If you want to leave me a message, you are in the wrong place. All new messages should be directed to User talk:Wikipedian Penguin. For reviving old threads, the same should be done. Thank you.
No can do right now. I've got a backlog of things to get to. I have a few peer reviews and other requests to look at. I'll notify you when I'm free. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1700:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You removed today my addition to [1] with the justification: must be sourced. However, it is impossible to source this: There is simply no source that explains what movement is used and which parts of it. On the other hand, that kind of information is worth noting, as many people do not know classical music.Vvrq (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plots that have no sources should be very brief. The information you provided is a very specific and trivial detail that must be sourced. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]10:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no plot in this contribution and my addition has been very brief indeed: The work (with precise reference), the precise movement, and how it is combined with the actual video. It is definitely not trivial to people not aquainted to classical music. Could it be that you misunderstand the meaning of, e.g. movement?Vvrq (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a culture problem here. In the discussion page, people already told you everything about the subject.Vvrq (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've already expressed my disagreement with them. The plot can only briefly describe the series of events without sources. To describe a dress, outfit, or a specific piece of music playing needs a source. Twitter is not a source and the other link that was provided had died. I completely understand the cultural significance of the movement and it's not my expressing of WP:IDHT, it's just that I know what I'm talking about. Feel free with its addition with a reliable source. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]18:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "I completely understand the cultural significance of the movement ... it's just that I know what I'm talking about" which shows that you did not understand the meaning of "movement" in my sentences above. Please ask another editor about the meaning of that word in this very context. Here [[2]] is a currently working reference that the entire video is inspired by Beethoven's work. So maybe you include it or not. I give up discussions with you (and editing pages where I see you). I can only regret that with such editorial activity as yours the dividing line between highbrow and lowbrow culture is reinforced. Vvrq (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source. Actually, Grave - Allegro di molto has quite a legacy of being covered and this movement itself is quite significant, considering it's a more difficult one to play. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]21:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me it works. I used to have a notes section in "Love the Way You Lie", but removed it as it was repeating info already in the prose. If anything gets messed up, let me know. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]16:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, lol. I don't mind but Penguin I am still telling you. I have never seen footnotes being sourced. I mean they are not about charts. But do whatever you think will be god. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the death of Bin Laden in 2011, patriotism was spreading throughout the US, and Knowles re-released her 2008 cover Lee Greenwood's 1984 song "God Bless the USA", the proceeds of which went to charity." - how could you get away without sourcing things like that, hehe? Hmm, I don't see the sandbox... —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]16:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess it can stay. I'll let the FLC reviewers see what they think. I'd question it, but let's get input from the more experienced eyes. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]17:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PRs are useless. I have never had a good one. Only that of "Halo" but yet it did not pass when Axel nominated it (the third time). Will the points get back to zero for second round?
