User talk:HĐ/Archive 6

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

The Ultimate Boss Uh, I think that's just a glitch. You can manually update Article History in the talk page, otherwise don't worry about it, HĐ (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

Thank you for Style (Taylor Swift song), "about a song by Taylor Swift, which is hilariously titled "Style" (an ode to her ex Harry Styles?)"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

songs and singers

Thank you for quality articles about international singers and their works such as Lorde, Style (Taylor Swift song), and Girls' Generation, reaching millions of readers, for the list of high schools for the gifted in Vietnam, - Bach and beach lover, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

Thank you today for Blank Space, introduced: !When Taylor Swift announced she would go full pop six years ago, almost everyone (including me) rolled their eyes until they realized that the music was actually pretty good"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article

Hi HD. I revamped the Commercial performance section completely and notably condensed it. What do you think of it now? Also, thank you for the slight c/e. — Tom^(T2ME) 08:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomica: Hey Tom, would you mind initiating a Peer Review so that I could comment on the prose more in-depth? HĐ (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A really good idea! Wikipedia:Peer review/Can't Get You Out of My Head/archive1, here you go :). Looking forward to the comments. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I know you have been busy with the Tay Tay articles, but I just wanted to remind you to check out the peer review and the changes I've made when you have time! Thanks. :) — Tom^(T2ME) 17:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HĐ, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on

I recognize that you have only created 22 articles, but given you have contributed significantly to 2

IAR'd it and have granted at my discretion. It is clear your creations do not need to be patrolled by reviewers before being indexed by search engines and their time could be better spent reviewing others' creations. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 TheSandDoctor -- TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

The article

Hi HĐ, I've passed New Romantics (song) and will look at Blank Space for you tonight. I was wondering if you'd like to collaborate/co-nom on some FAs? I've love to help out. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to also note at the GA that I think New Romantics is basically ready for FA. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

1989 (Taylor Swift album) to FA (which has failed twice) and Red (Taylor Swift album) to FA if possible. I'm open to any music-related articles though, as I'm trying to expand my soundscape to 1980s rock and synth-pop (thanks, Stranger Things), HĐ (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I am indeed a (big) Stones fan, but I do try to expand my interests where possible. My work on Commons involves renaming Stones related images to names that aren't just time codes, but I have also branched out to working on Swift images that suffer the same problem. I would love to help out with 1989 etc!

Fun fact: Swift performed with the Stones in 2013, stating that they "have been a huge on my entire outlook on my career" (emphasis hers). In 2015, she had Mick Jagger (Stones lead singer) as a guest on her show in Nashville; reports in media at the time commented on how she was excited to have him as a guest. She also considers Bryan Adams' Summer of '69 one of her "favourite songs ever written" (one of mine too lol). I've discovered over the past few years that her and my musical interests have some big overlaps, which has led to me listening to more of her material haha. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help re the Blank Space FA review . I will look at 1989 tonight, time permitting. Do you have an idea of when you wish to nominate it again? Have you identified any sections that specifically need work? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Red, I'd recommend bringing it to GA first. More eyes the better on it . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Hey, sorry for not reaching out to you earlier. Although I am confident with 1989 prose overall, I think the "Release and promotion", "Critical reception" and "Legacy" sections need specific care. I haven't started working on Red yet, and plan to nominate 1989 for FAC right after the completion of "Blank Space" FAC :) HĐ (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite intriguing that the magazine Rolling Stone once called Ms. Swift "one of this generation's few rock stars". Honesty I used to think of her as just another female singer who produced sugarcoated tunes, but that changed when she released the song "Style", which remain one of my all-time favourites till now. I think rock musicians are known for relentlessly showcasing their raw emotions, and Swift is, in my opinion, the only singer in pop nowadays who can do that. Thanks to her I also discovered my newfound interest in rock :) HĐ (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good! I have started taking a look at/editing "Release and promotion" and came across the line "She argued that Spotify's ad-supported free service undermined the premium service which provides higher royalties for songwriters" which seems rather unclear. It needs major clarification as it starts talking of some other premium service without first introducing it. Do you know what was intended with that sentence?

