After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. For a list of the issues to be addressed, please click here. I will give you the general seven days to address these issues and/or discuss points you believe do not concern the good article criteria. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211(talk2me)02:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was looking at some of your GA reviews, and I noticed this and thought I'd point it out to you. You've been spelling Veredict wrong. It's Verdict. xD Statυs (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Nicki Minaj - Did It on 'Em.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).
I have completed some of the tasks you have asked me to do for your GAN Review on this subject. As I am blocked from directly commenting on a review page, I am forced to send you a message. Just notifying you, Oakley77 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok . Since the nominator hasn't answered on the review, I think someone has to do the fixes. Thanks. I'll check on it. 21:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)—Hahc21
File:Nicki Minaj - Did It on 'Em.jpg listed for deletion
Hello, I am taking place in the current GA drive and I just wanted to ask you a quick question. Can an article this short even qualify as a GAN? I am only asking this because I find it hard to believe articles that short can be Good Articles. Please respond as soon as you can. Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put it on hold and ask the nominator if all information available is on the article. I'll be watching the review and helping you. Regards. —Hahc2101:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just wanted to say thank you for reviewing several of my X-Files GAs. It means a lot to me and the project! Cheers!--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha thanks! I got interested on the X-Files recently and i thought that a way to learn more about it was reviewing those articles. I'ts been very interesting. Cheers! —Hahc2103:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that you're approaching this from a totally detached perspective. There's not anything wrong with that, but of the few GAs which already exist and fall under WP:ALASKA, more than several of them appear to need expert review. I consider that having a somewhat expert perspective and applying that to GA candidates under the project should be a top priority, though there's so much else to do. Having said that, I fear that the article really requires more work than I will have time for. While I applaud Awardgive's enthusiasm, there are persistent issues with that user's contributions. In this case, I'm seeing a wholesale pattern of statements not matching up to cited sources. At this point, I would probably have just enough time to point out those problems in detail, but not necessarily enough time to correct all of it. Nonetheless, I'll see what I can do.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upload about +50 non-free images which hasn't been deleted; know the NFCC policy; upload sound samples, request filename change, etc. It also depends on the admin, i think. —Hahc2113:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I cam across an article about an airport that listed an airline that was redlinked. I looked it up and there's no page on it. Should I create a small stub on it? Thanks, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, if you find enough reliable information, you can create the stub. . Which is the name of the airline? —Hahc2122:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm i don't find enough information on Google. Better if you start it on your sandbox to avoid an AfD if the sources aren't enough. —Hahc2123:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's a DYK or a GA?
Can anyone promote an article to GA?
Who decides if it's a GA or DYK?
How can I make an article a GA or a DYK?
Thank you, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hey! In order:
A did you know? is an award or accolade which is given for newly created or expanded content on Wikipedia. It is a section appearing on Wikipedia's main page, on which such articles are named, or more specifically, an interesting sentence from the article.
Well, that depends of which side of the game you see. As i supposed you know well what's a GA (since you sisn't asked), Anyone can nominate an article to be evaluated against a certain criteria and, if it indeed meets such criteria, the article is promoted to the Good Article status.
For DYK: A group of editors constantly work at WP:DYK. Anyone can nominate an article for did you know? and, if it meets the criteria, then the article is featured on the main page. For GA: Anyone who fully and clearly understands the criteria can review an article to see of it meets such criteria. If the user believes, after evaluating the article, that it indeed meets the criteria, then they promote the article. Note that if you nominate an article, you can't review it (though it may be obvious).
For GA: First, you must read the GA criteria and see if the article on which you've been working on lately meets all stated there. If it's the case, then you can nominate the article, and an uninvolved user will point you all the issues he may find for you to fix them in order to promote the article. For DYK: This is difficult to explain. First: Only newly create articles (userspace → mainspace is valid) or articles substantially expanded within the last 5 days are eligible. Also, those articles must be properly sourced and meet some rules to be promoted as such. Also, the did you know? process is very special, since it works like an advertisement. How? Well, an interesting hook from the article is shown on the main page to promote the recently expanded or created article to the general public.
