You are welcome. By the way, as a common GAN nominator, would you be interested into participating in the current RFC about drives? You can see the discussion at WT:GAN and follow the link to the RFC ;) — ΛΧΣ21™01:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my above question, I just did my first review for a GA article which I passed. Could you look over the review and make any comments or suggestions that you may have (here or at my talk) for future GA articles that I may review? --JDC808♫23:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes I saw that review. I even left a comment about broadness with my alt account, Razr Nation. Well, it's a very good review and it was a very long article to be taken as first one, but you eventually did a very good job. I will leave more comments at List of God of War characters ASAIC. — ΛΧΣ21™01:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for promoting the article to good article status! Do you think there is a chance of the article getting to featured article status? TBrandley21:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm. I don't know. It seems like it may not meet the comprehensiveness that it would require for FA status, but no harm may result from giving it a shot. — ΛΧΣ21™22:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough . I will review it tomorrow, as I may not have time enough right now to give it an FAC-level review. You can go and take a look at my article now if you wish ;) — ΛΧΣ21™03:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, solving issues now :) Thanks again. I will do the FAC review in some minutes... I need to take my dinner first [had a very tiring day] — ΛΧΣ21™01:06, 6 November 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!
I think you have done a good job on the RFC, but thought I would offer one bit of advice. If you feel you need to change something with the proposals you might want to date the change. It is probably better practice not to make any changes once it is live, but since it is run in your userspace you have a lot more leeway in this regard. An issue could arise if I say !voted on proposal two under its current wording, then when you change it it looks like I am !voting for one I may not have wanted to initially. Dating at least gives some separation between !votes and the different proposals. AIRcorn(talk)07:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well I was unsure about how to do it. If you can help me so that people doesn't get confused it'll be great. I was thinking into adding the worded changes as a new proposal... What do you think? — ΛΧΣ21™08:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PD: Oh i got your point. I have added a Reworded on ~~~~~ line on each of the reworded proposals to date the changes. — ΛΧΣ21™08:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PD2 Oh and also, I only made a wording to be clearer (on proposal 2, the essence is the same) and well, on proposal three to make the limit 5 reviews instead of 3. I won't perform any other changes, i guess. — ΛΧΣ21™08:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was no big deal, but it just makes everything clearer, which is always good. If the only review older nominations passes I will give you a hand when you run it. AIRcorn(talk)08:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! As far as I see, it will. In that case, we should set a goal for each drive (like older two months first, then all nominations allowed). Also, I see that community is willing to have drives each three months, which is surprising. I was about to add another proposal for 6 months but seeing how the current backlog evolves i considered that 3 months was the precise timing. — ΛΧΣ21™08:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are 116 older than two months currently, with another hundred between one month and two months old. We could setup a page relatively easily that list these article and links to the review page. As they get reviewed the link will turn blue, so it should be easy to maintain. As for the three month drives, it is easy to say that, but only time will tell if the numbers turn up that regularly. AIRcorn(talk)04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I guess tah experience may help. In six months and after two drives are held, I may open a mini-RFC to ask community of they want to keep the 3-month period or expand it to 4-to-6 months. I guess it is what might be done In this case. Also, i like a lit your idea about setting up a page listing older nominations. How can we do that? — ΛΧΣ21™00:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made a table at User:Aircorn/Sandbox. Was a lot more work than I thought. Was thinking you could use it to keep track of the number of reviews conducted by each person as well though. The Red links should turn blue when one is taken, so no need to update it ourselves. AIRcorn(talk)07:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, very amazing indeed. Thanks AIRcorn :) Thanks for all the help. By the way, are you interested in co-ordinating the next drive with Wizardman and me? I think that it would be of great help and benefit if you accept :). — ΛΧΣ21™14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the RFC is going to last until November 15. So, if we don't want Xmas to collide with the drive, then we'd have to move it until January... — ΛΧΣ21™02:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start it on the 17th November (Friday or Saturday depending on where you are) and finish it on the 17th December. We already have a good idea of how the RFC is going to close so can set up most of it before hand. Will finish before Christmas and not cut into too many peoples holidays. Not sure when university exams end up North, but they would have nearly finished by the start of the drive down