It is definitely intriguing re Rolling Stone -- fun fact: the publication was actually (partially) named after the band, which predates it by 5 years -- she certainly is talented. Perhaps some day your interests will lead you to the original rock & roll, British invasion etc. A lot of modern music was influenced by it in some way. Either way though, certainly happy to work with you on articles!! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Spotify has two services: a free, ad-supported one and a premium one that requires paid subscription. Most users prefer the free one, so Swift was not happy about it. The "premium service" in the sentence is meant to be Spotify's... I hope it's clear for you. Would you suggest rewording so that readers can understand better? HĐ (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look? If you prefer it the other way, feel free to revert. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just thinking for the critical reception section that the quote from Caramanica at the end ("But by making pop with almost no contemporary references, Ms. Swift is aiming somewhere even higher, a mode of timelessness that few true pop stars...even bother aspiring to.") should really be included in some fashion. Perhaps something like "In an enthusiastic review, The New York Times critic Jon Caramanica complimented Swift's avoidance of contemporary hip hop/R&B crossover trends, stating "Ms. Swift is aiming somewhere even higher, a mode of timelessness that few true pop stars...even bother aspiring to." I don't think that that quote is too long. What do you think of the idea? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheSandDoctor: Wow, your edits made the flow much better! I have a tendency to include lengthy sentences, but you really saved the game there! Regarding the quote, hmm... I'm not a big fan of including quotes in the Critical reception section, but I think Caramanica's one should be okay. Either way, just feel free to include anything that you feel appropriate without asking me firsthand... I'm not the article's owner after all . If I disagree with something, I'd let you know so that we could discuss, HĐ (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

♥ I am glad that you find my edits to it have been improvements. I do tend to deliberate a lot over what I add to articles haha. I think overall you've done an amazing job with this one. I have implemented the quote as I believe it to be of relevance and rather powerful (too bad FAs aren't eligible for DYK! ) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When we are ready, of course, do you want to co-nominate 1989? I'll happily help out with the replying to feedback etc. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I'd love to! Let's wait till the "Blank Space" FAC is complete HĐ (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After is what I meant ;) I look forward to it! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just out of curiosity, how's your work as an IT professional going? It's quite interesting to see people excelling in IT, a field that I admit I have no talent whatsoever... HĐ (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IT work is definitely interesting! I love what I do . Lots of different challenges and you are never really sure what each day will be like. I find I spend most of my day sending emails trying to get people to respond to my original email, making phone calls, setting up computers, disposing of old ones etc. I was actually just looking at my sent folder today and in roughly the past 5 months, I have sent well over 6000 emails. A lot of the job is also hurry up & wait...which is an opportune time to catch up on those emails! ..and listen to podcasts/the news (using only 1 ear bud) while I work, assuming I'm not on the phone or physically with a client etc. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you love what you do (which is the most important thing for whatever profession to me). Any specific reason why you became an IT developer for Wikipedia, may I ask? HĐ (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most important thing for any profession for me as well. I should clarify that I don't work for the Wikimedia Foundation. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Roger that! I just found out that "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them". Would you think initiating the 1989 FAC now may be a good time? Given that the "Blank Space" FAC has passed for a month... HĐ (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine either way. What are your thoughts? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I'll wait for a few more days In the meantime, could you help me move Taylor Swift discography to Taylor Swift albums discography? I have just split the page into two separate discographies for albums and singles, but apparently I can't carry out the move because the Taylor Swift albums discography is an existing redirect page... Thanks so much HĐ (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Where should the wikidata entry point and where should Taylor Swift discography? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor Thank you so much for the help That's tough... given that all other language Wiki entries are about discographies as a whole rather than separate albums and singles discographies... I think for the time being is it possible to replace the Wikidata entry of Taylor Swift discography with Taylor Swift albums discography?? HĐ (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Taylor Swift discography should just turn into a disambiguation page that points to Taylor Swift albums discography and Taylor Swift singles discography? Taylor Swift#Discography does make some sense as a redirect target though. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Madonna discography, both are split into albums and singles, redirect to Eminem#Discography and Madonna#Discography. Perhaps we should follow the existing precedent and redirect to Taylor Swift#Discography. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Hanif Al Husaini: Thank you for pointing that out. I think let's follow the case then, HĐ (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. We'll leave it as it is currently then . Thanks for commenting with that, @Hanif Al Husaini:! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When do you plan to nominate RED (for GA/FA)? I'd love to work on that one with you as well and co-nom, if you'd be open to it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheSandDoctor: Hey, how have you been doing? Unfortunately I'm planning to take a wikibreak soon to focus on real life matters... Before that I'm actually planning to make 1989 a Featured Topic. RED requires much work so I am quite sure I won't be able to do it.. HĐ (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm doing well. I totally understand the need to take wikibreaks to focus on real life matters...I do hope that you come back some day though when you are ready. I think 1989 is close to passing now; I have enjoyed working on the article with you and hopefully this and Blank Space will help provide me with a sort of a template to move forward with improving others to the standard...time shall tell. What articles do you figure are closer to the standard than RED is currently? I'm sure we will work together on something again in the future some day and that our paths shall cross again. Thank you for this opportunity to learn from a person far more versed in FAs and TS than I am. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheSandDoctor: That's so flattering to hear! To be honest though I love digging up the most remote sources to improve the articles on the deepest album cuts... I sometimes question my fervency with this kind of music articles on Wikipedia. I find it funny how devoted I could spend a large amount of time into improving articles of the most remotely known songs/albums. Alas, I really doubt if I'd ever return to Wikipedia again once I promoted 1989 to Featured Topic status... still two articles left to go. I am thinking, probably after this I'd feel comfortable with enjoying albums without writing Wikipedia entries about them... Either way, I'm glad that we crossed paths, and lord knows if we'd ever have a chance to meet in person despite geographical distances, hahah, HĐ (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sad to hear that you plan to retire as a Wikipedia editor...editor retention is sadly low and burnout high, but totally understand that there are most definitely things in life more important than a website on the internet. Your contributions have been immensely appreciated and you will be missed, including as a civil editor and for your unique skills. I do hope we cross paths again. Feel free to reach out any time if you want, my contact info is on my userpage and website (at the bottom). It was a pleasure to work with you on an article, I wish we could do more. Are there any TS articles that you figure are closer to the FA standard than RED is? I'd like to continue your work and work more on FAs now that I have a tiny bit of experience in one. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, TSD (TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@