P.S Don't get me wrong about the PR. You need to understand that you don't always get good reviewers. I have never personally got one. :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be optimistic. PRers all give great reviews, even if they're short. Points are counted separately for each round I believe.Nevermind, all the work you do for an article has to be done during that specific round. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]17:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok WP, I will go for a PR then. Maybe but not too sure. Lol, I hate long processes. I like to write and nominate quick :P But as I said, I will think again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Lol. Hey WP, I think I will nominate IIWAB for FAC next. I know I still need to put much work on it but I really want it to have that FA icon on it. :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved it. :) I am aware that here it should be done a lot of work. But I will give all my strength. When are you nominating "Love the Way You Lie". Oh, come on, its perfect. — Tomica(talk)22:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, for you its mess since you start working on it. Such a perfectionist. :) Come on, I want "Rehab" to has its featured partner in the Project ;) ! — Tomica(talk)23:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Rehab"'s big brother. That would be nice, but it's not easy. I'm trying to remove the excessive quotations, clean up the Chart performance and Music video sections and submit to PR. I'll probably skip GOCE as its too slow. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also the PR is useless. There were pretty much users who left comments on the talk page of the article. I mean, you can submit it to FAC, and there will be some brief comments. Otherwise you FAC will be blank. — Tomica(talk)23:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally doubt it. A peer review would be really nice because someone completely uninvolved gets to see and criticize your article. This is really helpful. I want to get this on the first try. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]23:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you will, trust me. You have been working literally a lot on the article. My advice is to just clarify some things in it and stop changing it more. Cause you know for sure, too much good is not so good :) ! — Tomica(talk)00:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Calvin, but I'm not going to underestimate the level of scrutiny the article will get at FAC. I must modestly say though, I'm quite proud of what I've done. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]00:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will pass WP. Stop worrying. Lol. Hey, at least, you wrote that you are proud (though you specified modestly) but I wonder why I am neither able to write that or say that about my work. :P I don't feel very comfortable using the word "proud". :S Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pengui.:) How are you today? How is your agenda going. When are you going to post comments for "Unfaithful". Also I need some help at the Reception and accolades section. I want to nominate it for FA. — Tomica(talk)18:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Madge worked it! Only she could get away with performing the gay anthem "Vogue" at the Super Bowl! Everybody was talking about it. :L Pretty sure Madonna won the Super Bowl. ;) — Status {talkcontribs21:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. User:Bstark247 has been adding a certain lyrics site to music articles, including Take Care and Born This Way, which you are a major contributor to. I contested his edit to the former article, as lyrics sites are excluded as a rule of thumb for generally lacking copyright or having copyright issues (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#External_links). He responded by citing his responding post to the Wikipedia talk:Lyrics and poetry discussion about lyrics sites. I told him to find consensus first and ask around, so would you like to comment there, at his responding post?
Hi WP Penguin The user generated lyrics are meant for Indie Bands and Bands that LyricsFind does not have deals with their record companies. Here is an example of a user generated lyric page Link if you look at the bottom of the lyrics you will see "Powered By LYRICSnMUSIC" this means the lyrics are not from the LyricFind Data Base. However most of the lyric pages are powered by LyricFind. Here is an example of a page powered by LyricFind link at the bottom of these lyrics you will see the credits and the link to LyricFind that means the lyrics are coming from the LyricFind Data Base. This allows Lyric to be displayed by both large and small bands. I think it's important to only link to lyric pages that are powered by LyricFind, then you are sure it's 100% copyright compliant. I started a discussion about external links [[3]] Bstark247 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will still be challenged as there has not been enough coverage from secondary sources to be comprehensive enough for a standalone article. Hope that clarifies things. Best, —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]21:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you raise an SPI case for Berbah (talk·contribs), the puppet of banned user ElPilotoDi (talk·contribs). I'm travelling and logging through phone. Somehow Twinkle not working and don't have enough time. Just checking messages. ElPilotoDi is a vandal, who uploads NFCC failing images and replaces previous images of existing articles. Please do the needful from my side. Thanks. — Legolas(talk2me)12:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, so which cliff are you planning to jump from? Or push that pathetic loser rather? Sucks that the SPI returned negative .. I'm still not buying that its not ElPilotoDi. My email just proved it. :) — Legolas(talk2me)03:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goddamit, I heard you're in America. That's awesome. My history teacher spent all day making jokes about the New England Patriot receiver, hehe. