User talk:Calvin999/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 29

DYK for One Child (Mariah Carey song)

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Serbia-US relations nomination

Hi there, Thanks for the review. I have looked at all your bullet points. I have been a bit busy but I will try my best to fix everything that you mentioned. However I just wanted to inform you that the name "Yugoslavia" was actually used formally until February 4, 2003 (then by constitutional changes the name was changed to "Serbia and Montenegro"). Most people associate the name Yugoslavia with the union of all the Balkan peoples from Slovenia to present day FYR Macedonia, so it is common to hear and read anywhere that Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 1991/2. The civil war in the early '90s was the end of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or SFRY. But the remainder state, which consisted of present-day territories Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo, was known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (without "Socialist" in the official name) until February 2003. I will try to catch up with the rest. Zastavafan76 (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Auld Lang Syne (The New Year's Anthem)

The article Auld Lang Syne (The New Year's Anthem) 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:Auld Lang Syne (The New Year's Anthem) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

St Denys' Church, Sleaford (GAR)

Hello, I have gone through your suggestions and amended everything I could to suit your feedback. I have minor queries about the last two. Thanks ever so much for reviewing this. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit on 'Close My Eyes' page?

Hi! I'm just wondering why you reverted my edit on Close My Eyes (Mariah Carey song)? I added because citation actually was needed. If you're going to revert that, at least give a reason please to avoid me having to ask you on your talk page. Wizlardo (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. We don't put citations in the lead, and it is already sourced in the Legacy section. Thanks.  — Calvin999 07:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Wasn't aware of the guidelines for no citations in the lead (unless for direct quotations/material that could be challenged of course). Thanks for letting me know Wizlardo (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's okay. Thanks for posting here.  — Calvin999 08:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Auld Lang Syne (The New Year's Anthem)

Thanks for helping Victuallers (talk 23:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessments

Hey Aaron, can you take a look at Alphastates and Chrome Division, which I nominated for delisting (links here and here)? I think these are way under the GA criteria, and any other opinions are welcomed. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes sure.  — Calvin999 12:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Norodom Chakrapong

Thanks! Let me know if you would like me to review any articles that you might personally have put up like GA nominations on your side. (I have not committed to playing the role of a GA reviewer so far). I understand that you have volunteered to review another nomination, Norodom Sihanouk, feel free to point out areas that needs improvements or redress. Mr Tan (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You're welcome. I do have some articles nominated in the Music category, but I can't ask you to undertake any as that is canvassing for reviewers, and I didn't review yours to get one back in return. If you have never reviewed an article, it would perhaps be good for you to do so, as it also gives you a greater understanding of how to prepare a nomination of your own. But make sure you check any nominations you review against the GA criteria.  — Calvin999 10:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I"ll take a look at some of your song/album-based articles that have passed GAs to use as a benchmark, before I think of taking up a song GA review. I noted that you have many nominations from this topic. I love to help, but I"ll have to think carefully about it before taking one because my expertise and passion is not in the field of popular arts and music. I have briefly gone through 2 or 3 articles, but am not sure what to comment as of now. I will ping you should I take up one of your GAs in future... :) .... Mr Tan (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. GA criteria applies to all topics. I review nominations from Music to politics to literature.  — Calvin999 11:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

FLC

As you're someone who's experienced with getting "List of songs..." articles up to FL standard, I'd appreciate any comments you could leave at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Azealia Banks/archive1. Thanks! Azealia911 _talk 21:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well at least there's one type of Featured process people think I'm experienced at! Haha. Also, I replied to your comments on my FLC.  — Calvin999 22:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Man Down (song)

Didn't get your email until after the FAC was archived; I'm just home from almost a week in hospital for surgery, but I copyedited it as best I could and if it's not good enough it's not good enough. All the best, Miniapolis 20:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant the sections I had added within the last week that weren't there before. Hope you're okay.  — Calvin999 22:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for the good wishes. At my age you don't bounce back from small-intestine surgery, but I overheard being referred to as a "tough old bird" more than once and hope to be around a bit longer :-). All the best, Miniapolis 13:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Infinity (Mariah Carey song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Infinity (Mariah Carey song) 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 CurtisNaito -- CurtisNaito (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christmas Time Is in the Air Again

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christmas Time Is in the Air Again 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 CurtisNaito -- CurtisNaito (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Norodom Sihanouk

