User talk:Calvin999/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

4th GA Cup - Wrap Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Wrap Up Hello, GA Cup competitors! Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review. Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively. There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here. Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, 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.

 — Calvin999 08:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally not Wikipedia-related, but...

... this is amazing! Good for you. I'm a bit obsessed with chronicling my travel log and places I've been, too, but you have me beat by FAR. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah thank you lol. Number 23 was in mid-late 2013, so I've been to nearly 50 in just under four years. I am on a mission. I've used half my passport pages and I've only had it 5 years and still have another 6 lol  — Calvin999 20:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's incredible. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Where have you been?  — Calvin999 22:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Madonna

Was wondering since you have promoted many recorded songs lists, is this one near ready for nomination? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it. Everything sorts correctly. I reckon there could be another paragraph given the breadth though.  — Calvin999 19:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Someday (Mariah Carey song)

The article Someday (Mariah Carey song) 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:Someday (Mariah Carey song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Brothers Osborne

There was absolutely no sarcasm intended with my edit summary. In future, please don't revert constructive edits of mine. I simply reverted you to let you know you removed them on accident. Please don't take it personally. Ss112 10:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pleased you've posted on my user talk because I know you don't like talking through edit summaries. To reiterate the point you just made, you didn't need to revert my edits either in order to add in some blank parameters. Accidentally removing those blank parameters didn't change the format of the table so it was hardly a massive error which affected the tables proportions. All you needed to do was add in the parameters (which I clearly didn't know I'd removed) instead of reverting me back how it was previously edit before me this morning, and then adding in the source and peak change yourself, which I'd already done. You certainly had a very long-winded, unnecessary way of "just letting me know". All you had to do was add the parameters back after my edit saying "Restoring accidentally removed parameters", not revert my constructive and sourced edit in order to re-do it yourself.  — Calvin999 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It was not just blank parameters, it was sales as well. I felt it was simpler to revert then re-update instead of have to look at a previous revision and save that or copy it all. That would be harder. The revert was to let you know that you had made a mistake, as I didn't think you had noticed. Ss112 10:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't noticed. I'm not saying you weren't being helpful by restoring what I'd accidentally removed, I just don't think you went the right way about it given our history and how you knew I was likely to respond to it given that I get a notification saying you have reverted me when as such I hadn't done anything wrong or purposefully wrong. All you had to do then was go back in the revision history, copy what I'd removed and paste it into a new edit with the aforementioned suggested summary to diffuse it. It wouldn't be harder, it was just take a few seconds longer, but it would have been worth it to avoid this thread. Reverting someone to let them know of their mistake is 100% not what reverting is for, that's what a user talk is for. I just don't think you went about it the right way.  — Calvin999 10:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been reverted by more experienced editors than myself in the past because I made a mistake, with the summary "you made a mistake" or pointing out what I did wrong. I didn't re-revert them as I understood why. I don't think the sole intention of reverts is always to undo something a user purposely did wrong, but if you think so, then I guess it's another thing we disagree on. Ss112 10:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

So have I, but I think you're missing the point that given that we haven't always got on, it was likely to create a situation. I just think you should have thought about reverting me when as such I hadn't done another wrong. It was an accident, and there wasn't any need to revert me. If it was the other way around, I wouldn't have reverted you because I know it could have had an affect.  — Calvin999 11:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Continue hounding me and I'll report you to an admin. Stop talking to me through edit summaries if you're not willing to continue on your talk page. Never post on my talk again as you revert anything I post on yours. Double standard at it's absolute height. One rule for one, one for another.  — Calvin999 09:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A Friendly Word of Caution

