and I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing the GAN for Demi Lovato. (No worries if you're not interested!) WikiRedactor (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I really haven't got the time at the moment and I don't accept canvass requests. I have several GANs waiting to be reviewed and that's the way it is, you shouldn't be asking people to do it.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sex Book

Hi Calvin! would you mind helping me by doing the GA Review for the article "Sex"--LuxiromChick (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I really haven't got the time at the moment and I don't accept canvass requests. I have several GANs waiting to be reviewed and that's the way it is, you shouldn't be asking people to do it.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Taio Cruz discography/archive1

Hey, Calvin. I currently have an FLC out for Taio Cruz discography, but reviews have not been pouring in, to put it mildly, and since I can only have one open nomination at a time I'm struggling to get other projects finished (it has been out for nearly two months now). I understand you're a busy editor, but would you able to give me some comments at the FLC, so I will know how to improve it and hopefully finally get it passed? Your ideas and time would be greatly appreciated. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and leave a few comments.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

Could you opine on this matter? Regards — Robin (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

House of Planatagenet

Hi there, any idea when you can give your initial GA feedback? Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I've all of sudden found myself with a load of things to do on here. I will get some sections done today.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem - just wondered what was going on. I'll be more patient! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Any chance of of any more, Aaron? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I will today.  — AARON • ^TALK 13:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. 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) 16:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rihanna

I let one of your reverts stand (the one about non album as that's not too black and white issue (I edited that because a remix could be someone elses song and that could be on someone else's album - but never mind taht. It's not a strict matter so I don't mind too much that the remixes are all lumped into "non album".

However regarding Aguilera pic spamming - that is not acceptable. As this is not an Aguilera song page and there's no justification whatsoever to use speculation as a basis to sneak in her pics here. The very fact that she's mentioned is irrelevant. Wikipedia has rules regarding that we should not give WP:Undue Weight to especially matters of speculation. If you want to add pics to that page you can put in Rihanna's pics or other artists THATt actually DID have something to do with that record! --Loginnigol (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a spamming picture. Lots of media outlets speculated that Aguilera was the featured artist and Rihanna fuelled the Rihanna's herself. If a person is mentioned in an article, then a picture of them is allowed to be included. Acquaint yourself with the rules. So in actual fact, you are wrong.  — AARON • ^TALK 14:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

#Beautiful by Mariah Carey featuring Miguel

Hi, Calvin999

Concerning your revert of my edit on the chart performance section of the article of Mariah Carey's new song #Beautiful, have a look at the second to last paragraph of this webpage, http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1560817/macklemore-ryan-lewis-cant-hold-us-tops-hot-100. As it clearly states, "Also notably, while it falls just short of the Hot 100, Mariah Carey's "#Beautiful," featuring Miguel," soars onto Radio Songs at No. 44. The track, which previews her 13th studio album, due this summer, starts with 31 million impressions after just two days of airplay. It should make an impressive debut on next week's Hot 100 after its first full week of sales, along with its streaming data, are added to next week's Hot 100 tabulation." So please kindly change the information back to what I put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer1998 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Hey

Sorry, I couldn't understand your message. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought you said that, but I wasn't sure. Yeah, they are cool and recent. We needed some of them for her recent events. Thanks for the uploads :) Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review for "Sing for Me"

Good work, I fixed some tiny typos and passed the article. Regards, WikiRedactor (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 21:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Beautiful (Mariah Carey song)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Wikicup Table

Thanks for the note- I've forced an update, which will hopefully jolt the bot back into regularity. J Milburn (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Credits for Around the World and Circles

Could you please give me credits of Around the World (Christina Aguilera song) and Circles (Christina Aguilera song)? I couldn't find them. HĐ (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you need them for?  — AARON • ^TALK 09:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I need them to improve two articles. HĐ (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping to make Lotus a GAT as I've already done 6 of the articles. Do you want to do them together?  — AARON • ^TALK 12:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I also want Lotus a GAT, too! HĐ (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well if you want to work on "Circles", "Around the World", "Your Body" and "Just a Fool" together. I have the credits on my other laptop.  — AARON • ^TALK 13:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks! HĐ (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Calvin999. You have new messages at Talk:Wings (Little Mix song)/GA2.
Message added 18:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — Littlemixlove (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bubbling