WP:ATTRIBUTION). I was actually planning to work on Reputation after 1989, but instead shifted my focus to the 1989 topic. RED would require much more work because it's currently lacking a section discussing the songs' music and lyrics, while Reputation already has all sections figured out and only needs to be cleaned up. I'd say Lover (album) also has a good shot, but I think since it's a fairly new album, IPs vandalism and devoted fans would make it fail the "stable" criterion of FA. Sorry I haven't looked at Rolling Stones albums' articles, but I'll try and see which article could have a shot at FA based on my experience HĐ (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

I appreciate your comments here, most definitely. Thank you for the ideas so far! What do you think of New Romantics (song) for FAC? That's a fairly new GA. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Haha, I just nominated "New Romantics" at FAC here! If you could comment on the FAC I'd very much appreciate it... HĐ (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I was too late to the party on that one hehe. Any others in planning? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

featured topic. I'm actually having The 1989 World Tour as a GAN, which I hope would attract a review soon... HĐ (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Commented at "New Romantics" with some suggestions/feedback. I don't mean to impose and you can tell me to screw off, for lack of better words, but would you like to work together on getting "Shake It Off" to FA? That is a catchy tune... --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I'd love for you to help me out! The article requires much work... and one collaborator is like half of the copyedit thing will be reduced I already expanded here and there of the article, and would love for you to input and/or change my clumsy wordings (I'm not at all confident in my vocabulary) HĐ (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened to your plans to bring Christina Aguilera to GA (I believe you once said that you wouldn't leave the site before achieving this), but regardless, I'd hate to see you retire. Your contributions here are valued. Maybe reducing edit frequency instead could be a better solution. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Sadly biography articles are a real challenge.. especially when I'm under increasing real-life pressure at the moment. Regardless, it was such a memorable time when I devoted myself to improving Xtina articles haha. I no longer enjoy Xtina's music unfortunately (Liberation is good but I can get better hip hop songs from Kanye or Lamar...) but I'll always keep her in mind as one of the first English-language singers that I listen to, HĐ (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean on those being challenging, and know from personal experience that maintaining them is no easy task. Oh well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to nominate New Romantics (song) for DYK given that it has now become a GA? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not usually interested in DYK, but I think I'll give it a shot. HĐ (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! DYK is a lot of fun and frankly any new GA article that hasn't been through it before deserves one in my books .