Good! Now that you've created them, the next step is expanding them. Find all info you can and extract the most information suitable for the article(s), and add it to the article(s). Cheers! —Hahc2102:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't expand them because they are very rare species of knifefish and there is barely any information but what I could find in those 3 sources out there. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You kindly reviewed my first wikipedia article Takis K. Evangelides which needed further source references. Please could you let me know if what I've put in is enough? I'm very much a beginner at this 'coding'... Unfortunately the majority of the doctor's publications were in Cyprus, where unfortunately online sources aren't prevalent (!), and so I sincerely hope what I have put will be enough. Please advise
Many thx in advance
Florentia Buckingham (username Cyprusfacts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyprusfacts (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have decided to postpone my RFA until January. I really think you should run soon! Also, they are granting reviewer rights again at WP: PERM if you want them. Regards! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hahc21! Remember when we were talking about what defines Latin music? This article by Carlos Quintana of About.com explains what defines Latin music and I believe this is the best way to tell if an article is under the scope or not. Erick (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way it defines the genre, and on many statements he reaches the same conclusion I reached when we spoke about it. I do believe as you that it is the best way to define if an article is inside the scope or not. We should add such information to Latin music. —Hahc2103:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead is fine and maybe some parts of it too on the lead. Also check this article out. This article explains how does one define a Latin artist. This is a lot more helpful than I expected. 8) Erick (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the concept got me interested. I'm tagging it as my next big project. We're on a mission to bring it to FA right? I'll be on it. I developed little on the lead, but this got me hooked. "It's interesting how Latin musicians end up living, in a way, in two worlds." —Hahc2104:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the more I read about what is Latin music, the more I'm starting to think that Latin music as a genre should have it's own article. If you look at Latin American music, you see countries like Belize and Guyana but those countries aren't covered by sources that deal with Latin music, contrast that with Spain which is included. How do you think it should be done? Erick (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should split the article into two: Latin American music only as a genre and the information regarding the meaning, history, a summary of the main subgenres and standout artists, and Latin music by country (suggested name) on which we can discuss (or write) about each cuntry's internal development of latin music, and talk about the genres originated in such countries, as Cuba's son and Venezuela's llanera, but only as a summary. I would also recommend to, as a second option, expand the articles for each country and create a category to handle them all, alogside the already existing template. —Hahc2104:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Now I'm really starting to get interested in working on it too. Hopefully we get more editors to work on it. Inviting related WikiProjects to help out with the article should also do the track. Erick (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't know if you already know (lolz), but the Record Report has a Greatest Garner chart, useful for songs that haven't reached the Top 40. I've been digging the site map to see if there's a way to find archive information. Erick (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my godness! Eureka! Thanks Erick. This is great! Btw, what about Arjona discpgraphy FL cnadidacy? Anything else i whould fix? I added volume, issue and ISSN to all BB magazines. —Hahc2103:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! You've got my support! Now you need to ask Michael Jester and GreatOrangePumpkin if there's any issues left since they commented on the FLC and you can ask their talk pages. Erick (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You were active in the page List of modern dictators if you remember, now the page is about to become a edit war portal page once again, because the obsessive edit warrior has returned, remembering that the edits done by the same person are only limited to self likeness and without making any discussion in talks. Kindly secure the page and revert back to the one which i just had [1], point is same, since 16th june 2012. Thanks Clarificationgiven (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your innuendo on User talk:Status has gone far enough; either state your case that this or other admins have acted outside of policy or knock off the statements like "these actions are really suspicious" and "This is worrying me." WP:NPA does include unfounded accusations against admins. You are welcome to discuss my actions with me directly or on WP:ANI. Going around making snide comments implying wrongdoing without anything to back them up must stop. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I don't understand why you don't provide a detailed rationale within your block logs. The same for Bwilkins. Wilkins block on Calvin have been questioned by several admins. I'm not making personal attacks, I'm just worried because of this. How Status would get blocked for that? How Calvin will be revoked editing his talk page without rationale? I'm demandng the rationale to clearly understand the actions both of you have taken. If you consider that a personal attack, then we must find a way to solve this. —Hahc2123:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not responsible for Bwilkins actions. FWIW, I've started a discussion about the issues you raise with Calvin here. I encourage you to participate in it.