under (last day is the 22nd for my university). AIRcorn(talk)02:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I already have the drive page finished: User:Hahc21/Fall 2012 GAN Review Round. So, we would only have to make changes and start the drive. I agree that we can start it on November 17th. Do you like the new design of the page? Anything you would add or change? — ΛΧΣ21™02:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Hahc21, How is everything going? I just wanted to get your opinion on a little issue. As you may have or have not noticed, I've been creating articles for all of Ivy Queen's notable singles. The next one I was going to do was "Sentimientos", when I went to look for a cover art, I found this. It has the cover art, though with flash marks. Do you think I should include it in the infobox or not? Thanks! DivaKnockouts (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. If a better version is not available you may use that one, but be sure to crop the parts you don't need and leave only the cover itself. I have taken some minutes and done this for you (also edited the pic to look better). If you drop me an e-mail, I can send to you the worked image for you to upload it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. And thanks! That is very nice of you! (: I was going to do that, though I wouldn't want to waste the time you took to do that. My email is X. No creepers LOL. DivaKnockouts (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have sent you the image. I hope you like it :) And don't worry; I am always glad to help ^.^. P.D. I removed the email for security measures :P. — ΛΧΣ21™04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, before closing an AFD, I do a double check of both possible references and policies that should be called [as well as previous AFDs]. That article lived through two previous AFDs where all votes were keep. Also, I double-checked and found impossible to call WP:NOT#NEWS there, as it has gotten coverage enough to debunk such claims. If the article is sure to be kept after 6 days of discussion, such discussion can always be closed, not relisted. — ΛΧΣ21™22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and additionally, as a recommendation: Please ask the closing user before reverting the close and give them time to answer why they closed the discussion and to perform the reversion by themselves. What you did, reverting my close without being an admin [admins have even talked to me first, asking me to revert myself] or asking me to do so, was overly inadecuate. — ΛΧΣ21™22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I double-checked and found impossible":you supervoted by concluding no new arguments could be advanced before closing. Also, it's 7 days not 6 that AfDs are closed. Also, per WP:NAC, articles with little discussion i.e 3 or 4 people, should be relisted or closed as no consensus by non-admins. If you are invoking Speedy, that also has its own host of constraints. Non admins can only close the least contentious land slide like Afds. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I relist an article that has 3 keeps in 6 days and no delete votes? It is wasting people's times leaving a discussion opened that should have been closed. I am not invoking Speedy, as it does not apply here. Also, little discussion means no votes or less than three votes. After a discussion reaches three or more votes, it can be closed [with the corresponding result, delete or keep.]. Also, you say that "Non admins can only close the least contentious land slide like Afds" which is true; now tell me which is the "contentious" part of your nomination? "contentious" means that an AFD has many votes and comments where votes vary from delete to keep and a clear consensus is not at first sight. I don't see any of these in that AFD. — ΛΧΣ21™22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know. AFDs that turn from delete to keep are very common when community input is high; the opposite is very rare. If the first 3 votes of an AFD are keep ones, then the possibility that It'll be kept is at >80%, specially after 6 days of discussion. I understand that you, as the nominator, want to have more input for that AFD or want to see how it turns after the whole 7-day period. The only recommendation I can give is to not to go mad if it's kept :P — ΛΧΣ21™22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that I meet the "experienced non-admin in good standing" requirement; and also, as you may have seen, discussion is now beyond doubt a clear keep. This only proves that my close was correct, but let's not make drama about it. I apologize for closing it early and you have gotten more feedback than it had before I closed it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™23:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't prove the case was correct. A lot of AfD is pot luck and I seemed to have attracted one of your talk page stalkers, and my own personal wikistalker. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even in that case, do not underestimate their votes. I have no influence over Status and although we are very good friends and work together a lot, we have different opinions and points of view in many occasions. Anyways, I find that arguing with you about this may have no end; we have different perspectives of that AFD and its possible outcome, which is completely valid. Finally, I hope you have a great time and if you ever need something, you can always drope me a note. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™00:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. As I mentioned on the Good Article nominations Talk page, I'm working on some of my first GA articles, starting with CIPR, PRSA (on hold due to stability), Waggener Edstrom (almost done) and maybe Edelman (firm) next.
