User talk:Calvin999/Archive 26

A year ago ...
music of the sun
	... you were recipient; no. 1186 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Calvin999. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Don't dig a hole for yourself.

Again, stay away.--MaranoFan (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not me digging, my friend. It's not me who has a blatant disregard for every rule, policy and guideline on here. Notice how I don't revert you for posting on my user talk, although you do when I post on yours. You have no right to tell me to stay away from anything on Wikipedia. It's free and open for anyone and everyone to edit wherever they wish. I just doing what I've been doing for six years, nine months and ten days: improving Wikipedia and making sure editors and articles stick to policy, which applies to everyone, including you. You need to make the decision to start being respectful and cooperative.

I have bipolar disorder. It causes me to be the way I sometimes am. I would like a mentor now. Can you suggest someone?--MaranoFan (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well that's the first time you've ever said! I don't know if I believe you, and that's because you seemed so incredibly insulted that SSTFlyer said you had you had autism and denied it. Even if you do, that is what the userboxes are for with people with disabilities, to inform other editors that some added care may be needed. Now, you add insult to injury by asking me, someone who has massively contributed to Wikipedia, more than most of the people you have chosen to align yourself with, who would be a good mentor! It's happened too many times and I will not keep on being insulted by you. You need to start making some serious changes to the way that you approach all aspect of Wikipedia. Until you start adhering the policies and guidelines that we must all adhere to on here, then I won't believe that you are trying to change for the better. All along these past few weeks, I have still offered advice and help to you, and you reject it every time. I would have been willing to help you had you decided to change for good, but until that happens... I will remain skeptical. I've known many editors to be like you in your stage of editing, myself included, but at some point being reckless needs to stop, and yo need to become serious. — Calvin999 11:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Calvin, a thing you should know is that I hate sympathy. Time after time, I have tied to hide my condition from the world. Why am I so different? Why does everyone hate me? I thought I could avoid the real-life sympathy thingy. But Wikipedia has not been good to me. Sigh. lIfe's a bitch, isn't it?--MaranoFan (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not sympathy. If you'd have placed a user box on your user page form the beginning, like so many editors do, it just lets people know. Otherwise, things like this very situation happen. Everyone is different and no one hates you. Wink has ausbergers, I don't really know what it is and I don't treat him any differently, but it just lets me know that he clearly wants people to be aware in case there is a change in his editing pattern or behaviour. You still have the opportunity to turn yourself around on here. Just read through policies and guidelines, and make sure you apply them to your editing. — Calvin999 11:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Aja" GA review

Thank you very much for taking this on. If you have any questions, ping me as I pretty much researched and wrote the article and I still have access to most of the sources (and, basically, I'm the one who can explain why something is in the article). I am not on as much as I would like to be at the moment because of some computer problems, but I can answer reasonably promptly.

(As a side note, I hope you are able to follow all the music theory in the article. It's a bit denser in that department than most of our song articles, because ... well, if you're familiar with the song you'll understand). Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure about this?: ""Aja" is a song by American rock band Steely Dan from their sixth album of the same name (1977)." That would imply all the five previous albums had the same name, á la Peter Gabriel's first three (Don't worry; I've already corrected it). Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, it's entirely possible to say that the song came out in 1977 without putting it awkwardly in parentheses at the end of the sentence (as I just did). I don't think we do that anywhere in our ledes. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at many Good Article song articles which have a title track. That is the style generally used. I've done a fair few myself. — Calvin999 08:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for a month