I'm not agaist or in favor of the block. I apologize for writin "another block by..", I was on a upset moment, but I fixed it. Now, i'm calmed and I can think clearly. First: I never intended to make personal attacks. Second: I just wanted you to note the details about why Status got blocked: I know that the mere fact that he were edit warring is enough, but some extra details are not bad for it. When I said suspicious, I wasn't talking about you but about this whole event that's happening. First, Calvin, then Status, the editors involved and the consequences doesn't fit. I'm suspicious about the talk page block by Bwilkins; and I think you should be suspicious too. Anyway, I just want to find an answer to all this, which is worrying me. —Hahc2123:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I feel better about your comments.
As far as Calvin's situation, I'm not sure what more we could or should do other than opening a discussion on that issue. As Dennis Brown pointed out, such a move seems common sense to most admins, but also understands why that isn't obvious to the average editor. Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such as me. I don't find obvious that block, but maybe (as you say and I believe you) admins do. We should (as you requested on Blocking policy) add such information on the guidelines so everyone could clearly understand such blocks, and avoid this kind of situations. I'll be watching your request and supporting you to find a solution on this. Again, I apologize for the missunderstanding. Cheers! —Hahc2123:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Arjona sin ti sin mi.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Arjona sin ti sin mi.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.
I'm not blocked but i can't edit pages on Wikipedia. I don't know what happened. Can somebody help me? —Hahc2102:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing happened to me. I think it was some error throughout Wikipedia. Did it tell you you can't edit, or did it just not do anything? Statυs (talk) 02:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to confess. I made the edits from 190.199.81.50. I logged out without noticing and made the comments on the MfD. I just realized this very moment. Toddst1 blocked my IP and I cannot edit, but I don't find any block on my session. I apologize for the misunderstanding . Aff f***ing s**t. —Hahc2102:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to log in from my phone to avoid being blocked. What a wonderful day. Well, i think i'm gonna wait to see what happens. :( —Hahc2102:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked 190.199.81.50(talk·contribs·info·WHOIS) per your email confirmation and comments on the IP talk page. Please be much more careful in the future. You should be free to edit. If you have problems, email me or post something appropriate here. Toddst1 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Razr Nation/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hahc, in the conversation on User talk: Status, a couple of things came out:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:EW and what is an exemption from edit warring. This comment illustrates that pretty well. Your statement is absolutely false. Reverting an unsourced addition is only an exception if it introduces a severe issue and "the risk of harm is such that removal is required." The genre of a pop music single is miles away from such an interpretation. Yes, reliable sources are important - very important. They're the foundation of WP:V. But the lack of them doesn't give anyone carte blanche to edit war without consequence. If you need specific policy, take a look at WP:NOT3RR. The only scenario where this is the case is "removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons."
This comment reiterates your misinterpretation of of EW exemptions and introduces a new dimension: You don't seem to understand that the genre of a pop music single is in almost all cases not a WP:BLP issue. Now, if was being changed to Neo-Nazism, then sure, that probably should be considered a BLP issue, but between Pop music and Contemporary R&B - sorry, in no way is that libelous, biased, or contentious enough for it to remotely considered a BLP issue.
The problem with not understanding BLP exemptions to EW continues with this comment. Yes, without a source, "you can name a folk song as to belong to the reggae genre" but the risk of harm is nowhere near such that removal is required and as I've tried to explain above, is not exempt from edit warring.
What's more concerning is that you "think you know our policies from head to toe." As I've pointed out above, it's clear that you don't and I'm hoping that you're taking this in the constructive manner I'm presenting it.
Well, I really appretiate your comments. I love constructive comments and the fact that you took time to write this is valuable to me. That said, i have to say:
1, My comment "i know our policies from head to toe." is completely influenced. I was excited and wrote that without thinking. After that,
2: I understand both BLP and EW, Toddst1, that's not the issue. I know i used some parts of those to cover a rationale of mine. I now see I was wrong when I did that, since BLP and EW doesn't offer a solution to this.