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]03:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, ya I noticed that too Orane. And ya, our CC-3.0 license does it for them. They can copy with or without attributing. But as far as I have seen, the NYtimes and Washington Post do credit the Wikipedia authors. My name has cropped up twice. Don't know about MTV. — Legolas(talk2me)05:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, it happens. :D I know hoe you feel. Beyonce's table copied my "End of Time" article n a press release. A writer from The Temple News recommended my "Countdown" article to readers. *weeps* The Beyhive of atrl.ent and UKMix use all the Beyonce's articles as well and that makes me so happy. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean lol. But seriously, don't you have some personal attachment to "LTWYL"? And don't you take satisfaction that something you spent hours doing is being read by so many people? Orane(talk)20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, I have a question about sales/sources. I don't know if you recalled, but I reverted one of your edits to the article regarding the sales of the album (17 mil). I know that independent, third party sources have to confirm/repeat info before its acceptable as reliable on Wiki. But does it work for this unique case? Do you know what I mean? No one really tracks worldwide sales figures, so the record companies usually give estimates, which become circulated in the media (The Billboard source says "according to XL"), but pretty soon, other sources begin to repeat the figure and omit the "according to", and it becomes statement of fact. Am i being confusing? I could find a news source that says 17 mil, but it would obviously be copied from either Wiki or Billboard (which is in turn copied from XL). How do I circumvent this? Would you prefer I use this other source, or leave the one in the article as is? Orane(talk)20:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was only joking Orane. :-) In my opinion, you should attribute XL Recordings for the sales. It's a safer move to take than to assume that they are not inflating the sales. A simple "as of xxxx, according to XL Recordings". To be quite honest, I think the Diamond certification speaks for itself (holy crap, how did she get one in just over a year?) but your call. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]20:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is she diamond? (except for in those small countries where diamond is 10 copies lol). I think i like you method of attributing to the label. Makes sense. How is your article coming along? I'm gonna have to wean myself off of 21 for a while. I go back to work on Monday and won't be on here nearly as much. Orane(talk)20:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped work on it for some time to get a more strategic distance. User:GrahamColm gave some helpful comments and I agree with him that the article needs some more work, which I'll get to in a few days. According to Digital Spy and the Wikipedia article, 21's certified diamond for worldwide sales. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, part of my comments got deleted. I was saying that Graham and Brian are two of the best people you can ask. And you can also nudge Nikkimaria too. And I'll do whatever I can. But yeah, keep at it and good luck. Orane(talk)21:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mean to bombard your page. Did not see that you have revisited the intro with comments etc. Thanks a lot for that, and I'll being work on it as soon as I can. Orane(talk)21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my work on it was thorough enough, and I might continue to edit it if I feel like doing so. I would say no because the prose isn't professional enough. Get "S&M" out of the way, then focus on this. Try and get a few more people on board maybe? Collaborations are the most effective way to get featured articles; too bad I don't have anyone to collaborate with on Eminem's articles, hehe. Best, —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]22:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. I'd wait for it to subside on the charts then polish it and really shorten that Chart performance section. There's a lot of WP:RECENTISM and WP:CHARTTRAJ. Other than that, it's not going to really suffer much at GAN, the standards of which are quite low as opposed to FAC. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]22:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I have to make it clear that Babyface adds vocals in the song. To record can mean to record one's own vocals, or to oversee the recording, like a producer. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]13:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. The source says "we", so probably Stargate, I don't know. The fact that Babyface sings a demo needs to be made more obvious and clear. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]13:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[4][5] These are about the only English language sources I found. You've covered pretty much all of them, I'd say. Have you squeezed every bit of info from the links? —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]16:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even that drastic. It's basically Rihanna singles template with the sparse, empty and unnecessary Rihanna template in it. I really don't see the problem. Aaron • You Da One18:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in tears right now. 3 so far for Slaydele. And Epworth also won for Best producer for his work on her album. Worried for the top categories. Also been teary over Whitney. I don't mention her a lot, but I was such a big fan of hers. Orane(talk)01:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Rub it in. Watched live from beginning to end. Epworth for Producer of the Year... you've got to be kidding me. And Steve Jobs?! Lol! For inventing iTunes. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]18:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love that Adele won everything. <lmao>But I love it even more that Gaga didn't <lmao />. You should have seen her face when they were announcing the nominees for AoTY. She looked like she was so nervous, she would cry. And then the artist who deserved it, got it :)... including best music video for "Rolling in the Deep". Eat your heart out, Katy Perry.