I would like to work towards getting my COI works up to GA as well; for example, I asked the Public Interest Registry if they would be ok with me continuing to work on it on an informal volunteer basis to bring it up to GA. You'll see on Talk that I have a declared COI.
I was wondering if you had any idea how GA reviewers would react to COI submissions. For example, Code 42 Software got a "B" class rating right out the gates of AfC with a declared COI. It is a small and unimportant article in the scope of things - I actually downgraded it myself to "low" priority. Would editors feel unsavory about me dragging so much resources into relatively unimportant articles if I was nominating some for GA with a COI? Corporate23:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing that you should have to know first: The fact that you declare a conflict of interest while writing articles does not mean that you always showcase that COI on what you write. You may want to promote an specific entity and still be able to write a very good article with a neutral point of view. Also, to answer your questions: No. The more sources and resources, the better. If you want, I can take one of your articles for review and give you an example of how this may work and some recommendations about it. Sorry I did not help you at your other nomination; I was busy developing an RFC amd other stuff. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™23:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes my COI shows more than others, but GA is a way to make sure it doesn't. Even my volunteer editing is often critiqued as promotional or corporate-speak due to my background in PR, so it's a good way to improve generally.
Actually CIPR is an extremely short article that would be an easy review and it would be really helpful to get at least one review in before I keep stuffing the queue sort of speak. Corporate00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I took the review and will leave comments right now :). Are you being online for long? Or you'll be going out soon? — ΛΧΣ21™00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I left my first comments. I will provide a deep commentary, so don't be scared if you see a big mass of text from me :P — ΛΧΣ21™01:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
haha, and just as an fyi, I'll be starting a draft in my userspace just because I think I may have more little Christmas ideas to add.--Dom497 (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good :). I just started the newsletter delivery template for December: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/December 2012/Delivery. I already have a user writing the featured editorial for the month, although it's not 100% sure. Also, I think we can improve the articles of the month section with a brief text from each selected article, as well as [free] images [a la Signpost]. — ΛΧΣ21™00:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unaware of how American Idol releases its single, then you should know that American Idol releases its digital coronation single straight after the finale. For example David Cook's The Time of My Life on 22 May (finale on 21 May, 2008, Lee DeWyze's Beautiful Day on May 27, 2010 (finale on My 26), etc. They simply changed the picture on the Phillip Phillips one that is all, it is not the date of the single release, it is the date the one with the new picture was released. Note that Billboard record the song as the coronation single here, given that it is dated May 30, 2012, it is impossible that a single can chart before it is released. Hzh (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can. Alicia Keys' "New Day" charted without being released. And also, this is not how American Idol releases their coronation single, this is about how Wikipedia works, which is more important that what American Idol does and does not do, sadly. I know your intentions are good, but let's try to reach consensus over it before anyone gets blocked for such a trivial thing, whall we? :) — ΛΧΣ21™01:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Billboard specifically stated that it is the single. Please note that iTunes itself said May 23, 2012 here. It is the same article in the reference I gave for Allmusic. Hzh (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the iTunes link I gave you? You have to expand the article, it is the same article as the reference I gave from Allmusic, and it says May 23, 2012. As I already said, the date given in the iTunes page for Home is the date when the one with a new picture was released, it is not the date of the single release. Hzh (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh damn. I got your point but i think that Matt Collar meant that the song was sent to radio on May 23, 2012, while it was digitally released on June 7, 2012 (iTunes and Amazon agree with this). Actually, I don't know what can be done here. You may take this to DRN or discuss it further at the talk page. Usually, the date shown on iTunes or Amazon is the one shown on the infobox, which is the day it was released to digital retailers. — ΛΧΣ21™02:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the