If you don't stop with the continuous non-stop battleground approach, I expect the next one will likely be indefinite. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI is for reporting incidents, and I'm being blocked for reporting one? Are you kidding? I bet you haven't said anything to MaranoFan who has blatantly ignored the rules of GAN. Proves my point that established editors like myself are treated like shit and those who flaunt the rules all the time get off scott free. The community has had enough of MF. — Calvin999 17:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you're being blocked for fighting with MaranoFan incessantly. And you lose your bet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam I'm not fighting. You haven't seemed to have noticed that I've given MF advice and tried to help her multiple times in the last few weeks. I did even this afternoon but she removed it from her talk, informing her about the GAN process and what she should do before nominating. I never revert her for posting on my talk, but she always reverts me. I've been an active editor for not far short of 7 years and massively contributed to it. I think a month block for me is really unfair. The last time I was blocked was 4 years ago, and I don't think a month is warranted. I'd quite happily accept a one week or two week block, but not a month. It's not me who has disrespect or disregard for the rules. I always aside by them. Blocking me for reporting an incident which goes against the instructions for GAN is not fair. If MaranoFan would just make a change to herself, read the rules and policies and take help and advice, then we wouldn't have this situation. And if any notice had been taken in previous ANI's, we further wouldn't have this situation. MF just needed a good prep talk (I've tried, but she doesn't like me) on how to work on Wikipedia. If an admin or someone senior had of done that and if she had of listen (which she would to an admin) then this would not have happened. — Calvin999 17:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You're only partially correct. The community has had enough of all four of you, and your incessant bickering, not just MaranoFan. All four of your are in the same boat, the only difference is that you tried to start things up again. Drop it and work on something else. Stop obsessing over one another. None of yours article editing is so bad that it needs this constant monitoring and obsessing over. We're not talking about huge, urgent issues that are damaging Wikipedia, like massive hoaxes or hateful BLP violations - all these issues deal with non-pressing issues like redirecting random song articles or minor GAN rules. Important stuff, but smaller stuff that can be handled by others in due time. You're so caught up in all of this that you're losing your sense of perspective on the issues at hand here... Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73 Who are the other two? I'm not trying to start anything again, it's been continuous, and I didn't start it. My crime is getting involved and voicing my opinion (which happens to be rule-abiding). You're not aware of all the other people who've had enough. I certainly don't obsess over MF, don't be insulting. I just want MF to read up on Wiki rules. If she had, or if one of you had of taken action in a previous ANI and said "Hey, MaranoFan, we've all been a new editor at some point and had to learn, but please take time to listen to others and read up on the rules and how to edit responsibly for some guidance, then some of these situations would have been avoided", that would have been a great help. It annoys me that she isn't following the rules!!! You can't nominate an article that you haven't touched for months. Anyone else and someone else would have quick failed/removed it no problem. Like I've done previously, like many of my friends have done previously, and like many editors I've seen in general do previously. — Calvin999 17:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ches and Winkelvi round out the four I'm referring to, though at least they haven't caused any further trouble since the the iban/voluntary truce situations of the last ANI discussion. And the degree of attention you place on MaranoFan, "obsessive" or not, is certainly excessive and disruptive, thus the block. If MaranoFan is truly acting as terribly as you say, then surely MF will get caught/reported/blocked without your intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think one or two are missing off of your list. One in particular should be pretty obvious. I too asked for an IBAN, but nobody enforced it, and I would still favour an IBAN in fact. — Calvin999 18:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm asking both you and MaranoFan not interact anymore. If you both can actually handle that when you both return, you both should be good to go then. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been reporting how she hasn't been adhering to policies. Apparently that's a crime Sergecross73. — Calvin999 23:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

So you asked for an iban but then when the community didn't give you one you decided it was a good idea to keep posting on the other editor's talk page even when according to you, all they did was delete your comments and ignore you? Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well no one can say I didn't try and help then, can they Nil Einne. — Calvin999 23:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calvin999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not asking to be unblocked, because I know that won't happen. I'm asking that my duration of block be shortened because I think that the four weeks prescribed is excessive. I don't think it's fair that I received the same duration when I am rule abiding and don't flaunt the rules on a daily basis. I am a tirelessly contributing editor of nearly seven years. I've improved nearly a hundred articles, I revert vandalism on a daily basis, and I have reviewed hundreds of articles. I think four weeks is excessive for me and would actually do more harm than good. I would be happy to accept a two week block and I think that is a more appropriate duration of length for me. — Calvin999 23:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not how it works. If you understand why you were blocked and can convince us that the issues won't recur, you can be unblocked immediately. If you cannot do that, there's no reason to shorten the block. Huon (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I obviously understand why I was blocked Huon, I just think that the duration was too harsh. I've already asked that an IBAN be put in place for weeks and I still favour that, so that would eliminate any contact. I'm not going to be wasting any more of my time trying to help MaranoFan, you can rest assured of that. I'm done with it. — Calvin999 23:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calvin999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It won't happen again because I have no desire to continue this interaction between MaranoFan. I shouldn't have wasted my time in the first place and I do not wish to be involved with it henceforth. Actions speak louder than words so all I can say is that nobody will see my name on her user talk anymore or editing anything directly involved with her. Hopefully she will do the same and we can edit without crossing paths. I have far too many other activities and projects that I am involved in to keep me busy which I should have focused on more in the last couple of weeks instead. — Calvin999 00:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Can the admin who reviews this also ask MaranoFan to stop pinging me from her user talk please. — Calvin999 12:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If this was an isolated incident I would be willing to unblock, however this is a long term pattern between you and MaranoFan. Your feuding is disruptive to the community and this block mostly for the community's benefit. This is a long block but if the battling continues it could end up being indefinite. You with need to learn to avoid each other or to work in peace. HighInBC 02:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You don't appear to have a great history of holding to agreements that you've made (such as 1RR) - as a reviewing admin, why should I believe that this time you will? SQL ^{Query me!} 02:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

SQL If you're referring to the one previous thing of the 1RR four years ago, I did stick to the 1RR for six months following, and longer acutally. I've already outlined why I will in my reasoning above. At the end of the day, I can say anything here, but it's what I do (or won't do anymore, in this case) what will speak louder. I've said I won't have contact, and that means I won't. I don't see what else I could say or do apart from enforcing it. — Calvin999 08:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