Its the first time someone's ever tried to add Digital or Radio Songs WITH Bubbling Under. I added the note to clarify as I thought it was obvious. I dont understand the obsession with Bubbling Under on a song like #Beautiful which next week will chart on the Hot 100. If the song didnt reach the Hot 100 the Bubbling Under would be what is prominent not the Digital and Radio songs. There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Bubbling_Under but please do not revert as the intention was always that the Bubbling under was derived to be composed of Hot Digital and Radio songs. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 10:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not the first time, actually. No, I don't understand why you are making such a deal about removing them when they will be removed tomorrow anyway. You've created edit warring between several editors with yourself because you won't wait. It's clearly not always been the intention as it's only being made an issue by you know, and obviously people don't agree with you.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Im trying to explain how the chart works. For some reason yourself and another editor insist on having the chart there when the guideline has been misinterpreted. A guideline that I wrote and researched hence I was trying to clarify the situation. Whenever someone disagrees with you you're always really argumentative. An edit war involves multiple edits and editors. I removed, someone I disagreed, I reverted and then someone else reverted hence I've started a discussion. Just because more people (2) want the chart there doesn't make it right to include it. The argument is stupid as it doesn't change our definition of component or parent charts nor does it change the methodology of the Bubbling Under Chart. The intention of the USCHARTS page was to create a-go-to guide for billboard. It is the first time in recent memory that someone has interpreted it as a green-light for Bubbling Under, Digital and Radio charts to all be included. An oversight on my part. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 11:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not being rude? What part of that is rude? The guidelines have not been misinterpreted, what we are following is what is clearly written. It's you who seems to not see it. I've already said that it says: "If a song has not charted on Billboard Hot 100 you may add any of the following → Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, Hot 100 Airplay (Radio Songs), Hot Digital Songs, Hot Singles Sales". That's not an interpretation, it's what it says. You can't argue against it.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Page Rated R (Rihanna album) with incorrect ref formatting

The references added in version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rated_R_%28Rihanna_album%29&diff=547349269&oldid=547300923 Revision as of 23:34, 27 March 2013 Calvin999 , used in prior text defined as:

<ref>{{singlechart|UKrandb|1|artist=Rihanna|song=Russian Roulette|date=December 12, 2009|accessdate=March 27, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{singlechart|UK|2|artist=Rihanna|song=Russian Roulette|date=December 12, 2009|accessdate=March 27, 2013}}</ref>

show incorrect results:

83. ^ |UK R&B (Official Charts Company) |align="center"|1

84. ^ |UK Singles (Official Charts Company) |align="center"|2

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "sc_UKrandb_Rihanna" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page).

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "sc_UK_Rihanna" defined in <references> is not used in prior text (see the help page).

What's wrong? Thx --Frze (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It thinks you have incorrectly defined a named reference. Did you take a look at the help page? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Was not helpful: Where can I find something to {{singlechart|UK|2|artist=Rihanna|song=Russian Roulette|date=December 12, 2009|accessdate=March 27, 2013}}? --Frze (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I see the problem now. Swap the nowiki and ref tags around and swap the end tags around as well. It should then put the whole lot into a reference. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be so kind and do it on Rated R (Rihanna album) - I can't, I tried everything. Thanks al lot. --Frze (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I will be more than happy to do so when I get back from work :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Answered at Help talk:Cite errors.

{{Singlechart}} is not intended for this purpose. It creates a table row, so it needs to be included in a table. It also creates a reference, so you are essentially nesting <ref> tags, which does not work. Please read the {{Singlechart}} documentation or use another method to include these references. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Around the World (Christina Aguilera song)

I've edited the article. Do you think that it's suitable for GA? (it's shorter than the other Lotus articles because there are less sources for it). HĐ (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It could be more cohesive in some parts. I'll go over it later.  — AARON • ^TALK 10:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's suitable for GA so I just nominated it? Was there something wrong with it??? HĐ (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just thought we were doing it together, that's what we said.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry. My mistake. HĐ (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Re:Question about points/editors

It's inevitable that certain topics are reviewed more quickly than others. Battleships, tropical cyclones and fungi, for instance, are each interests of several different regular reviewers. I know that a lot of reviewers get turned off pop music articles; this is a mix, I am guessing, of negative experiences with the writers (such as a lack of response), under-prepared nominations and a lack of interest in the subject matter (there's perhaps potential for someone looking at demographics, here. I'm just thinking aloud). There's also something of a circularity in that people generally prefer to review high-quality articles, so someone who is able to churn out a number of high quality articles in quick succession will generally have little trouble finding reviewers. I personally generally find pop music articles quite draining to review- "Beat of My Drum", for instance, I spent a long time reviewing. I eventually failed it, and it was failed two more times (once by you) before it passed. A stylistic disagreement at Talk:Northern Lites/GA1 lead to a surprisingly severe tantrum. I gave the third failed review to "Lost in the World", and my comments were simply ignored. These issues aren't unique to pop music, and nor do all pop music reviews lead to these, but they do add up to a feeling of distaste concerning that topic.