eg "...that a number of critics ranked "New Romantics" among Taylor Swift's best songs of her career?" or "...that Rolling Stone magazine included Taylor Swift's 2014 single "New Romantics" on their list of the 100 best songs of the 2010s decade?" would be interesting hooks. Those hooks, save for {{xt}}, are properly wikicode formatted for copy & paste insertion as examples. If you want, you can use them. They are just examples I pulled from the lead that would work. Please let me know when you decide if you will nominate the article for DYK...as otherwise I will. There are roughly 6 days left to nominate. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay..."fun" is probably an overstatement (), but it is still something (and basically the only way) that gets articles on the main page when they aren't new Featured Articles...and gives readers interesting random facts. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I just realized that you haven't yet added this new GA as a topicon to your userpage/updated the count. Obviously up to you, just a heads up in case you forgot ;) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheSandDoctor: Hi I've written more than two GAs but I don't feel the need to show that on my userpage header, and think that FAs would be a better "badge" , HĐ (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, fair enough. . What about the counter of the total number of GAs further down in the user boxes though? (Not trying to badger any and last time I'll mention this.) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheSandDoctor: Oh, those were some Songs articles that I did in the past, but the quality was rather mediocre... I used to be obsessed with GA counter, but not anymore HĐ (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough haha --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently removed a chunk of information from the

@

BawinV: To be honest, I would remove them altogether (though I did keep the ones from NME and Paste), because (a) they provide no substance since all (except Paste) do not provide weighted assessment of the album; and (b) since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, inclusion in best-of lists "during the pandemic" is rather a temporal reaction rather than critical/academic assessments. With all said, I don't see how much this would assist readers understand that the album was well received, given that the Metascore and the glowing 5-star reviews in the Critical reception section could already do the job just fine. If you insist, however, I'd recommend a very brief mention, such as Publications including A, B, C... ranked Folklore among the best albums released during the lockdown, with Paste ranking it at number one. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi HĐ, how did you add the subtitles to that sample? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Hi, you just click on the "CC" button and then proceed to "Add subtitles". Simple as that HĐ (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I see it now. Thank you! After seeing the New Romantics sample having them, it gave me an idea for subtitling some other music samples hehe. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Yes, the subtitles really aid the sample imo! When adding subtitles you should take care of the timing of texts though (I use Audacity so that it gives me an accurate time of hh:mm:ss,xxx, but you can use anything as long as the texts are not too far off the time - which I suffer from time to time...) HĐ (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HĐ! I am having trouble finding the references in wikitext for the standard track listing. Could you please replace them/it with this for me? Let's try and minimize use of Amazon etc. where possible. I've already started that work and replaced IBT. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I think iTunes is fine and they're actually reliable (even though it's a retailer). Otherwise using {{Cite AV media notes}} would be fine, HĐ (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:AMAZON I think Amazon is fine for release date information (it's of course better if we find other reliable retailers though), HĐ (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Could we replace amazon with MTV or AV media notes in this case though? I agree that amazon is okay if we can't find anything else, but I would prefer to minimize its use where possible in favour of better sources. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: i'm trying my best to find replacements. In the mean time you can proceed whenever you have reliable sources in hand! HĐ (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

I notice you reverted my use of the passive voice in the lede. The fact that you "prefer" it isn't really a valid reason for changing it but so be it. I will continue the c/e and if it makes sense edit sentences in the passive voice accordingly. FA reviewers can be extremely picky; for some of them over use of the passive voice is cause for an immediate fail.

Regards

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FAC.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the brilliant work as always. HĐ (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HĐ, Just wanted to say an early congratulations on 20,000 edits! Thank you so much for working with me on articles, your presence is amazing! Doggy54321 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Doggy54321 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I see that Blank Space and my own nomination were both placed on the "urgent" list. I was wondering if you'd be interested in the two of us reviewing each other's nomination? I'd understand if you don't have the time/willingness to do so. Just thought it'd be mutually beneficial to ask. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: hey, as I'm busy these days I'll be sluggish with reviews, but I'll try my best to have a comprehensive review of the prose I don't know why FAC reviewers are few and far between these days but that's really a pain huh.