What would influence me more than saying you won't post on her talk page is a pledge that you won't bring complaints about MaranoFan to ANI, ANEW or any other noticeboard and will refrain from commenting ABOUT her, her edits or her editing behavior (an informal, mutual IBan). That is much more difficult to abide by than to just avoid commenting to her. Be aware that if you say you will avoid such commentary and you can't abide by it, the block you would face would be longer than one month so only make promises than you will strive to deliver on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Liz Isn't that all what I said above? I've already said I will not participate in any form of interaction or communication with MaranoFan and that I would favour an IBAN, whether official or unofficial. (I never said about only stopping to post on her user talk, as you are saying, I mean in all aspects). I'm aware of what I've said, and I'm aware of what it means if I don't, but I said I won't. As I've said above, I'm not going to waste anymore time on the subject of MaranoFan. You'll note that I have not responded to the ping that MaranoFan has sent me on her user talk, and I wasn't even going to mention it here. — Calvin999 12:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Calvin999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't think the decline reason given previously in the second one addresses anything I said or has much to do with me. My request statement was about me and what I will do, but the decline reason was all about the other party. My request statement has to be about me and not others, which it was, so I think my unblock request should also be about me and what I've said I'll implement, not all about the other party involved. My request should be judged on my merit, not because me and the other party were block for the same thing; we are not linked or bound together. There is no feud. I don't have a feud. I have never had a feud with said user. That has all been misconstrued and misinterpreted and used as a scapegoat. It's not my actions which have been disruptive to the community, I just have to point that out. It's not me who has disregarded rules and policies. I don't need to "learn to avoid," I can and have done that straight off (It's not me who is pinging and discussing the other party from my talk while blocked, it's the other way around). So, I will re-iterate my previous statement again: I have no desire, wish or will to have any form of contact, discussion, or interaction with the other party on any part of Wikipedia. I am completely done with the whole situation and I shouldn't have ever bothered to try and get involved or help. I made that quite clear last time. — Calvin999 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To be frank, Floqenbeam was generous in only blocking you for a month; nobody but you would have challenged him if he'd made it indefinite. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, your ridiculous fight is causing significant disruption to multiple editors, given that all four of you regularly forum-shop it to multiple venues causing it to clog the watchlists of every admin and every other editor who happens to have the noticeboards on their watchlist. This is now the third unblock request you've posted which is a variation of "but he hit me first!" and shows no indication that you even understand why you've been blocked. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have no objection if another admin comes to a different determination than myself. HighInBC 17:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent, once again, the decline reason doesn't address anything that I said. Of course I know why I've been blocked!! We aren't here in this request to debate why or how I was blocked, how it "clogs" watch lists etc; it won't change anything or solve anything. We are here for me to say why I think I should be unblocked. That's the whole point of an unblock request: going forward from where we are. You can speak for yourself in saying only I would contest an indefinite; I know for a fact that many others would contest it. This is not a variation of "but he hit me first!". When have I said that? I haven't implied that at all. The other party in her unblock request - which is still open to review - that she admitted that she wrong in her editing choices and that she would make an effort to read up on policies, rules and guidelines henceforth and has asked to be mentored in order to learn from previous mistakes and wrongdoings. I only ever reported lapses or ignorances in editing made by that party (such as introducing unsourced information deliberately), and so did others. I never posted negative, hateful or otherwise fighting messages on her user talk. I did, however, post helpful and constructive advice many times. I've said multiple times that I want no interaction, the other party has said she will not participate in interaction, too. What more do you want me to say or do? Neither of us want interaction, and neither does "every" admin or other editor that you mention want interaction either. — Calvin999 21:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Surely you must see that comments such as "There is no feud. I don't have a feud. I have never had a feud with said user." fly in the face of the facts that we can all see. There is clearly a back and forth hostility between you two, call it a feud or any other name it is just as disruptive.

You say things were "misconstrued and misinterpreted and used as a scapegoat", and that "it's not my actions which have been disruptive to the community". Is it any surprise to you that the reviewing admins don't think you get why you were blocked? HighInBC 00:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

HighInBC Where is there a fact that there is a feud though? Where have I said that I dislike or hate the other party? I haven't. Where have I asserted ownership over something? I haven't. I don't have a feud with anyone. I've only ever pointed wrongdoings and disregard for the rules, which the other party has owned up to just yesterday, but no one is paying attention to that. No one is pointing out the multiple advice and help messages I have left and posted to the other party involved, because it doesn't help people's "feud" case. That's what I mean; people are making their own interpretations, people who have never been involved in the discussions and people I've never even heard of. This isn't the high court of criminal justice or the European central court. Of course I know why we've been blocked, I've said that before. A preventative to stop us interacting no matter what the subject matter or cause is. But we aren't here to debate why or how. My unblock requests are saying why I think I should be unblocked, not to discuss why I was because that can't be changed and nothing can be done about that. It's happened, I'm blocked. I'm moving forward (or trying to), but everyone else here keeps looking backwards. How can you expect me to "change" going forward when the decline statements keep looking backwards and have some completely unrelated, personal statements? If you are so worried that I might break my promise of no interaction, then impose the IBAN that me and the other party asked for multiple times as a guarantee, is so required. I really don't know what else you want me to do or say that will actually be taken note of and not ignored or glossed over. — Calvin999 08:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Can't Hold Us Down" FAC