It's ok--its fine for you to take some time to point out suggestions, as I can only drop by Wiki for short periods of time. So long as the GA doesn't lie dormant for, like half a year without notification, I'm ok :) I've been busy recently anyway.... Mr Tan (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Delayed GA

It hasn't even been a full 7 days and I haven't been active because I have real-life things to do at times. Both articles are now fixed and touched up. So it should be okay to pass them and such, I have been really slammed and have been full with work. Sparing even a few moments here and there is only something I get to do on my weekends now. Thanks for reviewing and I hope you will pass them now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but from my point of view, it went seven days without any acknowledgement from you to say "Okay thanks, bit short of time on Wikipedia at the moment due to real life, I'll do it when I can soon", which would only take a few seconds to do. You have been online in the last seven days and you must have seen the bot messages on your user talk? If you'd have let me know, like someone else did last week whose nomination I was reviewing who was time poor, then I would have left it open for you like I did for him and said "take your time". 19th-26th is seven days. I don't wish to sound harsh or rude. I don't know if I'm supposed to remove failed templates and replace with pass templates. I'll have to ask someone.  — Calvin999 16:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been on Wikipedia for more then 5 minutes in week prior. I cannot always drop my real life to deal with something Wiki-related. According to the GAN FAQ that holds do not have to be set to 7 days, but I do not ignore reviews. Basically, you did a review and now that I responded shortly thereafter the close, you will not re-open and evaluate it. Aside from the fact that I did not even see it until nearly 4 days in and I had to respond to some Email pester, I'm going to have to renominate and wait possibly months for a continuance. I have long been constrained on my editing time for awhile, but do as you please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't know that unless it's communicated, I'm just following the rules. I put it on hold for 7 days, there was no activity, and the 7 days expired. Before you use that tone with me, I have left at message on the GAN talk page asking what I am allowed to do. Surely you can appreciate that. If you knew that you was going to be busy, you could have always left a note on the nomination template saying you would be busy. Let be this a lesson learnt: notify potential reviewers in the nomination template, or leave a note when a nomination gets opened on the review itself or the reviewers talk page. I took time to review the articles, and I wanted to pass them obviously, and I enjoyed reading them. Don't take it out on me, I just followed procedure.  — Calvin999 16:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Serbia-United States relations

Hi there,

Sorry for the delays on working on the article. I understand if there is a deadline or if I need to go through any procedure again on determining the article's status as a good article. I have been busy and I just get on whenever I have down time, so I am not exactly sure when I will be done with going through with all your recommendations but I will keep getting back to it and hopefully by next week I will have been done. But I'll still get more done today though. Zastavafan76 (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Thank you so much for your additional edits! Zastavafan76 (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Feather Barnstar
		For many great GA articles. BlueSalix (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you  — Calvin999 20:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms - GA Review

Hi Calvin999, Just read your GA review of Coat of arms and in the main I agree. I do not know if you are going to be involved in any further review of the article, but if you are, there is a point of which you should be aware.
Each country is an authority unto itself and cannot be clumped together to make neater paragraphs. Even within the United Kingdom there are two authorities (which hardly speak to each other). Practices in one are illegal in the other. The same is applicable to North America, one country has a legal authority and the other does not. What we now call Germany was at one time part of the Holy Roman Empire, which comprised upwards of 100 different States each with their own heraldic traditions.
I only mention this, because if the article gets edited to include improper groupings, I and others will change it back to reflect reality. Maybe editors should be steered away from individual authorities and into the things that are the same, rather than the differences.
I fear, though that future editors will soon want to add "And in Sweden they do this ...", or some such. And then all the good work is undone. Best Regards Kiltpin (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Infinity (Mariah Carey song)

The article Infinity (Mariah Carey song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Infinity (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 CurtisNaito -- CurtisNaito (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christmas Time Is in the Air Again

The article Christmas Time Is in the Air Again you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christmas Time Is in the Air Again 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 CurtisNaito -- CurtisNaito (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One Child (Mariah Carey song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article One Child (Mariah Carey song) 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 Magiciandude -- Magiciandude (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One Child (Mariah Carey song)

The article One Child (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:One Child (Mariah Carey song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Magiciandude -- Magiciandude (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of One Child (Mariah Carey song)

The article One Child (Mariah Carey song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:One Child (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 Magiciandude -- Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Thanks for reviewing Cincinnati chili for GA status! valereee (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!  — Calvin999 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lego GA