If there are people specifically asking others to take on reviews, then that's potentially a problem (WikiCup or no WikiCup), but I don't think there's any reason to believe that this is taking place. As you know, there's Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, which doesn't get as much traffic as it could. The only other thing the judges can really do is take on the reviews themselves, for which we don't necessarily have the time. I'll try to take some on myself to lighten the load. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We can't change the rules mid-competition, but there's potential for something like that next year. Some initial worries, though: more reviewers is genuinely going to be a good thing- trying to restrict what can be reviewed may lead to a reduction in reviews. There's also going to be difficulty in defining what's "outside" the area- currently, my only GA nomination is in philosophy and religion, but most of my previous nominations have been in biology. There's also the question of subject specialists: some articles are going to benefit far more from a review by someone who knows about the subject than someone outside of it. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful (Mariah Carey song)

Hi Calvin – Can you help me out with this? You and Fidelove keep reverting me (I'm now at 3 so can't do it again today) but I can't seem to verify the chart positions for #Beautiful from the cited article at billboard.com. I've read it up and down, but I just can't find where in this article it says that the song is #23 on Adult Contemporary, #35 on Adult Pop Songs, and #22 on Pop Songs. Maybe you can point it out to me. It's driving me crazy, but it must be there if you say it is. It's source 25 with a ref name of "Hot 100 24 Debut Article". Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two Billboard articles, i thought I had used both links but only used one. You can see that A/C, Adult Pop and Pop now link to a different article.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad to see it's all there in the other article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 10:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Yahoo Music article I linked you too in the early morning can be considered as a credible, not only billboard can be used, Fidel 18:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to use Billboard. You can't get much better than Billboard from Billboard.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Charts

Since when has the Billboard Hot 100 appeared before the other charts or did I miss something? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 11:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Look on any article, it's always first.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've honestly always listed them in alpha order. Even with UK R&B and Singles charts. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Alphabetical by country, but personally I'd tend put the main chart of the country before others, so I would put the UK Singles before UK R&B, and Billboard Hot 100 before Adult Contemporary, etc. There doesn't seem to be a rule for this though; Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts only says "Charts should be arranged by country in alphabetical order". –anemoneprojectors– 15:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a rule, but I've never seen it done otherwise.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have seen it done at WP:CHARTS is pretty much a guide to be followed so technically you shouldnt have reverted. But after thinking about it I kind of agree... the singles chart is more relevant than genre ones. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well when you think about it, all US charts are a component of the Hot 100, as airplay, streams, downloads etc., all count toward a Hot 100 position.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Calvin999. You have new messages at Talk:House of Plantagenet/GA1.
Message added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC); . You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Aaron, I think I have addressed all your points - can you let me have your view & some more notes when you get the chance?

DYK for Glassheart Tour

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2012 (U.S.)/archive1

Please comment — HĐ (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I will at some point.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Alicia Keys

Hi. Sure, sure, sure... edit and add as much as you want! :)  — Noboyo (Noboyo) 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way: Great work! ;)

Really, really great work!  — Noboyo (Noboyo) 01:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Really Miss You All

Aaron, my buddy, how are you? I am extremely busy in real life. I just hope I will be a bit more available next month. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm good thanks. You've been gone for ages :(  — AARON • ^TALK 18:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Singlechart