Hi Calvin. I am posting this on your talk page but it is directed more broadly to both you and Ss112. A couple of quick points. First it looks like you two aren't getting along. Sometimes in life that's unavoidable but we all have to work together in a collaborative project, and it becomes difficult if people think they are being hounded by another editor, whether that belief is accurate or not. It is my very strong belief that both of you are WP:HERE for the same, right reasons. Both of you are experienced editors and solid content creators. In short the sort of editors that other newer editors should look to as examples to emulate. So it is my hope that both of you will be able to sort out your differences calmly and in a way that avoids unnecessary drama (or trips to places that just feed on drama). This is just a suggestion, but maybe you could open a discussion on a user subpager somewhere outside of everybody's nosy glances and sit down (figuratively speaking ) and try to work things out. In the worst case you will fail to settle all your differences but might agree to try and give each other some space and try not to step on each others toes. Maybe a voluntary 2 way semi IBan. Let me be clear here, I'm not taking any sides in the recent or any other of your disagreements. But I do want to make two points. First to Ss112. You have the right to tell people not to post on your talk page. But that should be done very rarely, if at all. It is the Wiki-equivalent to breaking off diplomatic relations. It may not be a declaration of war, but its awfully close. You are in effect severing all lines of communication and that makes it damned hard to discuss differences with another editor and all but guarantees that whatever lies between you and the other party is going to end up on one or another of the drama boards. Now to Calvin; if/when an editor tells you not to post on their talk page, well that's it. You don't. Period. There is a longstanding community consensus that editors DO have the right to restrict who comments on their talk pages. The only generally recognized exceptions are absolutely necessary things like ANI notices. Anything else, including warning templates should be delivered via a third party.

It is my very strong hope that two of our better editors will be able to sort out their differences in a friendly (or at least civil) discussion somewhere. But failing that try at least to come to some sort of truce and maybe agree on terms limiting interaction with each other. Trust me when I say that the drama boards are not where you want to sort things out if you can avoid it. Best regards to both of you... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem I do appreciate you posting here and your concern, but considering I have also asked said editor not to post here now, it is a bit of wasted effort to ping the editor as he won't post here. So I do feel that this should have been posted on both talk pages in order for it to feel less, one-sided. The reason why I continued to post on his talk yesterday following his revert is because up until yesterday, I have never rejected or reverted anything he has posted here (see above thread), yet he always tells me not to post on his and reverts it. Double standard? You can't have it both ways. Furthermore, he can't expect to talk to me through his edit summaries then not allow me to follow it up on his user talk like one is supposed to. And without trying to sound like a four year old, but he did start all of this last year, not me. It's him who has a problem with me, and he has admitted that. I'm not particularly bothered about 'making up,' I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to improve the articles and topic that I am interested to create a better Wikipedia, which I have done so for eight years and have contributed massively to in terms of improvements. I've asked several times for official and unofficial IBANs, but they have never been implemented. I do work with other editors, and I will work with any editor in the future who is agreeable and not tit-for-tat, and I'm equally as happy working by myself. I can't see the 'differences' being worked out. Ss112 would first have to stop purposely editing pages in order to bar me from doing so, such as updating charts, as a tit-for-tat thing for something tiny that happened last October. It's not just me because other editors he has had clashes with, with regard to not letting them edit or making trivial editors, have emailed me about it. It's his style, approach and behaviour that needs to change. Until that happens, I can't see it being resolved. We don't all get on with everyone, that's just life.  — Calvin999 08:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just seen that Ss112 has posted on your user talk. Before October last year, I hadn't heard of Ss112, had never seen him edit articles within the topics I do. We had a spat on Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song), we had a few pointless ANIs initiated variously by me or him. As a result, he admitted to then updating articles that I had previously to annoy me. He did started to troll my edits, often making edits seconds or minutes after me, correcting me and leaving sarcastic edit summaries to annoy me. I know this is true because I sometimes deliberately did something wrong or different (minor, of course, like a typo), and it would be corrected almost instantly, or would be one of the first edits he would make when next online. "even despite that being a page I created and had on my watch list." shows that what I'm saying is true; it's irrelevant who created an article, and it's irrelevant it's on his watch list. Anyone can edit it, and anyone can have it on their watch list. That is an ownership quotation. If I recall correctly, he did actually tell me not to edit articles he edits, such as Scared of the Dark. I started editing Steps articles (because of their comeback and because I was a massive fan 20 years ago but that's irrelevant) and all of a sudden, Ss112 started editing the articles I was improving. Anyone can, of course, but it did feel like he was trolling my edits (which he has also admitted to). I have updated chart articles for years and years, and because of the Telepathy spat, Ss112 admitted to updating charts before I would to annoy me. Fact. Now he is turning it around to be that it's me to disrupt his updating of charts; I'm sorry, but I was unaware that Wikipedia has specifically delegated the role of updating Billboard charts every week to Ss112 and no one else was allowed. {{u|Ericorbit} always updated some charts, and if ever I did, he thanked me, he didn't report me to ANI. To say I have only ever "occasionally" edited [{Dance Club Songs]] is a blatant lie, and one Ss112 has told before. Virtually everything on that article was added by me, the tables, the records, the charts etc. I have heavily edited multiple chart articles. I created and wrote Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Dance Club Songs chart and many similar, for example. He has also said I revert him frequently, please supply me with this as recently I haven't, but he has me. he is a hypocrit and I do not wish to have any interaction.  — Calvin999 09:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Someday (Mariah Carey song)