I see that you are reviewing the GA nomination of the Lego article. Just noting that the nominator is a new editor, and while he has made improvements to the article, I am not sure if he understands WP:WIAGA standards. You may want to see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Bulk reviews and nominations by new editor. Regards, sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.  — Calvin999 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to remind you of the Lego nomination as I noticed you worked on some other nominatons that you picked up after lego. I understand the standards now after my mishap. Thanks Tortle (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I also worked on Real-time Transport Protocol and nominated that if you are interested. Tortle (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meteorite (song)

The article Meteorite (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:Meteorite (song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Oh What a Circus/GA2

(edit conflict) You might wanna take a look into it, I think the person has removed it from your Wikicup submission also. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me.  — Calvin999 07:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Man Down

Hey! I just opened my mail and sorry for responding late. Saw that "Man Down" failed its FAC. I am quite surprised to see that it failed, as it had every chance of passing until the opposes. Anyway I am glad that you have not given up on it, as you have opened a peer review. Wish ya all the best. I am sure like S&M, this will eventually gain that bronze star. -- Frankie _talk 12:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you  — Calvin999 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Norodom Sihanouk/GA1

Hi Calvin, are there any further inputs or changes that you would like to see for the above GA? I have agreed and addressed all your suggestions, although I would like to ask your permission for one point, which I have stated my request/reason in the review. Mr Tan (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I will confide in the next few days. I was away for bank holiday.  — Calvin999 16:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello again, I reviewed Lego and since it had been 5 days, I just wanted to remind you in case you had other stuff on your plate that you started the GA review on Lego. Thanks, Tortle (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know I started it.  — Calvin999 17:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I wasnt meaning to be a nag. Tortle (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I really dont want to be annoying but its been seven days now. I dont mind a delay but Id appreciate it if you could give me a date. Thanks Tortle (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I was going to do it this afternoon. Please don't hound me with messages. Me opening a review is a guarantee that I will review it. If I hadn't of, then it would probably still be in the queue without a reviewer anyway.  — Calvin999 08:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks Tortle (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of You Don't Know What to Do

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article You Don't Know What to Do 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 Azealia911 -- Azealia911 (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of You Don't Know What to Do

The article You Don't Know What to Do you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:You Don't Know What to Do for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Azealia911 -- Azealia911 (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of You Don't Know What to Do

The article You Don't Know What to Do you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:You Don't Know What to Do 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 Azealia911 -- Azealia911 (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer. Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups. For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

Per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects do not "need correcting".[1] Unless there is another overriding reason to remove the redirect, it can be left as it is. DrKiernan (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the point are linking to a redirect.  — Calvin999 10:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of changing a working hidden link to another working hidden link to the same article solely for the purpose of changing the working hidden link to another working hidden link to the same article? It's time-wasting. Snarky edit summaries implying the article isn't FA standard solely on the basis of a hidden link is not best practice either. DrKiernan (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

My reply was rhetorical, but thanks. I don't see the point of intentionally linking to a redirect. And if someone changed to it to the correct link, I wouldn't chase them down for it, either.  — Calvin999 10:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Devil Pray

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Number 1 to Infinity

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Number 1 to Infinity 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikicup concerns

It's probably best if we stop complaining. They won't make any changes based on our concerns anyway, and all this is doing is making us look like poor sports. I tried to back you up, as I share your concerns, but there's too much negativity now, and this is supposed to be fun. FWIW, I'm with you in that I doubt I'll participate next year, as it's really just an exercise in handing awards to two or three people who already have lots of accolades. I would say it's been a good experience, but the deadlines are not fun, especially when it takes two or three times as long to get something passed for me than others. Keep up the great work, and don't worry that pop culture articles don't get as much points, because they are among our bread and butter pages in terms of hits, which is what pays the bills around here anyway. RO^(talk) 18:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as complaining. I initiated what I believe were genuine concerns of mine in a very calm, sincere and civil manner. Several editors have already pounced on me, which I'm used to, and now it is a vortex of negativity as you said. Unless a fuss is kicked up, so to speak, the system will never change, and it will continue to benefit and suit those by whom the system supports. It makes complete sense to you and I, but is falling on deaf ears of a lot of other people, because they don't want to be fired at either, because they are friends with particular individuals, or the system benefits them too. Cwmhiraeth nor Casliber (as examples) will never say "Yes, I agree", because the system supports them in abundance. I will continue to participate, because I do in fact enjoy being apart of it, but it's tainted for me knowing that when I put my name down, I already know who will win and who will be the top scorers, which in turn takes some of the fun out of it and IMO makes it less exciting. I would disallow about four editors from entering and then it will allow others to progress and make it more exciting. If it continues, it will just become boring and predictable. The scoring needs reforming, bonus points need addressing big time, I think rounds should last longer (why not make use of November at least?), year in year out and round in round out winners and top scorers should be banned (harsh but if the shoe fits) from participating next year purely for the sake of variety. I'm not going to comment back on the Cup talk or Josh's talk anymore, it's not going anywhere and I need to turn off my repeat button. But hopefully, some people have been given food for thought and some changes, even if they are little ones, may be put in place as a result. I don't have a problem with people scoring more than me, because I'm usually the bottom place advance anyway.  — Calvin999 19:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