3: Your block on Status is properly supported. I reached this conclusion today when i was off from WP. How? First, EW says that reverting the same content from the same page more than once is edit warring. Also, 3RR says that even if you son't breach the rule, you can get yourself blocked. Also, the rationale provided by Kww when unblocking Status is the third valid ground to block Status. Why? Such unblock rationale was extremely poor and provided you and Kww with an open game to block Status at the first revert he made, even if it was against vandalism (just to expand on the scope). Taking "I will always provide a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time." was a double-edged sword that finally cut Status himself, and then led you to block him. So, by the book, your block is perfectly covered.
4: What was wrong? First, if we make a closer study at BLP (wich i've done 100 times, and did it again today) it actually doesn't specify what is and what isn't subject to removal under that policy (in detail). So, removing a genre could be easily covered or not by that policy. Per common sense, it is not, since a genre cannot be considered libelous, etc. But common sense cannot guide our actions. I'll be proposing that policy it to be rewritten with more specific rationales, just as you did on Blocking policy.
5: Head to toe? Right, it's clear that I don't. But i invite you to see my contribs. I've never been blocked, never been accused of edit warring with 10,000 edits on hand. Never violated BLP, never commited vandalism nor 3RR. Why? because i have a great knowledge about them and I know them very well and what it covers and what i doesn't. I give you the reason I made some incorrect comments, and thank you for writing them here, as it finally gave me the answer to all this tricky situation.
6: Rollback. I know this is not my concern, but i have to say this. Actions are the only measure within you can revoked rights. You did it with Status. Ok. But why Home? You can't remove his rights without showing some diffs that supports your rationale that "he doesn't understands X and Y guidelines". If such diffs exist for Home, please excuse me and provide them here so I can't evaluate them myself.
7 Neutrality. As you may have noted, i'm a very neutral user. I always look all within a neutral scope and support the one who is right. Now, i saw you were right when blocking Status again, but at the same time i found the real issue: The rationale. With a more explicit rationale. None of this would've happened.
Again. Thanks for your comments. If I have another wrong point in what i just wrote here, please feel free to point it. I love constructive comments, since they make me a better wikipedian. Cheers! —Hahc2101:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's clear you're a seasoned editor and one with a fairly level head. You certainly demonstrated that in my first interchange with you above and is why I was inclined to give you more than the benefit of the doubt with respect to your IP.
Regarding head-to-toe, IMHO, no matter how much you know, some policy, guideline or interpretation will change and there's no way to know everything. I find myself in this frequently and limit myself to areas I feel I am current on.
Yeah. You're right with this one. I dunno why i said that haha. Maybe Home gave me some kind of energy (he always does, he's such a energious user) that led myself to write that. —Hahc2102:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For #3, thank you for saying that. If you could mention that on Status' page and/or ANI, it would do a lot to restore peace on the wiki, but if you don't want to, I understand.
Regarding Home, the diffs are in my note to him. I'm glad to discuss them, but I thought I explained them in-line with my rationale in removing the priv.