The article Someday (Mariah Carey song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Someday (Mariah Carey song) 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 DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Daydream (Mariah Carey album)

Concerning your reverting 88marcus and me regarding her album sales: I'm now noticing two sources saying two different figures. The one that's in the article [1] notes 20 million+, while one that's in the Music Box (Mariah Carey album) article [2] (and the one you mention in your edit summary when reverting me) cites Daydream as selling 25 million and also has an earlier publication date. Obviously, I'm confused about which source is valid. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll try and simplify it: the 2017 source you are referring means the album has somehow unsold 5 million units from the source I provided from 2010. The figures there originally have been there for years and widely used.  — Calvin999 19:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It sounds pretty logical, put that way. How can an album have reportedly less cumulative sales worldwide when going from an earlier dated source to a later one? But the other editor you reverted, 88marcus, has had a different take, per this edit in May (which also changed the source from the earlier BET one to the later Entertainment Weekly one) [3], and they continue to contend that with the most recent update to the article [4]. Definitely two conflicting sources being used that both seem reliable, but one appears definitely off. Actually, the EW states "more than 20 million copies sold worldwide", while the BET source says "1995's 'Daydream' isn't far behind with 25 million": 25 million is more than 20 million, though it can't be concluded from the EW source alone that the sales are 25 million. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, 88marcus, in that May edit, replaced a completely different source (from around 2013) [5] with the EW source. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sales are not the same as certified units, by the way, which are base don shipments in the US (not sales).  — Calvin999 20:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Everybody knows, that fans and sometimes record companies inflated the artist sales a lot, and much of what is written on the internet today comes from lazy journalists who copy whatever information they see on wikipedia and post on their websites. Those high sales of 25 million, for example probably started right here on the Wiki, I do not know how difficult it is to realize this. Even Sony Music Japan told that the album sold 19 million copies worldwide by 1999, but out of the worldwide charts, how this album would sold 6 million copies more? [6] Why sales that high?! 20 million is the most accurate, seeing its certifications.--88marcus (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Certifications are not always indicative or sales or vice versa. You can be certified Platinum and not even have sold 500,000 copies.  — Calvin999 23:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

BBDCS

I did source the change with Billboard's official chart on its website, but sure go off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alechuerta (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You supplied a pre-existing source which says it is number one this week. Nowhere, did it say her 18th, or her 18th consecutive, or that the streak was still unbroken.  — Calvin999 19:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you were so pressed before, here's the source you demanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alechuerta (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I adhere to the rules that you should do also, what is your problem?

My problem is that you are acting foolish. Literally read the article, an original article from Billboard, not the chart. It says 18 number ones and current unbroken streak, surpassing Mariah, but somehow you're still up my ass about this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alechuerta (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am being foolish (interesting choice of word) for not making changes without a valid source. Exactly what Wikipedia is about, huh... Carry on with your foolishness.  — Calvin999 19:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you can't seem to open hyperlinks, here it is, 18 number ones, Mariah now 6th: http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7865881/katy-perry-swish-swish-dance-club-songs-number-one Sorry your fav is washed up.

I've already seen it, the other day. Your missing your own point. Not my fault you think it's okay to add unsourced info before correct information is released.  — Calvin999 19:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 5,6,7,8

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 5,6,7,8 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 MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 5,6,7,8

The article 5,6,7,8 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:5,6,7,8 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Someday (Mariah Carey song)

On 19 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Someday (Mariah Carey song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Someday" became Mariah Carey's third consecutive number-one single on the Billboard Hot 100? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Someday (Mariah Carey song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Someday (Mariah Carey song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM as a participant of WP:WikiProject Electronic music. - TheMagnificentist 13:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for List of number-one Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs

On 29 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of number-one Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at 27 weeks, the longest running number-one song on the US Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart is "Closer" by The Chainsmokers, featuring Halsey? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of number-one Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, List of number-one Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 5,6,7,8