They are viewing it as attacks on the top three, which it really isn't; it's merely a criticism of the system, not the participants. I don't blame them for taking advantage of the bonus points, but I don't agree with it either, as it puts it out of reach for all but a few. One FA should not be three times as valuable as another, and am 1,800 word FA really shouldn't be three times as valuable as an 8,500 word one. I never had a delusion that I could actually win, but it's way more fun when everybody has a chance, and that's never going to be the case as long as two or three participants score more bonus points than everybody else combined times three. RO^(talk) 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not an attack on them. We would have this opinion regardless of who it was. It's nothing personal against them. We couldn't have had this discussion without using examples, and we would have been asked to give examples had we not in the first place. So we can't win really. When I look at my name in the table now, I feel like I shouldn't be there. I tired so hard and successfully made it to this final round, knowing full well that I will most probably come last like I usually do. I'm so pleased that I've made it this far, because I never have before. I've only just discovered that there was controversy at the end of last year about one editor in particular and their scoring and that people boycotted this years cup because of it, so clearly it affects us at different times but we all have thought the same at some time.  — Calvin999 19:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Be proud of what you've accomplished, and continue to do the good work you do around here. FWIW, if we decide to compete next year, we should do as others have done and help each other get stuff through the system. Because besides bonus points, that's the only way to compete, but I've never teamed up like that. I'm not into pop music, but maybe we could find related topics that we could even co-nom together. That's the only way to get 5 FAs through in 6 weeks (not that we could do that). RO^(talk) 20:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know. I'm always being called out for stuff I "shouldn't be". One rule for me, one rule for everyone else. What is FWIW?  — Calvin999 20:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW means "for what it's worth". If we could find another person, or even two more, then we could really get some stuff accomplished. Think about it. As I said, I seriously doubt I'll participate next year, mainly because the deadlines are too stressful, which diminishes my enjoyment. But if I were to participate, I'd only do it with some teamwork. RO^(talk) 20:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to tell you your business, but I'd reconsider your post to Godot's page if I were you. He's just caught in the middle of this, and I doubt he meant anything by his comments, which I agree were unnecessarily harsh. RO^(talk) 20:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah right okay. Godot wasn't even involved and other people mentioned his name, and he has now involved himself and I don't appreciate comments like that. It rude and it's bad faith. It's not the time or place to be making antagonistic comments like that. I don't care if it's tongue-in-cheek or not, it's not appropriate or necessary.  — Calvin999 21:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I felt it too, but I don't think it's anything you should worry about. I see that you're a passionate editor. That's great! But passion without restraint doesn't work here. I've seen it first hand and been guilty of it myself. Focus on what you enjoy most about editing Wikipedia, and temporarily avoid things that frustrate you, especially when frustrated ... lol. RO^(talk) 23:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects & Good Article reviews

Hi Calvin999.

I'm a little perplexed. Today I ran across a redirect that MarioSoulTruthFan had blanked with the edit summary, "has to be eliminated in order to pass as a GA article." (see diff). This seemed exceedingly odd to me as if the redirect is unnecessary there's always WP:RFD, but besides that, what would the existence of a perfectly good redirect have to do with an article meeting the Good Article criteria? So I reverted. He responded on my talk page by pointing me to Talk:Grenade (song)/GA2, where it appears you complained about a similar redirect (Grenade (Bruno Mars song) -> Grenade (song)). Looking at the history of that redirect I see a brief flurry of him blanking and being reverted until you passed the GA.