Thanks for reaching out with "Blank Space", but I think the FAC is good overall. I'd appreciate a lot more if you could do QPQ with my 1989 FAC. It's failed twice so I wouldn't want it to be archived this time lol. HĐ (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the sluggishness. There's currently about 20 articles on my radar that I want to create/overhaul... but I just don't have the free time I did even 5 years ago. Probably never will again. =( I reviewed 1989 during one of its previous FA nominations, so will be happy to review it again. Will hopefully have enough free time to at least review even the first 2/3 sub-sections by this time tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Thanks so much! It's true that the enthusiasm has worn out though... I have 10+ articles in my to-do list but probably will abandon all of them to focus on matters irl. Wikipedia is such an addictive hobby, but glad we had our moments devoting energy to the most obscure details for quality articles. Will try to finish my review of Heaven Upside Down by the end of the week. In case I forgot, just ping me anytime, HĐ (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun at

On

1989, "New Romantics" by Taylor Swift was named one of the best songs of the 2010s decade by Rolling Stone? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New Romantics (song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, New Romantics (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

.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HĐ. I had the privilege of opening my FAC coordinator career by promoting your wonderfully written FAC, "Blank Space". Excellent work, please keep them coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, HĐ!! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TheSandDoctor; Gog the Mild, I hope you the best on your FAC coordinator career! HĐ (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HĐ, it appears in

@TheSandDoctor: Hey, I also removed clunky sentences that sort of reiterate what's already been mentioned. I also agree that Twitter is acceptable in some cases, but when there's a third-party source reporting (in this case, there are plenty that I can see!) I think it's best to avoid primary sources, HĐ (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Just wanted to check as the summary didn't mention the removal, so wanted to be sure it wasn't accidental (something I've done before ). Re Twitter: oh most definitely. If there are others reporting on X, then it is indeed best to stick to secondary. Primary is sort of a fallback if we have nothing else for a point that must be mentioned for some reason and given that it isn't overly promotional in nature (e.g. verifying date of birth in some cases or whatnot). As I say, wasn't contesting the edit. I was merely making sure the removals were deliberate and clarifying the summary ;) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Haha, no worries! I'll take more care of my edit summary next time... (sometimes I'm just too lazy to input an edit summary to avoid confusion, but I guess that'll have to change gradually..) HĐ (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

Congratulations! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keyboard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

The article

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

The article

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

@TheSandDoctor: I just realized that TFAR only accepts requests within a short (three months?) time. Probably this should be deleted... and we shall wait until probably August-September 2021 to nominate this for TFA later. HĐ (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to add it to my calendar then given how you've said you will be retired by then(?). I have gone ahead and deleted the TFAR for you.--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Thank you for your assistance. Yeah.. I may've been retired by then, HĐ (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I am happy to assist any time in any way I can. Added to my calendar for August 18, 2021 just in case that is the case and I have to nom solo. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article

I am glad this article has now passed less than 24 hours after I finished the review comments, though we have not worked together in the past really and would you be willing to review one of the three song articles I have pending review right now? --K. Peake 09:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Sure, I'll try to see what I can do with some of your pending GANs, HĐ (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be good, I will be able to respond very quickly but which article do you think you'll go for by now? --K. Peake 11:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shake It Off, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that your peer review for the Wong Kar-wai article did not work out. Peer review has gotten somewhat better for FAC-bound articles, but there is still a backlog and a shortage of active reviewers that still make the peer review process frustrating (but I am honestly not sure how I would approach solving those issues). I am a huge Wong Kar-wai fan after watching and falling in love with 2046 in an undergraduate film class. I did not feel experienced enough as a reviewer to comment on the peer review, and I was already quite busy with my own work.

Anyway, I just wanted to reach out to you about that. I saw that you are planning on retiring from Wikipedia in the near future, and while it is always sad to see an experienced editor like you go, I can understand. Wikipedia takes up so much time and energy from other things, and I must admit that as much as I enjoy this site, I should be putting more time and energy into other things. I hope you are doing well and stay safe. Apologies for this rambling message lol.