Please stop reverting singlechart conversions like you are doing here. Do you realize that it took me only a couple of weeks to correct all the singlechart calls when Billboard changed its format but it took an additional 8 weeks and 21,000 edits to fix all the manual references to Billboard? That was a lot of work, and I cursed all the editors that had manually formatted their references every step of the way. Manually entering chart positions just makes it far more difficult to maintain things when the sites we use for references change. That happens a lot. Chartstats stopped publishing charts, but I was able to fix the UK positions that used singlechart automatically. It took a custom bot to fix the rest. When the Official Charts Company changed its URL format, I fixed all the singlechart calls with one edit: so far as I know, all the ones using the old format are still broken. There's no reason for you to make it so that the articles you edit don't get updated when things change.—Kww(talk) 04:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I never use the single chart template, and it's not a requirement. I actually really dislike the single template. I have always manually done chart and find them easier to manage. As is the case for a lot of the Billboard refs currently in the table, they don't link to a chart, they link to Chartbeat by Billboard. I know it took a long time to for you to update it all, I saw it often in my watchlist, but it's not a system that I have ever used, nor is it one that I can see myself using in the future. Just because it took you a long time to convert templates, it doesn't mean I have to use them on "#Beautiful". There are lot of other articles you can use them in, if you wish to do so. It doesn't actually say anywhere that it is a 100% concrete rule that only the single chart template must be used.  — AARON • ^TALK 09:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to use them. I'm asking you not to revert them when another editor does. That you don't use it is your choice. When other editors have taken the time and trouble to convert an article, there's no reason to revert their efforts just because you don't like the template. BTW, Billboard deleted every Chartbeat from before 2004 in the last revision: we still have 2400 bad URLs pointing to "Chartbeat" columns that no longer exist because Billboard decided they were no longer important. If you would like to see the list, I'll happily put it here so you can see the kind of problems the manual linking causes.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not using them. It wasn't like it before. How about all the time I spent on the table? Does that not matter? The format that is being used is the manual way of the table and not the single template. Mass changes should always be put to the talk page first anyway. What you just said is contradictory, saying that I don't have to use them but not to revert others for changing it. Well, that doesn't work I'm afraid. If I don't have to use them then in an article for which I am the primary contributor then I will maintain the manual table. It's the format and system on that article that has been used since the outset of its creation, and is the one that is being used.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No one cares if you are the primary contributor to an article. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. See WP:OWN.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

See, I knew you would throw that in. No, it's not WP:OWN. I'm trying to maintain an article because I do want to nominate for GA at some point in the future.  — AARON • ^TALK 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I "threw it in" because it's relevant. Lots of "good articles" use the singlechart template: having it or not having it doesn't keep an article from making that status. You are doing this simply because you have a personal preference and you think that your personal preference matters more than other factors. You seem to think that being the "primary contibutor" on an article allows you this level of control. It doesn't. If another editor comes in and does a complete and correct conversion to the template, there's no logical reason to undo it. Keeping it the way you like it because you might have to edit it later certainly isn't one.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why I am being singled out here. I don't like the single template, other people don't like the manual table. I'm not saying it gives me more control, you're putting words into my mouth which I never even said in the first place. When people write articles, everyone applies preferences, whether it's how a table is formatted, what date format is used, how reference parameters are formatted, style of writing etc. "#Beautiful" has always used the manual table formatting, so why change it? It's not a requirement. If there's no logical reason for me to undo it, in your opinion, then what is their logical reason for changing it? It works fine as it does, no better, no worse. It achieves the same result. So why change it altogether from a format that already works?  — AARON • ^TALK 16:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I never asked you to use it. The logical reason to change to the template is that when the sites change formats, single changes to the template source will repair all the articles that use the templates. When you hard-code the URLs, each and every chart entry in each and every article needs to be repaired manually. Sites do change formats at random times, and, when they do, it's hard to even identify which articles need to be looked at because there's no easy way to search Wikipedia for URLs of a particular format (Chartbot uses a regular expression engine to parse URLs, but that's specific code written to handle specific jobs, and I need to custom tailor it for each problem he's trying to solve: that's why there are actually six different Chartbots). It's easy to say that articles about popular artists will get fixed by editors, but that doesn't really happen: Chartbot had to do a lot of changes to articles about popular artists because no one editing the article could be bothered to update the links. The reason you are being "singled out" is because I noticed that you have been reverting another editor without reason, and I noticed that because Supreme.ci was breaking some of the articles he was editing so I had to go check his work. I've had this same discussion with other editors, and I will have it again, I'm sure.—Kww(talk) 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Single template isn't need for each and every national chart though. I have tried using it before and I just didn't get it. Artist IDs, how to put a ref name in, why it always links the chart publisher which causes over link. I understand how to do it manually, and it has always worked for me. That's why I like to use it.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, if you don't get it, don't feel like you have to use it. Just don't prevent others from using it.—Kww(talk) 18:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Redlips Room or The Red Lip's Room?

Credits for Bionic articles (ex. "I Hate Boys") is The Redlips Room, while credits for Lotus articles (ex. "Lotus Intro") is The Red Lip's Room? Could you please check the credits for me? Thanks a lot! HĐ (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the Bionic booklet, but I do have the Lotus one, and it says "The Red Lip's Room", so for consistency, use that.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! HĐ (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)