I can find nothing wrong with either of those two redirects, and nothing in the Good Article Criteria about blanking, deleting, or otherwise eliminating or doing away with redirects pointed at the article. So could you please elaborate on what the problem was that Grenade (song) couldn't pass GA without the redirect being blanked, and if the same should happen to Treasure (song)? Thanks. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why he would blank it. It doesn't make sense to me either. I don't know what it is that he was trying to achieve.  — Calvin999 08:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

On Talk:Grenade (song)/GA2, you said, "*One dab link". The only thing I can think of is that he interpreted that as meaning that redirects pointing to the article were a problem, but I'm not sure why he thought that. Oh well. Thanks.

Talk:Norodom Sihanouk/GA1

Hi Calvin, how have you been? I understand that we still have a GA review for the above article. I have dropped by to make amends and add-ons periodically, and I believed that I have addressed all concerns that you have so far listed in the GA page. I hope to hear from you soon, so that we can wind up the GA review, but please don't hesitate to let me know if you need more time on your side :) Mr Tan (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I will get to it today.  — Calvin999 10:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions and inputs :) Mr Tan (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Vanilla Chocolat/GA2

Hello Calvin! I just saw that you created the GA2-page for the article "Vanilla Chocolat". However, it is blank since two days. Maybe you can do something regarding it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I am doing it today.  — Calvin999 14:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Maroon 5 main page and others

Can you keep an eye on Maroon 5 main page, album and songs information pages? 123.136.107.71 (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Why?  — Calvin999 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Number 1 to Infinity page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Merry Christmas II You

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Merry Christmas II You 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 Azealia911 -- Azealia911 (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment for History of Japan

History of Japan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Vanilla Chocolat/GA2

Hi, I'm sorry for disturbing you so much from your current work, but I just have to say that I have applied the issues you have listed on Talk:Vanilla Chocolat/GA2. I don't know what type of issues you explain on "Release history", and would you tell me which sources are unreliable? Thanks in advance! Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool for the Summer

If a song has not charted on Dance/Electronic Songs you may add US Dance/Mix Show Airplay to a song. WP:USCHARTS Nintendo¡oui?? 10:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It's been changed since I last looked then.  — Calvin999 10:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Merry Christmas II You

The article Merry Christmas II You you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Merry Christmas II You 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 Azealia911 -- Azealia911 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Number 1 to Infinity

The article Number 1 to Infinity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Number 1 to Infinity 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Merry Christmas II You

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Angels Cry Screenshot.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Angels Cry Screenshot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Up Out My Face Screenshot.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Up Out My Face Screenshot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:H.A.T.E.U. Screenshot.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:H.A.T.E.U. Screenshot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File:When Christmas Comes Screenshot.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:When Christmas Comes Screenshot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for You Don't Know What to Do

Gatoclass (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of H.A.T.E.U.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article H.A.T.E.U. 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

AHS FLC

Hi Calvin, I've nominated AHS' awards article for FLC. If interested, please leave your comments here. I would love to see your review. Thank you! GagaNutella^talk 02:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder about Talk:FourFiveSeconds/GA1

I'm just reminding you about my response to you on the review page. I don't want to move on until the current issues have been addressed. I know you only volunteered to do this, but the nominator hasn't responded in weeks and I'm leaning towards closing the review if there is no progress. The Wikipedian Penguin 11:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see you're reply.  — Calvin999 16:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As is procedure, I'm letting you know that I've closed the review. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:H.A.T.E.U. Screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:H.A.T.E.U. Screenshot.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Mainstream Top 40 chart

Gatoclass (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I hereby award this Triple Crown to Calvin999 for his fantastic contributions to music articles, and his persistence on getting S&M to featured status. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Calvin, I thought I'd just stop by here to say thank you for your concerns at Talk:Photograph (Ed Sheeran song)/GA1 and at the "Impossible Is Nothing" DYK. I apologize if it did not come across that way. I also would like to propose that we collaborate and clear the air, I hope we can stop the bickering. I do respect you as an editor and hope that you could respect me as well. Cheers. CoolMarc 06:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I accept your apology. We got off on the wrong foot. I think you know that I've never actually said anything that constitutes attacking you, and that I have only made factual observations. I think you kind of got caught up in the middle of something and then someone else used that as a scapegoat. This was exemplified at ANI because it was archived almost straight away with the decision of no administrative action required. The air is clear between you and I as of now.  — Calvin999 10:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