Hi, Calvin. Would you mind leaving some comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Can't Hold Us Down/archive2 please? It's been over a month and there's only one comment. Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, HĐ. I was going to email you back instead of replying here but you haven't got email enabled on your account. I'm sorry you've only had one comment in one month of nomination. I am currently serving a block (one week in, three weeks left), so I am unfortunately unable to help you. I hope you can accrue some input on the nomination soon. — Calvin999 14:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So sorry to here that. Just wonder why you got blocked despite the fact that you are an experienced editor. Simon (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

An editor with one million edits is no more exempt from a block than an editor with ten editors. The rules apply to everyone, and the rules apply to me, too. Nobody is beyond being warned or blocked (allegedly!) But thank you, I appreciate your comment :) Good luck with your FAC. — Calvin999 15:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Calvin999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been 10 days, and I am ready to be unblocked. I never meant to engage in a 'battle,' and I really didn't think I was at the time, but I now understand how it must have came across like that from the outside looking in. I've been out of the country and came back in that time, focused on real life and other things outside of Wikipedia, and I've forgotten about and moved on from what happened. I just want to get back to contributing to and improving Wikipedia, which is what I've loved doing for seven years. As I've said above and before, this won't happen again, and I guarantee that there won't be any interaction or communication from me. — Calvin999 15:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm going to take you at your word here. Wikipedia is a big place; I'm sure you and the others can find ways to contribute without engaging each other. Huon (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I second Calvin999's appeal here and request the reviewing admin to consider. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for I Am Tour (Leona Lewis)

On 13 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article I Am Tour (Leona Lewis), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the stage backdrop for Leona Lewis' I Am Tour was described by one critic as resembling "five strips of giant toilet paper"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/I Am Tour (Leona Lewis). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, I Am Tour (Leona Lewis)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Rebel Heart

Glad to see you are back. I was wondering if you can revisit the review for the above and see if all were done per the GA review comments given? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thank you. Yes I will do. — Calvin999 16:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Adam's Song

hey, yeah, i addressed everything. you can check over it if you'd like. i never quite figured out how to get the chart boxes the same width -- i tried, to no avail, it looked strange. anyway. any other stuff you need let me know. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the GA! Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Saves the Day

Forgive me for that, I failed to see that you didn't think it was even close. But then I looked at the GAN. Your review seems rather harsh. The list looks a bit long, but most of these are all small, easy fixes. Did you have a lot more things in mind, which maybe you didn't mention because you had so many? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, those sources you mentioned that were "unreliable" are also perfectly fine, please read WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. This probably comes from your lack of experience within the genre you reviewed here. (Which is okay, I get it, maybe it's not your thing. But don't be so quick to flag them as unreliable.) dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited (We All Are) Looking for Home, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mirror. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

RTL review

Hey Aaron! If you're not busy with other Wiki-activities, can you read Ride the Lightning and share your opinion at the FAC page? Appreciate your time and all the best.--Retrohead (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at I Am... Sasha Fierce, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you given yourself one of these too? — Calvin999 08:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure if I'd have changed content without citing a source, someone would have given me one of these themselves. Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Like changing from 'lukewarm' to the very specific 'mediocre' without having a source that says 'mediocre'? Shall I give one to you? More than happy to. — Calvin999 08:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You know, online dictionaries are just a few clicks away. They do mean the same thing. I think you've been in one too many countries and your grasp of the English language has diminished. Dan56 (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You can add being a stalker to your repertoire as well. I like how you continued scrolling down to look at everywhere I've been though. Curiosity killed the cat. — Calvin999 08:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You reverted my edit reverting myself from giving you the warning. Editors are notified for when their edits are reverted, so yes, I checked back. Dan56 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

And why was that? Realised that it wouldn't reflect badly on you? Last time I checked this is my user talk, so I think I can do what I like with it. — Calvin999 08:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed my mind, because I reverted myself at the article as well. Geez Dan56 (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. — Calvin999 08:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Stalker. Dan56 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Tomica and I are friends. His talk page appears in my watchlist :) Try again. Now if you don't mind I'm going to carry on "stinking of privilege" and globetrotting. But you have been in the block bin more times than me, though on this occasion I'm not sure that would be somewhere worth bragging about. — Calvin999 09:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidate: Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)

Hi there! My mean is not to bother you, but I was wondering if you could find time to comment on my FAC above and even support or oppose to it. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Perfect Delusion

Yo Calvin, can you please upload me a sample of the song from the 16 sec to the 34 sec mark? Feel free to ignore if you are busy. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, don't you like it?! I have to say I don't know how to upload an audio file. I'm sorry. — Calvin999 16:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Too repetitive for me tbh. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Calvin. I'm just posting to let you know that List of songs recorded by Adele – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 17. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 20:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah great. Thanks. — Calvin999 20:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.