The article 5,6,7,8 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:5,6,7,8 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 MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Leona Lewis Tours

why do you keep reverting these? Like I said, Ireland is not a constituent country in any sense so that is false info, and the UK doesn't get a special pass for tours. Tour articles go by continents, not regions. The UK is part of the Europe, not separate. You are providing no legitimate reason for reverting. --97.127.112.18 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Because you're providing no legitimate reason for changing what has been approved by an independent reviewer. If the tour doesn't visit mainland Europe, only GB and GB/Ireland, then why would you put Europe? These two are different in this circumstance.  — Calvin999 07:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

First, mention that in the edit summary then, that is what it is there for, and yes, I did provide a legitimate reason, the site lists continents on tour articles, that has been standard for years. And again I say, the UK and Ireland are not special cases. Look at every tour article, they go by continents, there is no reason to give a special pass for these. You don't see tours that only visit the US and Canada say "x amount of shows in US and Canada", they say "x amount of shows in North America". Not to mention on The Labyrinth tour it says 18 in UK 2 in Europe....that's just stupid. The UK is part of Europe, so why is it listed separate. There is no sense to it. Also, as I said in my edit summaries, listing "Constituent Country" is false because Ireland is not a Constituent country. You are basically giving conflicting reasoning here. --97.127.112.18 (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, please point out where this so called independent review is because the talk pages show nothing. --97.127.112.18 (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

They have been primarily GB tours, that's Great Britain. It's not UK if it doesn't go to all four parts of the UK, namely Northern Ireland because that's not in Great Britain. It's not special pass, each tour article is different and different methods apply.  — Calvin999 08:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Almost every tour article on this site doesn't follow that precedent, so why these need to be special still makes no sense, and again, where is this so called independent review? Because now it just seems you like it one way and don't want to change it still "because". And yes, it is still touring the UK if they don't visit NI. You can't say "this isn't a US tour because they didn't visit California". That's ridiculous reasoning. And once again, Ireland is still not a constituent country, yet you keep reverting that as well.

You don't seem to realise that these articles pass a review where someone signed them off as being worthy of a promotion. You're talking about most tours, which invariably cover mroe dates, more countries, and more continents. Just because one article does it one way, doesn't mean all have to. Every article is different. I don't know why you keep mentioning Ireland as a constituent country; a constituent country of what? I'm done with this conversation.  — Calvin999 08:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And those reviews don't mean articles can never change. Every article is different yes, but the current listings is ridiculous. You don't give priority to an artist's home country. Go look at the article for The Labyrinth. In the tour dates box it says "constituent country". That is false info right there. --97.127.112.18 (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The I AM Tour only visited Greta Britain (it was not a UK tour). Why on earth would you put Europe?  — Calvin999 09:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Because like I said, that is the precedent on every tour page on the site, to go by continents. --97.127.112.18 (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Not for when it only visits one country.  — Calvin999 16:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

5 Seconds of Summer

Hi. Please have a look at Allmusic bio. Just to break down:

• 'Australian all-male teen pop outfit...' - teen pop band?
• '...straddles the line between '90s punk-pop and 2000s boy band pop.' - about decades

If any others replaces a vague 'pop' allusion". Destiny Leo (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what it is you are asking of me.  — Calvin999 08:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 5,6,7,8

On 12 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 5,6,7,8, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "5,6,7,8" is the third-highest selling and most streamed song of Steps' career, despite being one of their lowest charting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/5,6,7,8. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 5,6,7,8), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Going to come back to bite you

It's not "fancrufty" when the current #1 is falling in radio, sales and streams per day while this passed it in the former 2 categories. I'll be sure to have you be the first person I let know when it goes number one in 7-14 days since you're making pointless reverts about a song which hasn't ran its course through the general public yet (on top of the fact that there's about a hundred other articles out there on current songs that use "so far" in their lead). BlaccCrab (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this a threat? Sounds like a threat.  — Calvin999 11:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No one can be this neckbearded/corny. Yes, when it hits number one, your uninformed revert will look silly. BlaccCrab (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't said I disagree with you. I think there is a high chance that "Wild Thoughts" will replace "Despacito" at some point. You call my reverts pointless, I call your edits pointless. Your edit summaries and opinions are not reliable. Saying it's number-one on iTunes and "won't be long now" is not a reliable indication that it has not reached its peak yet. "What About Us" is in the mix now as an insurgent song which could mean "Wild Thoughts" doesn't reach number-one at all. That's the point you're missing and why your edit was not required.  — Calvin999 11:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a one word minor edit that would have been changed by the time this songs run is over regardless. You need to relax. BlaccCrab (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You're the one saying your going to come back to bite me on my talk page when you removed my comment on yours. You relax.  — Calvin999 08:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Neon Blue