... Just saw your long post to me on the GAN. Shame you didn't read this first.  — Calvin999 11:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Calvin, after your last post at the GAN, I am very disappointed that you are not able to accept responsibility or apologize for the things you keep saying about me and that you still want to fight after all the effort I have done in trying to clear the air between me, you and Efe. We did not get off the wrong foot, if I am correct in assuming that you are referring to the "Man Down" FAC, I am shocked. Just because of my oppose? If that is why you are constantly criticizing and talking down on me, I have no time for such a mindset. I have taken a big step in apologizing to you when I am not even the one in the wrong, and yet you continued to fight at the GAN and on Efe's talk page. I am also not the incompetent, pathetic editor you keep making me out to be. I would suggest that you stay clear of me, unless you are willing to apologize and stop fighting. I have done my part. Regards. CoolMarc 11:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If you felt that I was criticising you, then I'm sorry for that. But they aren't criticisms. Everyone on Wikipedia was a beginning at some point. It ended awkwardly between us on the FAC, and I did get oversensitive about the nomination. When you work hard on something and no-one seems to see that, it's not very nice. I agreed to bury the hatchet above, and I've removed myself from all contact with the GAN. I don't see how I am continuing to fight nor am I being revengeful (notice that I gave you a second chance on your DYK, I didn't fail it straight off when many others would have, so I don't see how I am being revengeful). I've never called you "incompetent, pathetic" so please don't put words in my mouth. I have already stopped "fighting" if you wish to phrase it that way, and I already agreed to clear the air.  — Calvin999 11:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. No worries Calvin. Thank you. CoolMarc 11:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown

I am very pleased to upgrade Calvin999's Triple Crown to the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels. Keep up the good work. Freikorp (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The 25 DYK Nomination Medal

		The 25 DYK Nomination Medal
		Yea OK triple crown awards are good, but how many editors have an award for recognising the good work of others and nominating their work for mention? These are the best type of DYK awards and you have one for 25 nominations. Thank you from the community, the DYK project, the editors of 25 other articles and me. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :D  — Calvin999 13:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Triple Crowns

I just noticed, you are in rare company. One of your Triple Crowns is one of those rare ones that most people can never earn. One of these days I'm going to shoot for one of those. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song)

You told one user that one image caption is not necessary. However, I believe it is needed for readers to know which image is it. --George Ho (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

But not many articles use a caption. It's kind of obvious what it is.  — Calvin999 08:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither to those who never heard of the song nor to those unfamiliar with regional cover arts. The Americans and Australians got the Pokémon cover art; the Europeans got the current image. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

However, I agree that 2nd image would no longer be necessary. George Ho (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown

Congratulations on upgrading your Triple Crown to Imperial Napoleonic. Your work on music articles is appreciated. Freikorp (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Number 1 to Infinity

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh Santa!