First of all, they are now giving out reviewer rights at WP: PERM. Second of all, I would love to see you having your RFA in a month. Many people have Admins nominate them. Although about 25 do it, they are usually done by IronHolds, The Blade of Northern Lights, or Pedro. Also, what are your thoughts on SwisterTwister's RFA from your standpoint as a content creator? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I missed that RfA. This may be a good example of how substantial edits are needed to reach admin status. Also, i think that the number of user rights you have gives the users a glimpes of thr trust the community might lay into you. Of course, past disputes, how you resolute them, how you interact with other users and so on, is very important. Back to the article creation, some of the oppose rationale are cleary well-funded: How would you differentiate vandalism from a GF newbie edit? I'm sure you can cuz you've invested a hard work on it, bue them comes the second rationale: Content creation shows your knowledge of all polices of WP. When you edit, you learn who things are supposed to be written, which may and may not be referenced and how to do that, and so on. :) What surprises me is Twister has 18,000 edits. If the contet creation appeared on his RFA at that point, it is very alarming. —Hahc2115:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha well no i didn't missed it. I saw the questions when it was opened but forgot to whatch the supps and opps. Cheers! —Hahc2115:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and that's why I'm waiting for January. Also, he messed up by Question 3. Admins take a lot of harassment and you have to be able to deal with it well. If he's a vandal-fighter, he should have had some sort of dispute. I've had my talk page vandalized 13 times, had an attack page written about me, which was created by an imitation account (Electriccatfish3), and have been legally threatened. Also, you get asked by newbies every time you decline their AFC submission why you declined it, even though you already explained your rationale. Even before I did anti-vandalism work here, I still got in a few disputes about airlines and airports. In the end, Wikipedia isn't about winning, so I really don't care if my content makes it into the current version or not. I'm here to build Wikipedia, not to have it my way. And yes, I'm surprised that a vandal-fighter like him couldn't determine whether it was a good-faith edit or vandalism. Most newbies make test edits. This usually involves writing "Hi" on the page. They think that it is cool to be able to edit here. We've all been in that position before, so I just put a self-revert notice requesting them to revert it themselves. There's no need to give a level 4im warning for test edits, like I have seen some people doing. I once saw this edit on Electric catfish. It wasn't even a test edit. I would've done a good faith reversion and not have left a warning at all. He probably thought that it was spelled differently. That was not vandalism, at all. Also, we'd love to have you as an instructor at the CVUA, if you're interested. Please join! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. Do you really believe I could be an instructor? Haha If you do believe that, then i accept working on CVUA as such. Cheers! —Hahc2120:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Can you tell me if Hummingbird Heartbeat by Katy Perry has charted ANYWHERE? There's so much info on this song that I've been dying to make a page for it, I just need to know if its charted, and you are the chart expert lol--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi. Could you check over the GA review I've just done for Syd Barrett if you have time? It's the first GA review I've done, and while I'm tempted to go with "On hold" as a final answer, I'd prefer a mentor's opinion first. --Ritchie333(talk)10:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Good, but i see some issues: Some of the sections has one-line phrases. Those should be merged into a bigger paragraph. Also, the Harvard references are uncomplete. If i'll use "Schaffner, p. 110", i have to add an additional section named Bibliography (or similar) and add the complete information about that book or work.
Also, this: "Schizophrenia Daily News Blog. "Syd Barrett, Founder of Pink Floyd band, Sufferer of Schizophrenia, Passed Away this Week." 12 July 2006 [2]" is not GA standard. The link must be written with a piped link to the article/news/publication title and then the name of the spource, as this: "Syd Barrett, Founder of Pink Floyd band, Sufferer of Schizophrenia, Passed Away this Week.". Schizophrenia Daily News Blog. July 2006. Also, I see some unreferenced statements on some sections, which are not meeting the guidelines 2(a) and 2(b). You're doing good, but need to be more thorough on those details. If you need something else, ask me and i'll give you a hand. —Hahc2101:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. As I said, first time I've done this, and I really was confused as to what level you needed to check down to for GA versus FA. Rather annoyingly, I can't find my copy of Schaffner to check anything cited in it, though I do have Nick Mason and Glenn Povey's books to hand. Do we generally trust a cited book reference with a page number to be correct? I'll go through and cross check all facts over the weekend and report up on what else I can find. The nominator is busy working through the list of issues I have already found, so there's time to do this. --Ritchie333(talk)07:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Well, per some guidelines out there, all offline references are always trusted, if correctly formatted. The GA process is very low compared to FA. FA shows the very best of Wikipedia, the GA shows the good from the 'pedia. So, what does 'the good' mean? That the article is complete, correctly sourced with inline citations supporting all statements, it os correctly formated per the guide to layout, has no original research, has no copyright infringements, and is stable in its content (no edit warring or vandalism). If an article meets all those, then it can be cataloged as a Good Article. —Hahc2119:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My first article Takis K. Evangelides - change of status???
Thank you for reviewing my first article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takis_K._Evangelides. I have added whatever references I can find, and I hope you can change the status not to be deleted, or advise on what else it needs. I know you are busy so this is not urgent but important in the longterm.