On 21 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neon Blue, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Neon Blue" is about coming out? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neon Blue. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Neon Blue), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Celine list

I was wondering, did you create the English version in any sandbox? Else I can start. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I created List of songs recorded in English by Celine Dion and redirected it back to the French one. I was thinking if were did both leads at the same time, we could submit a DYK with two articles in in. I've never done that before. IndianBio  — Calvin999 08:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's brilliant even I haven't done that too. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Do you want to finish the French table and then do the English one, or work on them concurrently?  — Calvin999 08:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I would take two days time to start working on the English article actually. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I've added the English albums on the talk page.  — Calvin999 09:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Steps 5678 formats

http://www.gensteps.co.uk/archive/discography/5678.php https://www.discogs.com/Steps-5-6-7-8/master/88500

The above two websites CLEARLY state and even photograph the formats this single was released on. It was not just released on CD but also 12" and cassette single hence my edits. But for some reason you disagree so how do we proceed further when what I am adding is actually correct and what you are removing is something you obviously don't believe?(82.240.244.27 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC))

Sweet Fantasy

Hey mate. I thought the numbers were a bit high but.. where do you get the 16m figure? I don't see it. Maybe remove altogether? Also, how do we differentiate where those sales came from (Vegas, Tour etc.). Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 20:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't left any number in I don't think? You can't, most people would have only done one tour in a year. It's very unusual for a singer to have a tour and a residency, yet alone a tour and two residencies.  — Calvin999 20:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

He he, these old eyes. You're one step ahead of me ;)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 20:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Billboard

Do you think Billboard is delayed again this week? http://www.billboard.com/charts/dance-club-play-songs/2017-09-02 just shows a blank page for me. Quite unusual... Ss112 09:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because this Stecker as number one.  — Calvin999 09:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ariana Grande credits page

Hello! I recently created a page called Ariana Grande credits, based on other artists' videographies or filmographies, such as Lady Gaga videography and Taylor Swift videography (both pages have been on Wikipedia for a very long time). In my opinion, the final result of the page was actually effective, reliable, and very similar to the pages I took inspiration of. I noticed that you reverted the page for it to be a redirection again to the page Ariana Grande. I have created other pages on Wikipedia before and honestly I thought that this one was my best. What do I have to add to it to make it stay? --GleekRicky98a (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. A page called "Ariana Grande videography" already existed, and was redirected because it's not detailed enough. You know it existed because you changed the redirect on it. "Ariana grande credits" is not needed nor required, because the former existed already, and another page didn't need to be created. Further, the references were just links to videos on YouTube so the info you provided was not reliable, and just because Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift have one, rightly or wrongly, it doesn't automatically give consensus for Ariana Grande to have one.  — Calvin999 09:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it matters, but User:Johnsmith2116, who is a New Page reviewer, checked my page and approved it. And I redirected the "Ariana Grande videography" page to mine because clearly mine had also her videography and the Ariana Grande page didn't (it only has her TV and film credits). I know the old videography page was deleted because it didn't have enough information so I tried to add more for it to look better. Okay, I will provide other sources that are reliable for it to stay; not only because I liked the final result of my page, but because it can enrich Wikipedia's information about a certain artist. And I don't really get why Lady Gaga or Taylor Swift, rightly or wrongly, can have one but Ariana Grande can't. --GleekRicky98a (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

All newly created pages get patrolled and reviewed. If you felt like adding all these things, then "videogaphy" is the correct term, not "credits". A new page didn't need to be created. The "videography" wasn't deleted, it was redirected.  — Calvin999 10:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I named it "credits" because it also had her stage works. I know the "videography" was redirected to Ariana Grande#Filmography because the one that existed wasn't detailed enough, so I clearly added a lot of details to the one I created and way more information than the page that exists now. It was an informative and a visually nice page. However, I will do follow your advise to add more reliable sources for it to stay. Good night. --GleekRicky98a (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

But the redirected article was the correct title. That's my point. Don't use credits, use videography.  — Calvin999 10:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

TPSers: Does anyone subscribe to Billboard? I need to know some boxscore data.