Hi there, I hope this is the best way to contact you and I apologise if I haven't done it correctly - it's my first time messaging a member on Wikipedia. I just wanted to ask you about the Matt Fishel cover of Oh Santa! that I put back on the page and which I see you have re-deleted. I do not want to do anything wrong or inaccurate or make anyone annoyed - I'm just very confused and hoping we could resolve this issue. I have re-checked the links in the references. The link to the JD Doyle article still exists online - he is an American music blogger who has run the site Queer Music Heritage for many years and he even has his own Wikipedia page detailing this. On his site, he reviews this version of Oh Santa! Also, the song and release currently exist live on iTunes, Google Play, Amazon - each showing the single's release date - and links are in the article. The song is also streaming on all streaming sites like Spotify. The single release is detailed officially on Discogs.com and AllMusic.com, the second of which is recognised as a replication of the ROVI database, which is a monitored industry collection of international releases. Also, there is mention of its release on Fishel's official Google Play biog, on his official artist website and there is a video on YouTube. The only link in my original entry that seems to have now broken is the link to the official UK charts 'New Releases' page which was retrieved two years ago. I have checked the guidelines and they state that an album or single cover is considered ok for use on Wikipedia, and I have also received permission on email from Fishel's label representative to use the single's artwork on Wikipedia. So what I can't understand is why you feel the article and the existence of the song has to be removed altogether from Wikipedia? Is it not even possible to mention within the article that a cover version has been made of this song by another recording artist, in the same way that so many thousands of other Wikipedia articles do (where they list cover versions at the bottom of the article)? There was no 'opinion' or commentary which I felt wasn't backed up - just the simple facts that it had been released, with a link to one review by JD Doyle. I do understand why people often remove sentences or sections from articles that seem like conjecture or have no means of backing them up, but I just can't understand why the existence of this cover version has to be removed entirely from the article of the song when it's an official release that exists on iTunes, Spotify, Amazon etc, that I have downloaded myself and for which there is online and store evidence of its having been released, as well as a review on JD Doyle's website. Thanks for your time, and I hope we can resolve this and reinstate something on the page - whether that's my short Cover Version section in its original form, or at least a mention of or reference to the international digital release of the single, with the artwork. Thanks and all the best, Bd1992 (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately I do not believe that "Queer Music Heritage" is a reliable source and in turn it cannot be used on Wikipedia. Also, we do not use Discogs.com. Only having a source to a form of release on iTunes is not enough to warrant having it's own section. We have to reliably source information from reliable and trusted websites. I deleted the section because everything bar iTunes is not able to be sourced. That is why people often remove sentences which are not cited to a reliable source. For more info please see WP:MOS and WP:RS.  — Calvin999 09:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your response and the info, much appreciated. Bd1992 (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to archive URLs please? (Talk page stalkers also welcome!)

Ref 11 on Thunder (Leona Lewis song) please. The BBC Radio 2 link. Thanks.  — Calvin999 08:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. https://archive.org/web/ has a "save page" link. It is your friend. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you.  — Calvin999 08:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hello (Adele song)

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tinashe discography/archive1

Would you mind leaving some comments? It'd be much appreciated, thanks. Azealia911 _talk 15:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Mail

All sets before November have been filled, so I am unable to fulfill your request without pulling hooks. I am on a mobile device right now. sst✈^discuss 10:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean all sets have been fulfilled?  — Calvin999 11:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It means that all sets of hooks scheduled to appear at the main page before November have been completed. I had a look at your two DYK nominations. Unfortunately DYK nominations resulting from an article improved to GA status are ineligible for points, so it would be useless for me to rush these two hooks to DYK sets scheduled before November. sst✈^discuss 11:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No they aren't ineligible, not in the Wiki Cup. I just looked and I didn't know that. Pretty unfair really.  — Calvin999 12:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

Hai, I am happy to see some good reviews of you in WP:PR. Kindly consider giving a peer review to the film article Drishyam. Already made a request for review. --Charles Turing (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review.--Charles Turing (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Hi, Calvin999. It was great to work with you and bring List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga to FL. Thank you!!! GagaNutellatalk 23:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. You too!  — Calvin999 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on the cruise missile strikes article. The one thing I am reluctant to do is give a judgement of "US/al-Qaeda victory/defeat" because I think it's more nuanced than that; ergo, I decided to summarize the results. GAB^Hello! 18:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Minor Barnstar
		Although you did not make the top 16 of Round 1, you did participate and you still deserve a barnstar. Thank you so much for being a part of the 2nd Annual GA Cup and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh thank you. I wasn't expecting anything!  — Calvin999 08:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Voodoo Love