- Mr X 12:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC) - Mr X 12:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kelly Clarkson FLC

Hello Calvin999, I've just nominated the List of awards and nominations received by Kelly Clarkson to FL status. I hope you can review it and post your comments in the discussion page if you're available. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. — Calvin999 08:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hip hop?

Time article says "a hip-hop track, “Right Now,” " but IP from UK Special:Contributions/109.147.189.208 claimed that it's not a hip hop song. I guess not properly sourced. 123.136.111.222 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not hip hop in the slighest, but the source says it is. Well, it says "elicited". — Calvin999 09:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Alyssa Milano

Hello! I have recently nominated List of songs recorded by Alyssa Milano for FL status. I was wondering if you can review it and post comments on the discussion page if you have time. I was wondering if you could help me with this FLC since you have promoted similar articles (List of songs recorded by X) to FLs. Thank you in advance either way. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Aoba47 Alyssa has released albums? — Calvin999 10:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, Alyssa Milano has released four studio albums exclusively in Japan during the late 1980s and early 1990s (and even had two compilation albums and recorded two songs for an exercise video also exclusively released for Japan). Not a lot of people know this since Milano is obviously more known for being an actress so I thought it would be cool to make the article the best it could be. I am still a novice when it comes to lists (this is the first list that I have worked on, and I am still relatively new to Wikipedia as a whole) so I would greatly appreciate any feedback from a more experienced user if possible. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for intruding, but I was curious if you could review the page. I understand that you are likely very busy, and thank you either way. Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I will try and have a look today. — Calvin999 08:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Carbrera You do realise that you're supposed to start with template one, not skip straight to three or four, right? Also, please show me where I have been disruptive. As far as I can see, I have only contributed to discussion threads and a couple of reviews whereby I have actually tried to give help but you are rejecting it. That would constitute me giving you a warning for the misuse of using the warning template system, but I'm not going to take the time to bother doing it as I care more about the quality and standard of articles you are involved in and discussing resolution, which I think is more important and would be more constructive. — Calvin999 08:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

IP restoring non-notable songs

Hey Calvin, can you please help keep an eye on Rockabye (song)? An IP editor has restored the page again even after being told it fails WP:NSONGS, claiming that one reference is "enough" and that if the page is redirected again, they will "treat it as vandalism". They appear to be the same IP/one of the IPs that restored Shout Out to My Ex before it charted. Thanks! Ss 112 15:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be a lot of this nonsense going on at the moment. — Calvin999 10:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"No Time for It"

Hello! I apologize for asking you for help twice in a short amount of time, but I was wondering if you could do a quick review of the article that I have written/expanded for the single "No Time for It". I respect your work with music-related articles, especially with the featured article "S&M". I would love to get this article promoted to the status of FA someday in the very distant future (since it is a very recent song, I want to wait until all of the information about this song is established and the likelihood of new additions are lower). I have done some work with music-related articles in the past (primarily through the GAN process), but I was hoping that I could learn more about how to better approach and write this types of articles. I understand if you are either not interested or too busy. If you are too busy, then the title of this song would definitely be appropriate lol. Thank you either way. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't replied, yes I will have a look. Thank you. — Calvin999 15:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologize for deleting something from your talk page. I deleted my message as I did not want to bother you, but I understand as I would not like it if someone deleted something from my talk page. Aoba47 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Umbrella

Hey, why I can't put the link for music video of Umbrella? I put 3 times and ever is deleted! I really don't understand LikeGaga (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

LikeGaga Hello. Because there is already a link to it, along with the lyrics, in the External links section at the bottom of the article. — Calvin999 13:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry for edit this but, why you deleted the article Music Of The Sun (song)? I was thinking in add mor informations about all Rihanna's song! But ever is deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeGaga (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

LikeGaga I didn't delete it, I redirected it. It is not notable. I don't know why you created it. — Calvin999 08:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah! Now I see his unnecessary, but I was thinking in created article to all Rihanna's song but it's almost impossible cuz various songs don't have sufficient informations to have a article! I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeGaga (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

LikeGaga Please don't do it for any others. If it doesn't have an article already, then there's not enough info. — Calvin999 14:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

But I can add more info in the articles? I put more informations in any articles (Pon De Replay, If It's Lovin' that You Want) but various articles need of more informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikeGaga (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