song didn't go for radio adds until June 12, 2012 on CHR radio (for some reasons it never went for add on HAC). I don't know why you'd place so much faith in the date given in iTunes, I certainly have seen some where the date given before that are doubtful. It simply reflects when they put that particular version up, for all we know they could have deleted an earlier one. We have independent sources specifically mentioning the date of release of the single, and this precisely reflects how digital songs are always released for American Idol coronation single. Hzh (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 12 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hypnotico, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Akon met, signed and helped launch Lady Gaga's career after the two co-wrote "Hypnotico", a song that was later recorded by Jennifer Lopez? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hypnotico. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, if you would like to leave comments which concern you or would cast a vote in support or opposition based on your findings, I would much appreciate it. The list has garnered several good (and resolved) reviews, but no votes have been cast. Thanks. AARON• TALK 12:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need some of this... Don't feel discouraged... you've no reason to be. Everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days! I know what's it like to make mistakes and have people on your back about it, even if it's a little thing. Of course I'll watch the babies! Statυs (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I heard something wrong had happened, is there something you could talk to me about? If it's too uncomfortable to talk about that, then I understand, but I'm here. Erick (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made some bad non-admin closures, then I was brought to ANI and now I have a restriction to perform such closures. ALso, there was some hard comments and stuff about me that caught me off guard... You can read the whole thread here: [2]. Thank god you appeared, I need somebody to talk about this, an uninvolved party to hear and give me feedback... — ΛΧΣ21™01:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the truth is that I remember I did something very embarrassing in Wikipedia which, like you, made me discouraged to continue editing. What I'm about to tell is a very embarrassing story about me that I still don't like to speak about. It happened in February of last year, when the Latin music project was still new (as a task force), a member of the task force told me about the capitalization of Spanish titles (you know the Spanish orthography). Anyways, I didn't see anywhere on what to do with capitalization with foreign-language articles because all the capitalization guidelines were only for English usages. So, then I found that WikiProject Albums said to use the native capitalization for foreign-language album and song titles and like a fool, I moved the album and song titles of Spanish-language to its native capitalization. Big mistake. During a FLC, I told an editor that the capitalization was wrong and should be fixed when I got into trouble with an admin. It doesn't end there. Because I pointed out that it was a project that stated this, the admin then started a RfC which was moved at the project talk page (which you can find ......here). It turns out that there was a guideline for foreign-language titles and it was supposed to use the capitalization found on English-language sources, which didn't make sense to me back then because English-language album and songs have to use it's native capitalization here in the English Wikipedia and yet the foreign-language songs don't. That incident almost costed me a block which would've ruined my clean record. It didn't help that I was going through a personal crisis at that time either (I was doing bad in college and stuff). I vowed to never make a mistake like that again or let another editor go through what I did and I still feel bad talking about it. So in short, I know what you're going through because I've been there before. Erick (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... Thanks for sharing this with me. I am feeling a bit better thanks to you, Zach and Tomica. I did some controversial closes at AFD but then I learned. Then, I closed an AFD from Till and he made it all to ANI and got me banned. This was very surprising; I wasn't expecting that. But well, I have extended my ban to all AFD-related things and decided not to edit there anymore, or at least until the restriction is lifted. I do this both as a personal enforcement and as a protest [I accepted the ban as a protest too, as well as to avoid more drama and harassment]. I am feeling a bit encouraged right now, but I think that several other people will learn more than me about this experience. — ΛΧΣ21™04:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the Grammy Awards task force, a subproject of WikiProject Awards and prizes dedicated to improving articles and lists related to the Grammy Awards. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants.