You've got the tags wrong. The closing one is "</lmao>", not "<lmao/>". I, admittedly, thought she deserved the win. I'm using "Someone Like You" for a school project. That's gonna be exciting! As for live performances, they were all pretty good (except Katy Perry, the blaspehmous Nicki Minaj one and Rihanna's "WFL" performance). Coldplay, deadmau5 and Adele were the highlights in my opinion. I missed Paul McCartney too. Glad he's back. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]22:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to live-chat with u during, but you had logged off. I'm really happy with the outcome, though, and wished she had been nominated for more, just so that she could have won more. I cried when she accepted the last award.
Nikki Minaj was pissed that she lost Best New Artist. She didn't even clap for Bon Iver. He performance was too much like Gaga's. Didn't enjoy it at all. Orane(talk)22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should've seen Bruno Mars rage backstage when 21 was announced AOTY. Sorry, I couldn't live-chat. I watched it on TV, and can't stand using Wikipedia on a smartphone. I'd really wished Coldplay'd sung "Princess of China" a bit more though. "Paradise" was great, but the tune to the former is so beautiful. Imo, they were way better than the Foo Fighters. I'm sorry, did I digress? —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of recognition means a lot, Theo. Thanks! Not a huge contributor in the Rihanna department: I just make sure things are running smoothly. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]18:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was hoping you'd like to comment at this talk page post proposing my changes to the article 21 (Adele album). I had a bit of a disagreement with one of its main contributors and I was hoping someone would entertain at least some of my changes. Care to comment? Dan56 (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have noticed that you are a major contributor to Eminem articles. It has been a goal of mine for a while to get The Slim Shady LP and The Marshall Mathers LP (two of my favorite albums ever) to GA status. Would you be willing to collaborate with me on them? I'm having a little bit of trouble finding reliable sources. Thanks! Basilisk4u (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That's great. I've been looking to collaborate for quite some time. Those albums are a few years old, so there may be more information in books than web resources, but I'll do what I can. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]18:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Penguin, I am very sorry for yesterday. I was very tired and waited for only two minutes before going to bed. Please accept my apologies. Anyway, I would not have been able to help you with that. Lol. It seems like literature and I have never watched the video. Next time, I will do my best. And thanks for making all the necessary corrections at the FAC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--GH2 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC) There is a mixtape on itunes by eminem called All Eyes On Me. It needs a wikiedia page. But When you type in the search just put in All Eyes On Me but if you want to listen to any songs type in eminem and go on show all songs and keep searching til you find some.--GH2 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information was all convoluted into one big paragraph and was difficult to follow. It's really simply: 1st para is inspiration, second is writing, third is recording. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's looks shorter, which was one of the main reasons why people were opposing in earlier FACs, saying that there was a lack of background info. Three paragraphs are not needed here. The third isn't even a paragraph, could easily go at the start. In fact, I don't understand why you put that at the end, because the song was written before it was spoken about in interviews. Aaron • You Da One19:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the chronology is perfect. It's better to talk about all the writing in one piece than to say here it was written and there say how it came to be. Again, easier to follow. And it's just as much information. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the need for three paragraphs. There's no reason why the second and third can't be one. It just looks like it's gone back to how it was when people were saying that the Background was too short, to which The Boombox and DJ Booth were removed. To me, it looks short again as three small paragraphs. Aaron • You Da One21:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this will be questioned at FAC? I mean, the whole Background is based on it. I wrote to the Stuff, but I don't think this was a pretty much encyclopedic response:
Hi Tomica,
I have been at ARTISTdirect since 1998. I don't know what it means that the quality of our site is questioned.
That's a real interview that one of our staff did with Rihanna way back in 2006. There is no byline on that interview, so I'm not sure who conducted the interview. I can't see how an interview could be argued with.