LikeGaga If it is helpful, constructive and actually adds to the article, then yes. — Calvin999 08:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Telepathy" (song)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In future, please don't remove extra sources or revert me for doing it. I've heard every excuse under the sun from editors on Wikipedia, and "the peak is sourced earlier, Billboard updates later today anyway" is the most common. It does not matter when Billboard updates, that particular instance of the peak was unsourced. Every instance of a new peak on a page needs to be referenced, as using a single chart template that points to a page that HAS NOT UPDATED is misleading readers. There's no guarantee they even read any earlier section or saw the other reference. Please don't remove extra references again under the "rationale" that "it's referenced earlier". Information added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable; it's the most basic policy. That's like saying that a section on an artist's discography page doesn't need to be referenced because there's references earlier on the page. It's not a valid reason. Ss 112 12:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ss112 Where have I removed extra sources? I added an extra source. Try looking at them first before you say that something hasn't updated when it has and removing the updated source willy nilly. — Calvin999 15:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You removed the extra source from the charts section, hence why I just explained each instance of a chart peak needs to be referenced. If I hadn't looked, I wouldn't be messaging you and reverted you. Ss 112 15:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ss112 Hahaha I added that source! It's from the Response section. Me reverting helpful changes? No, my friend, that is you, as you just showed. — Calvin999 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't revert any edit of yours where you added a source; please look more closely. You removed the extra source from the charts section before Billboard's artist pages had updated, as the diff I just linked you to and just linked you to again shows. Ss 112 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I never contested that you added a source to the article; you're missing my point that you removed the extra source (or an invocation of the ref you added, as I should have done) with the excuse that "it's cited earlier". Each instance needs to be cited. I know it's updated now; I'm saying please don't do this in future, as all info needs to be sourced. Ss 112 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ss112 That source already existed because I added it in an above section. I removed it because you don't need two sources on two lines (which because of you actually said 2 different things at the time) when the original and only source that is needed there was about to update and has now already done so. I don't know why you got involving it reverting and removing and editing when there was no need to. — Calvin999 16:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I didn't need to add an additional reference; I could have typed a ref name (or you could have) and put it in the note for the single chart template to also reference that claim in the charts section. Again, my point is "this chart position is cited in an earlier section, so the new peak in the charts section doesn't need to be referenced" is not a valid excuse. All claims of a new peak in the body of an article need to be sourced, including in the charts section, not just once. Ss 112 16:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ss112 But the Billboard charts update on a Tuesday, so when I removed it this morning, there was absolutely no need for you to start messing about with it because it was updating. If you look at the source to her Dance chart history, you will see it says number one. If you had just waited about 20 minutes this morning, then it would have been sourced in all areas formally. You don't need to source the same thing in different sections technically speaking. So, as a result, you created the unstable history today. — Calvin999 16:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Speaking from the time zone I live in, Billboard does not update of a Tuesday morning where I live; it updates on Tuesday night. I always check; it updates later on a Tuesday. Christina's chart history page is different from the article published elsewhere on Billboard's site. Again, it wouldn't matter whether the difference was 20 minutes anyway; every claim of the new peak needs to be verifiable within the article, whether "it will update" in 20 minutes, two hours or two days. Ss 112 16:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But there's no need when it auto-updates. — Calvin999 16:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

My point is it had not updated when you removed the ref sourcing the number 1 peak in the charts section; I wouldn't have added it otherwise. Billboard's artist history pages do not update at the same time as they write an article saying Christina has topped the chart. Ss 112 16:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I know that, hence why I did it this morning, not last night. — Calvin999 16:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You're again missing the fact that the peak of number 1 in the Charts section needed to be sourced as well. Not just in the commercial performance prose. In the charts listing of the numbers the song achieved. It needed to be there as well; each claim in an article needs to be sourced. You removed that. Christina's chart history page had not updated when I added the source to the charts section. Ss 112 16:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I get it, I just don't agree. You don't have to source the same thing multiple times. It was sourced above. And it's updated. So I don't see the relevance of this conversation. — Calvin999 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I KNOW it's updated now. That's NOT the point. When I reverted your changing the peak in the charts section from 2 to 1, it HAD NOT. The charts section claim needed to be sourced as well. Again, your claim it doesn't is like saying a certain section on a discography doesn't need to be sourced because "it's sourced above". It doesn't matter. Each claim needs to be sourced. Ss 112 16:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost entirely sure if you asked at a Wikipedia help board they would tell you the same thing. Information being sourced once in the body of an article does not mean we should not reference the same claim elsewhere; that is why ref names exist. Ss 112 16:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

But I knew it was updating within minutes. It didn't matter then and it doesn't now. You added one saying it was number one when the previous source in the table said it was number 2 for a period of 20 minutes or so. I'm done with this conversation. — Calvin999 16:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You can archive and revert me here if you wish; it doesn't matter when the chart was going to update. When I reverted you, it was not going to update in "minutes", nor 20 minutes. It wouldn't have updated for at least another two hours from when I reverted you, as I know the time Billboard updates its chart history pages. I don't see you adding chart information from Billboard all that much, so I don't think you're as aware of it as I am. In future, I'm asking you not to remove the extra note from the charts section. If you do, I will ask for official action from a board where they will tell you not to, as it appears you think ref names do not have a use. Ss 112 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