Can you please explain why you reverted my edit on List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande? Guessing your edit summary, I'm assuming you don't know Ariana played the song herself in a live chat. You can see the proof of that here, so she did actually record the song. But for future reference, we really can't list any songs in the article that are unreleased unless there's solid proof she recorded them? Why is that not how it works in other similar articles? Seems like it will be a rather incomplete list then. Do songs that are never recorded actually get registered? I'm truly curious. MusicLover (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Singing a song in a YouTube video doesn't prove she recorded it in a recording studio. All lists of this kind with "recorded by" in the title is songs that have been officially recorded in a studio, or there are reliable sources saying it has been recorded (I.E. it's been leaked and reliable sources have reported on this). All lists which are "written by" can have any song written or co-written by that singer but not ones which he or she recorded but did not write. Missing one or two songs doesn't make a list "rather incomplete". This is not a list of songs written by Grande. Logging songs on BMI and ASCAP just means it was written, not recorded. It just means that you have filed your work with the publishers so that the lyrics can't be copied. It's just a copyright thing. This applies to all song lists, not just Grande's.  — Calvin999 09:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not always how I see it done (see: List of songs recorded by Beyoncé and List of unreleased songs recorded by Britney Spears). Both articles include songs that are registered but have not leaked although I guess you could argue these articles have not been awarded "good article" status and thus aren't good examples to look at which would be fair enough I guess (and that would be your explanation of this then, right?), but I believe Voodoo Love should be included on Ariana's article. There's another better video here where you can actually see Ariana as she played the song. She didn't just "sing the song in a Youtube video", she played a recorded version of the song for fans. And if you're going to disagree with this is there anywhere else I can take this discussion to get some other opinions? I don't want it to turn into an edit war but I don't like when someone who is trying to add legitimate information to an article is continuously reverted over a matter of opinion. MusicLover (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with being a matter opinion. Neither of those are Featured Lists and have not gone through an intense review process and both are in pretty poor condition really. Ariana Grande's has, in June. Also, YouTube is not a reliable source for someone singing a song. It is self-published content. Post on Talk:List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande if you wish. I reverted your edit in good faith and I appreciate your commitment and involvement, but unless you can provide reliable sources (MTV, Rap-Up, Digital Spy etc. or a newspaper article) which states that Grande has recorded this track officially, then it won't ever be added to this list. All BMI proves is that it was written. It does not prove that it was ever recorded in a studio or released. This list is a list of studio recordings. I believe I have only reverted you once to my knowledge, so I don't know who else is "continuously" reverting you (I haven't seen any reverts).

Why would those sources be any more legitimate than proof that you can see with your own eyes that Ariana played a RECORDED version of the song? I just feel as if that's nitpicking considering that video is proof enough. Even if the song is "never included" in the article I'm not sure as to why you're talking as if what I showed you doesn't prove what we've been discussing. I know Youtube isn't a great source in all cases, but if you're going to disagree that the song wasn't recorded in a studio the Youtube shows that it in fact was. Not to mention Youtube wouldn't even have to be sourced considering Pink Champagne's release by Ariana isn't sourced at all yet the song is still listed. I wasn't accusing you of reverting me multiple times but obviously if I added the information back and said there was enough evidence in my mind of it warranting a place in the article, you would revert me immediately once again so that's what I was saying. MusicLover (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the video has been uploaded to a complete random's account and we can't verify who that is which makes it grossly unreliable. We need third party sources as evidence. You're saying it as if it's me, but I'm only telling you what the Wikipedia guidelines are for MOS. Just because you believe this song should be included, doesn't mean it has to be. The video doesn't prove that she is in a recording studio. Where is Ariana? Where is the recording studio? It's just lyrics on a screen. I didn't add "Pink Champagne" and I've removed it. You need to adhere to MOS guides. I'm not going to keep to arguing here when you're not listening to me. We adhere to Wikipedia rules, not your opinions. If you can't find third party sources, then it will not be added to this list.  — Calvin999 10:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I linked to a second video which shows a capture of the live chat where Ariana played the song and you can see her playing the song in that one, the second video I linked is different than the first lyric video you saw. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm actually just having a discussion. Sorry if it's coming across differently to you. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not well-versed in all of Wikipedia's rules but I never knew Youtube was a complete no-no when it comes to sourcing. I'm aware of finding third party sources but all I'm saying is that they could watch the same video we do and write that Ariana has recorded the song without any more knowledge than either of us but somehow that would automatically allow it to be included in the article when it can't be now. Regardless, I don't think I'll be able to find any third party sources considering she wasn't a huge celebrity at the time of her playing the song and things like that typically aren't reported about anyway so I guess I may just be out of luck. MusicLover (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, a live stream proves very little. Yes, she is singing the song, but who is saying that this is the original version or an alternate version? The accountholder bio says "Fan account". It's not a reliable source. YouTube is reliable for things such as links to official music videos, interviews published to the account of the magazine/newspaper/news source which are also on their website etc. But not for what you are highlighting. Bottom line is that only songs which are on albums, releases as singles or sources commenting on leaked studio songs can be included in this list. BMI and ASCAP can be used to source writers, but not recordings, since they are websites documenting songwriter's credit. I appreciate your input but it can't be included.  — Calvin999 11:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for H.A.T.E.U.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Thunder (Leona Lewis song)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Finalist

Awarded to Calvin999, who finished in 5th place in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)