@

Aoba47

: Thank you for the message. While the process of peer review is blatantly frustrating and wearisome, that is something that I had expected before nominating Wong Kar-wai's article for a PR. Therefore I didn't really expect anyone to show up, which is funny, as this situation is comparable to when you know things won't work out but still squeeze your last pieces of hope (lol, it sounds depressing but I brushed it off already). Alas, it kinda tickles me how devoted I am sometimes to spending time "researching" the deepest album cuts and the most remotely known films that I doubt anyone (at least within my connection on this site) bothers watching/listening.

Great to know that you are into Wong Kar-wai, which I think is pretty amazing given that he is studied in your film class. My favourite is

featured topic, and, to that end, I'm planning to nominate Shake It Off for FAC. I hope you'd still be up around the time I do so haha. Hope you're having a great week! HĐ (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the response. I am very devoted to working on some rather obscure topics so I can relate to you completely on that. I will have to watch Fallen Angel one of these days. I have only seen 2046,

Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Kaneshiro Takeshi, one of my favourite actors and style icons; HĐ (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I will definitely check them out. Thank you for the recommendations. Takeshi Kaneshiro does look like a very stylish man so I'm looking forward to seeing more of him.

Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies for the random message, but if possible, could you help with my

Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Taylor Swift singles discography

Hello HĐ. In future, please do not remove additional sources before the pre-existing source updates. This is leaving unsourced material on a page. It really doesn't matter if the Billboard source "will be updated soon", it needs to be verifiable UNTIL the pre-existing source updates. Doesn't matter if it's a minute or several hours. There's no set time at which Billboard updates its artist chart archives, so it's unpredictable. There's also no time limit by which temporary sources have to be removed from an article. Thanks. Ss112 08:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red (Taylor Swift album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nathan Chapman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello HĐ, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

D🎅ggy54321 ^(ho-ho-ho) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy holidays to you to, and stay safe! HĐ (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello HĐ, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, TheSandDoctor Talk 16:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you TheSandDoctor! Happy holidays to you too, and stay safe, HĐ (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humanz

Hi HD. I was thinking if you might be interested in improving the album article. 2402:1980:824A:D02F:DB58:3AD6:842B:96AA (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your

Out of the Woods (song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Happy Holidays! I do hope you will have a great year ahead and these goes for everyone who had a hard time due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thank you very much for making talk) 11:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

@

LipaCityPH: Thank you; totally unexpected but greatly appreciated. I hope you are having a great time into the beginning of a new year, and stay safe! HĐ (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Your

Out of the Woods (song)

The article

Talk:Out of the Woods (song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

While I await your response to the review, I would like to ask if this song should be listed as a 2014 or 2016 song, as it was released in the former year on the album but was released as a single in the latter? --K. Peake 22:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: It was released as an album cut in 2014, so it's a 2014 song. It was released as a single in 2016, so it's a 2016 single.. Release year for song should be the first release date even when it is included as an album track, I believe. HĐ (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate album covers

Hi, I noticed that you have removed two alternate artworks that I have uploaded in the past because of

WP:NFCC#3a and I understand that, however I feel the need to say that 3a only applies if "one item can convey equivalent significant information", and it just simply does not make sense to remove an alternate cover when the other cover has also been used in later releases of the same song, which means both artworks carry the same significance. For instance, you removed my alternate artworks for File:Taylor Swift - Today Was a Fairytale.png and File:Taylor Swift - Love Story (Alternate).png. The version of the artwork I uploaded for "Today Was a Fairytale" is actually the current version as per Spotify because it had a 2011 re-release. The current one on the article was the original artwork, and that cover was used for around a year. As such, I believe both artworks should be kept since they are both significant and one is not enough to convey suffice information. I can understand the removal for "Love Story" though, and I agree that the alternate cover may be pretty redundant for that one, but I believe the two artworks for the former should be kept, and I believe there are exceptions to 3a at times. Cheers! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nahnah4: I understand. Thanks for letting me know, HĐ (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The 1989 World Tour

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Half Million Award: 1989

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring 1989 (Taylor Swift album) (estimated annual readership: 715,362) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! TheSandDoctor Talk 18:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Anthony Fantano

A

WP:RSN regarding Anthony Fantano's reviews should be count as reliable. Please add your comments there if interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Thanks for the notification. I have added some comments, HĐ (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The 1989 World Tour

The article

good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The 1989 World Tour for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of New Year's Day (Taylor Swift song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 TheSandDoctor -- TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Please assume good faith and do not make false accusations

Please do not make multiple false accusations about other editors and assume bad faith, as you have done on the Beyonce talk page [1], my talk page [2] and ANI [3]. I strongly hope that you can take accountability for these actions so that we can have a constructive discussion. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgkc4444: Alright, I owe it up to you this time. I apologize for my disruptive behaviors, HĐ (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best then if you could retract your false accusations by striking them out on the aforementioned pages.