a) You are now violating my talk page. b) It did update within 20 minutes of your edit this morning because I was only for 3 hours this morning and saw it update 20 minutes after I de-cluttered the table. Don't post here again. And there's nothing for you to accuse me of reverting again because it's updated! Hence why this whole thread was irrelevant. No, I don't seem to update Billboard stuff that much: example 1, example 2, example 3. I can keep supplying if you like. — Calvin999 16:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't violate your talk page; you didn't ask me not to post again then. You don't need to be uncivil to me. My point was that you reverted me before it had updated; I checked the chart when I reverted you, and it hadn't. Nor had it when you reverted me later. It doesn't matter to me what charts pages you update; I'm talking about knowing when Billboard's artist chart history pages update. I won't post here again if you keep thinking I'm not aware of what I'm talking about. Ss 112 16:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You said that I don't update Billboard info, well I think I just showed that I do, and now you are backtracking on that. Well, note for the future: If someone archives a discussion and says they are done with the conversation, it means stop replying. — Calvin999 16:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

Wow, thanks, I wasn't expecting any mention yet alone two, considering I was knocked out six months ago! :D Sturmvogel 66, Figureskatingfan and Godot13. — Calvin999 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries

This is the only time I'm going to ask you: Do not direct any, or any more, edit summaries at me. I added "Telepathy" to my watchlist and I go back to check, and the first thing I see is the summary "missed that one". You wrote on my talk page earlier to stop with the condescension, so take your own advice. I really don't think you meant you missed that one, because you had obviously seen that I corrected errors while you were gone. Stop with the incivility, the accusations and this grudge you think I have against you now because we argued on your talk page yesterday. Your edits really don't matter to me, nor does what you do on Wikipedia, but I don't like noticing things like this after being told to quit being "condescending" when I wasn't, then you go and blatantly do it to me. I also don't want to keep talking to you or really ever have contact with you again if I can avoid it, so stop providing reasons to and please move on. I'll edit the page when I want, and so can you. Nobody owns it; nobody has a claim over it. It's time to act like an adult about it. Ss 112 16:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If you interpreted that as being aimed at you then that it your own failing. I do check what I write but I type so quickly I don't always see them straight away. Am I not allowed to not miss one and correct it, then? — Calvin999 16:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Like I'm Gonna Lose You/GA3

Calvin999, I wanted to remind you that your individual reassessment of this article is still open; there haven't been any edits made to respond to the issues you raised.

In addition, the article is currently the subject of a DYK nomination due to it having been made a GA; the nomination has been put on hold pending the outcome of your reassessment.

If you wish to keep it open longer, it's up to you, but it would be nice to know your plans in that case. Thanks for opening the reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear: since you opened this as an individual reassessment, the decision is yours and only yours, just as a GA review is the final decision of the reviewer. If the article does not meet the criteria and the issues you raised have not been addressed by the original nominator or any of the WikiProjects or other people notified within a reasonable time (generally at least seven days), then you can delist it. If this had been opened as a community reassessment, then it would have to be closed by an uninvolved person. Here, it can only be closed by you. (Well, if you were to abandon it, it could eventually be closed by someone else, but that's clearly not the case here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, how do I delist it with the template on the talk page? BlueMoonset — Calvin999 09:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The instructions are on the WP:GAR page in the left column on individual reassessments, including the various steps. However, if you want, you can post to the reassessment page that you've decided to delist it, and I can take care of the rest, or you can that plus as much as you feel confident with, and I can do whatever remains after that. Just let me know when you've finished your work, and I'll proceed from there. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI/General message

I'm ready to leave this period of disputes/reverts behind us if you are. I have never followed your edits, and don't intend to. I'm sorry if you took my reverting you twice earlier as a provocation, but I just wanted to point out the thing about accessdates—which is not to say you didn't know how—in one way or another. So just to politely ask, if you update any kind of peaks on articles in future, can you please update accessdates and source each claim of a new peak on an article? That's all. Thank you. Happy editing to you too, I guess. Ss 112 15:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Considering that they were the only two times I have forgotten to add/change them, I doubt I will forget to add them again following this! No doubt I can count on you to remind me should I do so (or not do so?) — Calvin999 15:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, if it's on an article I'm looking at. I'm not sure. Ss 112 15:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Calvin999. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song)

The article Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song)

I've reviewed the DYK, which only needs a QPQ. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment help

Passion (Utada Hikaru song), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Hi @Calvin999: I'm not sure if this is what I'm supposed to do with community reassessment messages (it said I have to send a small message to user talk pages for help?), but knowing that you've dealt with music articles in the past, I would like your assistance if that is okay. I have submitted this page above for a community-based reassessment and I am wanting your help with anything. For more info, visit the page above. Best regards, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 05:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, a community reassessment means that it can only be kept or delisted from a consensus. An individual one would have meant that if there had been no response in a reasonable amount of time, you could have closed it yourself. But you'll have to get a majority vote in favour of either side now. CaliforniaDreamsFan — Calvin999 09:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again; I read over that on the reassessment page, but I've forward this message to other Wikipedians that have high experience with music articles in order to get a consensus of many opinions and critiques; your just one of them I have forward it too if that's alright? And hopefully that's okay to commit by the guild lines? (it was slightly hard for me to understand a bit). But if its cool and appropriate to do so, I would like some help with the article if you have time. Cheers, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 09:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. In future though if you do the individual one, if no one replies after a few weeks then you can delist it yourself without needing a consensus like in a community one. I know it is a bit confusing, it's not the clearest on there. — Calvin999 09:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break.