As above.  — Calvin999 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for List of songs recorded by Steps

On 21 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of songs recorded by Steps, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Steps achieved thirteen consecutive top-five singles in the United Kingdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of songs recorded by Steps. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, List of songs recorded by Steps), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Henry Bolton

A solid Keep opinion from me after his election as party leader, pity I wasn't clued in on this soon enough to change my recommendation before the debate was hatted. Best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Steps "Dancing With A Broken Heart"

Hi Calvin999, Just to let you know that Carl Ryden produced this track along with "Fool For You" on the delux version of "Tears On The dancefloor". Best, SL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetlifeohstreetlife (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The Alias is sourced as being the producer for the lead single. The other tracks haven't had songwriters or producers confirmed. Please stop making unsourced changes.  — Calvin999 13:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Calvin999, I'm not sure where you've 'sourced' this info from but having worked on the project I can assure your 'source' is incorrect. I will stop making the changes and let you correct it yourself when you've researched your facts. Best, SL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetlifeohstreetlife (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It is sourced in the articles, there's no 'sourced' about it. At least I've provided a source for the information I've added. You have to realise that we are working against people thinking Wikipedia is unreliable as often is reported and sometimes the cases, sourcing to reliable sources helps combat that. You may or may not be involved, that is not the point, and you seem to be missing it entirely. To be reliable, we source to what is reported reliably. Further details will be finalised when the album is released and we have access to the liner notes of the booklet. Until then, please don't remove or change information that is, as of current, reliably sourced. I shall ignore your sarcasm as a defence for your not abiding by how Wikipedia works.  — Calvin999 21:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone subscribe to Billboard? I need to know some boxscore data for a tour.

Please post here. Thanks.  — Calvin999 14:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Story of a Heart

Why did you restore? It's not a Steps song originally. J 1982 (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I know that, I wrote the article, but the Steps cover is more notable. The lead does start by saying it's a Benny song first. There's no need for that info box that you added.  — Calvin999 14:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if the Steps recording is more notable. The Benny Anderssons orkester recording was number 17 in Sweden. J 1982 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It is from the info from the article, there's more weight on the Steps info. It's not all about chart position. No one in the UK had heard of it until Steps covered it.  — Calvin999 17:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Benny Anderssons orkester released it in the UK in 2009 on the album Story of a Heart. J 1982 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Which again nobody knew of until Steps announced their cover, but this conversation is going nowhere.  — Calvin999 08:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick question about song list articles

Hi there. I figured I'd ask since I've seen that you've worked on many featured song lists - what exactly are the typical inclusion criteria for adding remix songs to the "List of songs recorded by (artist)" lists? I've looked over a number of examples, and I can't quite figure it out. List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga doesn't seem to list hardly any, despite her releasing multiple remix albums, but some, like List of songs recorded by Madonna and List of songs recorded by Rihanna, include some, but not all.

It's not a criticism, and since they are FL's, I realize it's not an oversight or something, I'm just trying to understand, for my own implementation and maintenance moving forward.

Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sergecross73. You can include remixes with different vocals to the original song, i.e. partly or wholly resung vocals. Look at List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey as an example. Standard remixes are not resung and shouldn't be included.  — Calvin999 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ohhhhh okay. I wasn't thinking about it from that perspective, but that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey

How come you haven't taken this one for FLC? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

IndianBio Time, money... Lol joking. Have I not edited it for 18 months? I didn't think it had been that long. I've been doing it for five and a half years. There are still so many songs to add. I've done all of her albums though. I guess I'm near the finish line with it, just need to actually do it. I've already got one at FLC which has been sitting there for three months too.  — Calvin999 09:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Number Ones Tour (Mariah Carey) AUS NZ Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Number Ones Tour (Mariah Carey) AUS NZ Poster.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of artists with the most number ones on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of artists with the most number ones on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists with the most number ones on the Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Neon Blue

The article Neon Blue 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:Neon Blue for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page One More Try (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for ArbCom Statement, re: User:Cassianto