Hello, Hahc21. I was wondering do you think it would be possible for you to crop this image: File:RickHearst.jpg from commons? It's sort of long and awkward and I would like to use it. Thanks..:) Arre09:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also need to thank you for all that you have done. So thank you. Lol. Hope we can work together in the future on some other Beyonce articles. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe no problem. And yes, I'd like to work with you on any Beyoncé-related project in a near future. Is good to see you back. — ΛΧΣ21™17:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these kind words. So tell me a bit about you? Are you a Beyonce fan? I am not sure we have talked before. I do not quite remember. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) Well, we have not talked before. I just saw you were the highest contributor to Beyoncé related articles when I came across I Am... Sasha Fierce and discovered that the previous review was abandoned [by the reviewer]. Then, I decided to nominate it again in behalf of you :). I am a big fan of Beyoncé, but I do not edit her articles much, as you may have seen. I dedicate myself to Ricardo Arjona. I'd like to expand some article of her in the future, I do not know, some not-so-notable topic of hers ;) — ΛΧΣ21™17:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started boldly updating your backlog drive page following the RFC. All the markups are a bit to much for me, but hopefully it looks alright. Feel free to revert or improve it. Unfortunately I will be away for the next few days camping so won't be much help until I get back. Will be able to help out then. Cheers AIRcorn(talk)03:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you can edit it as much as you want :) ANd it is sad you won't be available. Well, I have started a thread at GAN to see if people agrees to start the drive on November 17th. If you need help with the markups, you can ask me and I will jump right there anytime. I have plenty of time until January. — ΛΧΣ21™03:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it is only two days. Will be back Sunday my time. I am wondering if we have too much background information at the page. I think it would almost be better to give a short intro and then get straight into the articles. AIRcorn(talk)03:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OOh i thought you'd be out more time lol. Well, it may work too. I just put what was usual at previous drive pages., but we can edit it to make it more modern and navigable. I, myself, consider that it has too much letters written there that can distract potential participants to get to the point: reviewing articles. What can be done there? You can change it to give me an example... — ΛΧΣ21™03:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First let me get the bad news out of the way, Arjona didn't win a single awards at the LGAs. The Ricardo Arjona awards and nominations will have to be updated as well as the Best Singer-songwriter album. Now that I got that out of the way, I want to tell you that in the Spanish Wikipedia, someone has been translating Ricardo Arjonas you've been working in Spanish. He's a member of the Spanish Latin music Wikiproject that I also created in that Wikipedia. He's goes the username of Arjuno3. I just thought you should know. :) Erick (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly :( I was expecting that to happen. ALso, I will update the list today, I guess. And, finally, yes. I know Arjuno3 :P We've been talking for some months now and improving the articles together. If you see my talk at the Spanish Wikipedia, you can see some of our conversations there :P — ΛΧΣ21™15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, erm, well this embarrasing. LOL Oh okay, well yeah. Hehehe. But at least I thought it'd be a good idea to start a Latin music Wikiproject on the Spanish Wikipedia as well for those who can't speak English. ;) Erick (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an amazing idea XD I will put my name there too, although I still have not forgot my past on that Wikipedia and I'm still unable to go back and edit there :( — ΛΧΣ21™19:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope that the project grows not just on both Wikipedias, but to have Latin music WikiProject in other languages. A man can dream. Erick (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know you can count with my support on anything you want to start :) By the way, seems like I can't stop being busy. The nre GAN backlog elimination drove just started :). — ΛΧΣ21™05:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know what you mean when you say that you're the only one working to improve an article. Anyway, according to WP:PROJ the purpose of WikiProjects is "to improve the coverage of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia." WikiProject Albums has a quality scale specifically designed for standards related to album articles. Therefore it has it's own quality scale. I don't think that the Album Project's assessment is designed to replace Wikipedia:1.0's assessment. Your article deserves a WP1.0 assessment of "Good Article". It's kinda funny, but for Project Albums it meets all the qualities of a Good Article as well, it is just missing some fundamental information found in the "C" and "B" requirements. (By the way, does the album have an entry on AllMusic? Often this site has information such as song composers and technical information as well.) I searched through Wikipedia, and didn't find any policy that says anything one way or the other about Article Assessment across projects, and that if an article meets WP1.0 "Good Article" all WikiProjects must be assessed as a "Good Article". On the pro side, it would seem that if an article has met GA status in general, it would be a shame if the article were ignored for inclusion in the Wiki CD publication because it hasn't been given GA status in all Projects. On the other hand, just because an article is complete for one subject doesn't necessarily make it complete for all projects. The case in point is the Bohumir Kryl article I've spent quite a bit of time on. It's got a pretty good section on general biography, and a well-sourced, extensive discography section. But the article has