There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll.

If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA).
If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December.

We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase!

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song)

On 14 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Christina Aguilera self-produced a 96-second music video for "Telepathy" as a gift to her fans as the song rose to number-one on the Billboard Dance Club Songs chart? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Telepathy (Christina Aguilera song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

First place – $200
Second & Third place – $50 each
Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Wishing you a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2017. Thanks for your friendship! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi Thank you, you too :) — Calvin999 17:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Calvin999!

Happy New Year!

Calvin999,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Donner60 Thank you, you too :) — Calvin999 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Calvin999

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Calvin999.
May your house be safe,
and may you
and those having the privilege of your company
enjoy good health in a

Happy New Year 2017!

Kind regards,
Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Pass on!

Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.

Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

Cartoon network freak Thank you, you too :)

singer-songwriter

Hi. I've seen your arguments against singer-songwriter on both Mariah's pages and Ed Sheeran's. It also was on Madonna's pages but per the discussion on Mariah's talk page, I was sort of inspired to change it to singer and songwriter. Have you ever thought of taking the discussion to RfC? If Mariah and Madonna can't have it, neither should Ed. The way it sounds on the article is like "singer-songwriter" was an era for certain singers. It's a thin line though and divides people. I would be interested in getting a consensus on this. I have to commend you on your talking points, by the way. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Not so much an era but people tend to ascribe the term to people who also play an instrument, like Ed and Taylor. What people don't realise is that even if you collaborate with other writers, who are still a singer-songwriter. Mariah wrote the lyrics to her first six albums exclusively. — Calvin999 09:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. It's completely inconsistent across the board. Mariah has interviews where she says she hates being called just a singer. And look at Adele's page. singer-songwriter. I know she dabbles with some guitar but she is not known for her work on instruments. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that's why 'singer, songwriter' and 'singer and songwriter' should be used, because quite a lot of artists write songs for others now. — Calvin999 14:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yo!

Wassup? Remember me? – FrB.TG (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, yes of course :) — Calvin999 22:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Scared of the Dark

On 17 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scared of the Dark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Free Radio presenter Andy Goulding thought that "Scared of the Dark" by Steps should have been the United Kingdom's entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scared of the Dark. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Scared of the Dark), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay

Calvin, you are now following to other articles to "confront or inhibit [my] work", which falls under WP:WIKIHOUNDING. As long as you don't look at my contributions or direct summaries at me, I have no more reason to post here. I have never followed you to another article, and you just blatantly did this to me. I will report you to an admin if this harassment and Wikihounding goes any further. Please do not look at my edits to follow me elsewhere. Ss 112 09:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you've admitted to following my edits, you said it yesterday when you supplied a revision from an edit I made 7 weeks ago within minutes. That means you are logging what I am doing and making a notes to refer back to. I made an edit which is in line with MoS which you shouldn't have removed. You are going around Wikipedia making edits you think should be made, not what guidelines and rules say should be made. Most articles I edit, you edit them within a few hours, despite never having edited them before. That happened with the Steps articles. Same with the issue of the track listing. You are constantly WP:WIKIHOUNDING me (I removed 20,000 bytes worth of threads you have made to my talk page yesterday) by posting here even after I remove your comments yesterday and this morning. You don't have the right to revert my own talk page and decide what stay and what goes, that is an abuse of my talk page. If you post here, accept that it stays here or that I decide to remove it. Don't accuse me of things that you are guilty of yourself, which you have confessed to in black and white. Don't post after my revert with threats then self-revert to minimise other people seeing what you write. You want me to read what you post, else why remove it? Please don't make threats to me. It doesn't show you in a good light. I am now asking you to cease and desist posting on my talk page. Don't do it again. I will leave this for you to read, I won't remove it. — Calvin999 12:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tears on the Dancefloor

Hello! Your submission of Tears on the Dancefloor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Tears on the Dancefloor

Hi - just drawing your attention to this - new hook needed if it's not to be pulled. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Tears on the Dancefloor

On 21 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tears on the Dancefloor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Steps' fifth studio album, Tears on the Dancefloor, is their first album in 17 years to consist mostly of original material? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tears on the Dancefloor. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tears on the Dancefloor), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Calvin999. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC). 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.

livelikemusic talk! 14:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem - GA Review

You're ready to begin the GA review of Problem? LikeGaga (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Excellent work on the work you're doing to Steps-related articles. Amazing seeing the group [finally] achieve some much-deserved love! livelikemusic talk! 23:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah thank you livelikemusic — Calvin999 07:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Someday (Mariah Carey song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Someday (Mariah Carey song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)