I changed the tag to BLP sources. Now, it wont get deleted. This will serve as a notice for all editors to improve the referencing on the article. If you need something, Just ask me. By the way, I recommend you to use inline citations, so the reader might know which source supports what. If you need help on this, you can ask me either. Glad to help. Cheers! —Hahc2101:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am making another umpire stub on Sunday and I would like to write 1 or 2 articles that are missing about police departments that I will start out as stubs, but can expand greatly. Regards, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, Hahc21, I'm beginning the copy-edit to the above article that you requested at the GOCE request page. Feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Sorry you've had to wait a while for the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; yes the list is a little slow - that's something we're working on right now. In the first paragraph of 'Lyrical content', you have "Although many believe is a treshed topic ..." What is 'treshed'? It's not an English word afaik, so it's probably a translation error. I'd guess 'trashed', but that doesn't fit the sentence. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks!. Everything is pretty good. You made a great job. Would u take Quien Dijo Ayer? No1 has taken it yet. —Hahc2102:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hahc21, you made a slight error with this licence. The Flickr user specified a non-commercial licence but you used a generic cc-by-sa-2.0 licence. Wikipedia does not count the licence that this flickr image is under as free and it would have to comply with the 10 non-free content criteria. - Peripitus(Talk)10:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the creative commons licences that specify "non-commercial" redirect to {{Db-f3}}. non-commercial licences are not acceptable licences on Wikipedia. There is no way to upload these images from flickr successfully - if you specify the licence correctly they will be deleted under CSD#f3 and if you specify it incorrectly under CSD#f9. The only way that a "non-commercial" image can be hosted is as a non-free image for which the Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline is far more comprehensive that what I write here. The only other option is to convince the flickr user to change the licence to allow commercial reuse. Peripitus(Talk)08:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I felt compelled to oppose this. I think you will make a great admin with some more experience. If this doesn't pass (or you withdraw it), let's chat in a few months and if you continue in the direction you're headed, I'll be glad to nominate you down the road. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aw. Thanks. I understand your rationales. I'm enjoying this RfA because it gives me an editor review of how i'm doing here. I don't believe it may end as sucessful, but who knows. I appretiate your proposal and i gladly accept. Also, i would like to keep constant communications with you, since i think you can help me to learn more about the pedia and its policies, and your experience will be a great asset for me. —Hahc2100:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am so happy you went for RfA and have supported you. Don't worry about Splish Splash. Crats will see that he is upset at you for some reason and his oppose won't really matter in the long run. Also, nobody will agreee with him. Don't worry, as very few admins have a perfect RfA. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That comment made me very sad. But i think it's normal, didn't it?. Anyway, thanks! I'm waiting for your RfA at January, although maybe i will make my second RfA at that time too... (humor mode on). —Hahc2101:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hahc21, me again. :-D I'm beginning the copy-edit to the above article that you requested at the GOCE request page. Feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Sorry you've had to wait a while for the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey (again)! Wanna coffee? haha XD I know you'll do it great! and Thanks :) Anything just ask me. Cheers! —Hahc2103:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, in the first line of 'Composition', I found "...or just masterize them". Should this be 'remaster', 'remastered', or something else? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there's a few odd errors like this, usually I can iterpret them but I hope you don't mind me asking you to confirm them. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I didn't want to bombard you with questions against your wishes. :-) Anyway I'm declaring it done, but there's an issue I couldn't decide upon. In 'Composition', there's text about three new songs, two of which were singles. There's a subsection about singles further down in 'Release and promotion'; maybe it would be best to move the text into 'Singles', with just a brief mention of each, as it's a bit repetitive to read the same information twice. I'll leave that up to you anyway. Please feel free to contact me about this or any issues regarding the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i was reading the article and noticed that haha. I thik i will move them down to the singles subsection. Again, thanks for your great work! It means a lot to me. Thanks! —Hahc2103:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of have good news. The WayBack Machine was able to pick up certifications. The bad news is, it only contains certifications from 2001 to early 2007. The diamond certification can be found here. Erick (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, another good news. I think I may have stumbled into the Central American singles chart. This article talks about Enrique Iglesias