Wikipedia is so dull at times. Like if we work as robots. Go by rule A or B or C. Lol. After all, an interview is an interview. Diane Warren gave a full interview about "I Was Here" with That Grape Juice last week but I cannot use it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits to date. Have you seen some of Orane's comments regarding the Reception on Unfaithful's talk page. And could you possibly look for some similar source like one from artistdirect regarding her work with Ne-Yo in case I can't defend it. I can't find nothing :S ! — Tomica(talk)21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll help. My to-do is mounting up and I have some RL problems so I want to edit less often and spend time celebrating other things. Wikipedia's atmosphere is so tight and serious, but what did I expect. :D —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]21:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, hmmm well kind of serious yeah. LOL :) Don't worry, I just hope those problems are not serious and will be resolved soon. I am also less time here. Studying, studying, studying ...:S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1111tomica (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wish you luck with your studies. Now if you excuse me, I've got a new Pokémon episode to go watch (god I don't know how I still manage to enjoy these, but I do!). —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]21:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe thanks. And don't worry I watched the second season of Digimon like last year or maybe like two years ago and I was 17-18 LOL :) ! — Tomica(talk)21:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Penguin I know you are collaborating with Jivesh on "Sweet Dreams" and I am also doing "Unfaithful" for FAC, but I really want to collaborate with you on some music article. I found collaborations interesting :) they are like hanging out with friends. We can do Rihanna article (for ex. "What's My Name?"/I am pretty sure we can find sources to expand it/Do you like the song?) or whatever we can find some other song article by your wish. :) — Tomica(talk)11:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your request. I must tell you though that I am don't really listen to Rihanna, and am more of a Beyoncé fan, and so that's why I wanted to work on the article. I'm sure I can take time to work with you after "Love the Way You Lie" and "Sweat Dreams", maybe sometime this spring. Best, —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]19:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed your message—I hope you have this page watchlisted. I'm doing generally well, thank you. Some mounting school work, but that's it. I hear there's a new Pokémon game slated for release this June in Japan. I can't wait for its Canadian release. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]20:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course I watchlist you :). And don't worry. That's good. Hehe, it will be probably out soon. I never played a Pokemon PC game, ever :S. — Tomica(talk)22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I see You're the Penguin behind all the Eminem GAs. I myself have promoted a few articles to GA, so I thought we could have a little collaboration on the Lose Yourself article, and bring to GA. What'cha think? Best, --Khanassassin☪12:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
all? I've only promoted two (and one by Bad Meets Evil). I've committed to a few collaborations already, but I'll let you know when I'm free. I'm excited to work on Eminem articles. My favorite artist (and best-selling of the decade) needs better articles, so I'll be glad to work on them, but in due course. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]18:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I meant MOST :) But still, you're one of the rare Penguins (or humans :D) to work on Eminem articles. If Kesha has a dozen of Good articles, well, Eminem HAS to have them. :) All the Best, --Khanassassin☪20:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please continue expanding the background (if there is anything more to add) and the synopsis of the Music Video section? I am done till the "first verse + part of the chorus". You can use the information here. I most probably will not be here tomorrow. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alas that is why I don't like writing "In an interview with x, y said" or "Y said that". It disrupts the flow and chronology somewhat. I only do it when the interviewee is stating plain opinion. Is it OK if I remove the "Knowles revealed" and just follow the chronology and restore the past tense? —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]16:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Britney Spears and Rihnanna collaboration quotation. It's fancrufty. And what's with the big huge quotation in the reception and ban section? —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ]20:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I asked my fans last week who they wanted me to collaborate with, and Britney was one of the most popular names." - already mentioned above, just being repeated
"It's very strange: Britney never does features." - Yeah, that's kinda true. But this would be so much more brilliant if you paraphrased it.
"it was really amazing that she really wanted to be part of this song." - and? What value does this add to the article?
"She really liked the song to begin with, but it was a different story when she had to sing it, and she really wanted to be a part of it." - Okay, so in other words, she accepted the collaboration because she liked the song.
"It made it really special because you never see two pop female artists doing songs together anymore." - Pretty factual. I would rewrite it as "According to Rihanna, the infrequency of collaborations between female pop singers made the song distinctive."