Hello Calvin, an ArbCom request has been filed regarding Cassianto's toxic behavior regarding Infobox discussions, which I saw you've been a victim of. If you have anything to say about the effects of Cassianto's behavior on you, then I implore you to make a statement on the ArbCom page. --Volvlogia (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Volvlogia: Can I ask why this is happening/you have filed against him?  — Calvin999 10:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You can read my full original AN report here, but I've found his behavior on talk pages to toxic and demoralizing bullying whenever the topic at hand is infoboxes. --Volvlogia (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.  — Calvin999 11:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cassianto behavior, per WP:5P4]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Please note that I have removed your statement as it made assertions about other editors without providing evidence. You can find the content in the page history and please do feel free to restore it with links to diffs demonstrating what you describe. GoldenRing (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Well, I did because the link to the talk page was included with how two others spoke to me as well.  — Calvin999 15:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If you don't know what a diff is, see Help:Diff. A general link to a talk page is not useful as evidence. If you restore your statement again without diffs to support your accusations, you are likely to be blocked for disruptive editing. The removal is a clerk action and must not be undone. GoldenRing (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: It's an archived thread as long as your arm. The are tens of diffs, and I'm aware of what a diff is thank you. I reinstated my comment with the sentences about other people removed, which is what you were saying wasn't allowed without diffs in your comment above. The reinstated comment only commented about Cassianto, with a link to the thread which Volvlogia has also linked to. What else exactly do you want me to do?  — Calvin999 16:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have moved one of your comment to your section in this case request. Please comment in your own section only, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s

Hi there! Maybe you have time to give some comments on my FLC above? Just overlook this if you are busy right now... Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak Hey, yes I will do. Could you also look at List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey please?  — Calvin999 17:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Congratulations on meeting the criteria for the Alexander the Great Edition Triple Laurel Crown. Don't retire anytime soon; we need more editors like you. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you :)  — Calvin999 11:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Regine Velasquez

Hi Calvin999, I wanted to check if you would be able to provide feedback for a FLC, whenever you have time though. Would appreciate your review. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Pseud 14: yes. Would you mind looking at List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey please.  — Calvin999 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Calvin999, I'll be along for a review the your list too. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Calvin999, just checking if you would have time to provide your feedback on this Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Regine Velasquez/archive1 Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey yes I forgot about this.  — Calvin999 09:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Look forward to your comments. Cheers!--Pseud 14 (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy notice of discussion

Considering you do edit a good amount of albums on the Wikipedia, I thought I'd make you aware of this discussion to edit the current battle of {{Infobox album}}. Hope to see you there! livelikemusic talk! 15:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Katy Perry #1 Streak Broken by Bon Appetit

Hi, you are providing misinformation by refusing to allow to show that Katy Perry's streak of #1s on the Hot Dance Club Songs was ended by the fact that Bon Appetit reached #28 after Swish Swish. This truth is inherent and self-evident; Billboard is the source so there is no need for a source to literally state this. Of course, we cannot play this way forever thus I won't put the correction back but it will need updating with Katy Perry's next song; for now it's on your conscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcsobe (talk • contribs) 01:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not because it's sourced. You changing it without a source specifically saying Bon Appetit has broken the streak is providing misinformation. Thanks.  — Calvin999 11:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Side note Calvin - why do you keep removing the link to the appropriate Bon Appetit page on Dance Club Songs? I edited the page so it links to the song's wiki page, and for reasons unknown to basic logic, you keep reverting back to the page that links to the magazine. Care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alechuerta (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Because you need a source saying that this song specifically broke her streak, and that doesn't exist. You keep changing it to unsourced information. I'm not linking to a magazine...  — Calvin999 09:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction. See the full decision for details of infobox probation.
2. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
3. Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.
4. The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be weighted.
5. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
6. For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CA Telepathy music video still.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CA Telepathy music video still.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Mariah Carey Thirsty Artwork.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Mariah Carey Thirsty Artwork.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Calvin999. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Umbrella (song)

Hi Calvin,

I see that you edit a lot of Rihanna's articles and was wondering if you could kindly intervene on Umbrella as Binksternet has removed the sourced genres that call it a hip hop and R&B song and says they are elements, I've added them in twice and he has accused me of breaking a 3RR thing? Can you look into it for me please? TIA VisionofCaution (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Horizonlove and Calvin999. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Closed without action; definitely not vandalism ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Little Mix

I think the above list needs updating if it wants to retain its FL status. I've just removed some wording by LM stans in the lead section. Richard3120 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks.

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)