reaching #1 in Central America and the source is a company called MoniTec. This article talk about that Brazilian being number-one in Central America. This article gives information about MoniTech which I might need help understanding what it's saying. Think you can help me out on helping information for this company? We just might another chart to add. Erick (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I found this [2] which seems to explain the metodology of the company. At the right of the page, the top 10 for each central american country is shown. —Hahc2105:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I think we should contact them and ask them if they have some sort of archive or such. Also, i found this [3] —Hahc2105:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! The fact that there's reliable sources covering this company shows a 99% chance of this being notable. Think we should present to the record chart talk page now or wait a bit? Erick (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But how should we archive the charts from that website? Or you found any other source with the weekly list, or such? They will only agree of we find something like Record Report which published an archive-able weekly list. Let's try to archive that page to see what happens. —Hahc2105:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's always the option of WebCitation. Right now I'm checking to see if the WayBack Machine has anything on it. And then of course, there's articles like I presented to you earlier. Even if it doesn't get listed in GOODCHARTS, it should still be fine to use so long as it's manually archived. Right now, it looks like yet another Latin chart that doesn't have an archive search base but you ensure that there is one before we post it at the talk page right? Erick (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, just like what happened with Record Report. The chart is reliable and we archive it each time we use it. But we must ensure it can be archived, or that the WayBack machine has some archived versions of it. Well, the articles you presented may also work well, since i have covered chart positions for albums with articles before. —Hahc2105:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The earliest instance I could find was in 2008. At that time, it only tracked radio stations in Costa Rica and it provides a top ten list there. At least that's what I think it says. EDIT: Look how they present their charts in 2010. Erick (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At your signal. Write the post and i'll be backing you. Since you discovered the chart, i think you should do the honors. —Hahc2106:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What if I told you I found yet ANOTHER chart? This time, it's for the Honduras. What makes this chart special is that it's published by the Honduran national newspaper El Tiempo. This article is how I found it and here are the charts. A short explanation of its methodology is explained on the bottom of the chart. I'm telling you, we're on a roll here! =D Erick (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we have a good shot of Monitec being acceptable. Kww just needs to know if it's a weekly chart. What do you think of the Honduran singles chart? I posted that in the Record chart talk page too. Erick (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mm i trust that website. And the image is perfectly achive-able. So, i think it might eventually pass. We might find out if the other chart is weekly, which i thik it is. Cheers!—Hahc2101:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 11 July 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡04:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Let's Get Loud (Jennifer Lopez song)
This is not going to be successful, and fairly soon someone will close it as WP:Snow or WP:Notnow. You have the option of withdrawing yourself, and this will stand you in good stead for a future RfA, where people can see you have the good judgement to assess consensus, and to withdraw before wasting more people's time. Don't worry about not passing at your first RfA - this has happened to a lot of admins including myself. SilkTork✔Tea time15:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cross out the part where you accept your RfA and say that you are withdrawing and will work on the concerns stated by the voters. A crat will be by shortly to close it. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be NOTNOW. She recommends to withdraw because of the great percentage of opposes on my RfA, so it may be SNOW. —Hahc2116:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yup. Hah we may not talk bout this here (the student may not see this lol) XD. I'll withdraw the RfA. I have to study and things happened almost like i thought it would. Cheers! —Hahc2116:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WilliamH closed it. I'm so sorry that it failed. I'd go for it again in October and get a nominator. I hope that you're not discouraged by it and as most people said "you'll make a great sysop". Also, I'm going to ask ItsZippy to be my admin coach. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha i'm not discouraged. I truly wasn't expecting it to be successful, although i don't know if I will go for it again. I'll keep working here as I always do. Cheers! —Hahc2118:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! First of all, you need to have a thorough understanding of what is vandalism and what is not. So, your first task is this: Read this policy: WP:VANDAL. When you are done, come back to me and I'll make you a quick test before moving to the second task. if you don't understand something on that policy or have some question about it, just ask me and i will answer them ASAP. Cheers! —Hahc2120:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