also been marked as of interest for Project Military History, as he led armed forces bands during World War 1. If everything else were up to good article standards, but I found nothing more on his military service than the paltry information already found there, could the article really be marked as a "Military History Good Article"? Somehow I don't think so. In any case, given your editing history, I most cordially invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, you do really good work. All the best, 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OMG Thanks for the big explanation 78.26. I really appreciate it. Well, I understand your point that clearly see what you mean. I guess this is kinda hard to get at first for several reasons, but with a little effort is easy to see. About the album, it has an AllMusic entry, but it is missing much information because this is a compilation of music from past albums with no major changes, just like a copy-paste from four of his albums. So, I'd have to buy the album to see if it has informattion, or buy each of the albums and check them each one, which will be expensive [I only have Sin Daños a Terceros from the ones incorporated on the compilation]. By the way, didn't I joined it already? Damn. I will put my name there :P. Thanks again. — ΛΧΣ21™19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is bcoz IndianBio want to add this paragraph
"Seeing that many pop artists use music and reality-based videos to create awareness around their upcoming releases, Chopra's team planned to create different promotional contents, like interviews of the artist, and behind-the-scenes footage with long-and-short documentaries, that would be released to the internet. The videos and interviews would focus on Chopra's journey in becoming a pop artist. Since most of the top ten hits in India are mainly songs from Bollywood films—where the actors lip-synch to the song—Chopra's label wanted to promote her as the first Bollywood actress who can also sing. According to Lee Hawkins from The Wall Street Journal, "If Chopra is able to convincingly establish herself as a respected singer, she will be a pioneer in South Asia. Throughout 2011, Anthony Saleh, one of Carter's partners at Atom Factory Inc., worked closely with Chopra for several weeks. Beyond selling music, the team planned to use Chopra's popularity and tap into ancillary revenue streams such as corporate sponsorships, high-fashion modeling, film and television, concert touring, and music publishing. Saleh added that they also "plan on developing [Chopra] as a songwriter."
My opinion about the paragraph you wrote above is that it is useless. It does not add any encyclopedic information to the article. Look, if you say what specific things the label did to promote her, it's okay and acceptable; but saying that her label "planned to create different promotional contents" without mentioning which were those contents, or why they were notable, is useless and adds little to no information to the article. The only useful part I can extract from that paragraph is the one saying: "According to Lee Hawkins from The Wall Street Journal, "If Chopra is able to convincingly establish herself as a respected singer, she will be a pioneer in South Asia." Everything else could be both WP:ADV and WP:ARTSPAM. — ΛΧΣ21™05:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for chiming in Hahc21, I would slightly digress with this assertion of yours that "without mentioning which were those contents, or why they were notable, is useless", because it is indeed mentioned what contents were created and released, the commercial impact of those releases etc. What I do feel is that the chronology is under consideration here. The way I see it is that promotional campaigns are done first, then their impact comes, which is not how the article is arranged at present. May be we can rearrange this chronology? Also, will a label's decision on how to promote their signed artist be WP:ADV? Its not like the content says "go buy song xxxx". Just the strategy being explained. And I have indeed seen this in articles of albums and singles etc, like "Red", Born This Way (99 cent deal) etc. So yeah, these are not promotions like live performances, but yes, strategies I would say that the label initiated. You get my point? —Indian:BIO·[ ChitChat ]07:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Razr Nation. You have new messages at JDC808's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The backlog drive shows every review as number 1 only. I'm confused with it. Since you are the coordinator for this backlog director, figured I should contact you and let you know. Thanks, TBrandley06:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey -- just fyi, I started a few reviews before the drive that shouldn't be counted under sports & rec (Davis Tarwater, Venues of the 2016 Youth Olympics, Jim Umbricht and Extreme Rules (2012)) and I think the redlinks listing of eligible articles on the drive page should be formatted with Talk: in front of them. --Batard0 (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am doing it now :S. Aircorn, who made the table, forgot to add them [by mistake, I think]. Thanks for the information :) — ΛΧΣ21™06:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing me of this. Yes, of course you can become a reviewer of this drive :). The nreviewers sign-up is on the Totals page of the drive. There, you can add youself. — ΛΧΣ21™22:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hahn. I'm back if you didn't notice. I was just wondering if the table at the GAN Drive of oldest nominations is supposed to be updated every so often so it contains new articles that are now a month old? That was my reading of the RFC, but I am not sure. AIRcorn(talk)01:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will be a little bit of work, but hopefully only a few need to be added each couple of days. We can get the ones needing reviews from the WP:GANR page. Just wanted to make sure that was what you meant when you wrote the RFC. AIRcorn(talk)04:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I meant "oldest first, newer later". So keeping track of the oldest ones so that they get priority is what I meant :) — ΛΧΣ21™04:27, 20 November 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!