"Alright, I owe it up to you this time" - To note,

WP:AGF apply always and to every editor you interact with. This isn't about "making it up to me on this one occassion", but instead about respecting the guidelines, policies and the very pillars on which Wikipedia is based. I hope you can see that. Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Bgkc4444: I was not timely before the discussion closed. I have barely clashed with another editor, so this was one time I slipped. If you want me to undergo a reflection, then I am already on the track. No need to quote my own words to point out my flaws--because I have been working to improve civility. On your part, though, removing Christmas wishes is not very civil. I hope you in turn can see that as well. You are welcome. HĐ (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Getaway Car (Taylor Swift song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 (CA)Giacobbe -- (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of Getaway Car (Taylor Swift song)

The article

good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Getaway Car (Taylor Swift song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of (CA)Giacobbe -- (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Your GA nomination of New Year's Day (Taylor Swift song)

The article

good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:New Year's Day (Taylor Swift song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheSandDoctor -- TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Passed. Please do keep up the good work! I would encourage you to submit this to DYK. If you don't plan to, please let me know and I will do so. I like to see every eligible article get its time in the DYK section. I would also love to take this to FAC with you if you have the time and desire. I think that it is pretty darn close to being ready. What do you think? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Thank you for the GAN! I am not very fond of DYK procedures... so please feel free to nominate the article for DYK if you are interested! On a side note, Getaway Car (Taylor Swift song) has also recently been promoted to GA. I hope that article also has something interesting for a DYK hook as well, HĐ (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to nominate this for FAC... if time allows hahaha :) HĐ (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate both then tomorrow hopefully. Do you happen to have any ideas for interesting hooks? As for FAC...we can have 2 concurrent noms so....I’m game! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Allow me to regain my energy for quite a bit before we proceed to FAC, haha. For the hooks... I think "Getaway Car" can have something about the Bonnie and Clyde references. For "New Year's Day" it can be about the "scratch takes", or about the country radio release that was not very well received by some country stations... HĐ (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is great to see you have got a trio of articles to GA status in a very close time period! --K. Peake 16:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Thank you! I usually get very compulsive when it comes to improving articles, especially those within a shared scope. I am planning to retire though; I shall devote my compulsiveness to other things rather than writing encyclopedic entries haha.. HĐ (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts are much appreciated by me and other users so we will definitely miss you once the time of retirement hits; it is good to edit within a shared scope because this places particular focus on certain areas and leads to them being thoroughly improved! --K. Peake 17:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing WPSongs tag.

Any reason you are renoving WPSong tags from talkpages like

here? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Richhoncho: Hi, I think at AfD it says that remove WikiProject tags, so that's why I did so. I don't think they are technically articles to be included in WikiProjects... but anyways, educate me if I am wrong, HĐ (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that redirects are still within the remit of the various projects, including songs, see Category:Redirect-Class song articles where there are 34,000 entries, but your explanation would not explain why you left other project tags. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think songs would be probably significant to their respective artists, I kept the tags for Taylor Swift/Rihanna/Christina Aguilera etc. projects. If redirect-class is supported by WikiProject Songs, then I think it is okay to keep WPSongs tag there. Just that I did not think redirects were technically articles so I removed them altogether, HĐ (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have brought it up, "redirects are not articles" is not justification for removing categories. Please see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Meanwhile I have re-added WPSongs where they belong. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, HĐ (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Harajuku Girls

Hello HĐ. I just noticed your edit [4] on

CUTPASTE move of my exact wording, and since it seemingly occurred as a result of an active AfD discussion, I believe your nomination comment that the dance group article "already mentions" this content, which it did not on 31 December, is misleading and potentially jeopardizing. No section move had been proposed in the AfD discussion or any article talk page, which is proper protocol. I should have been attributed properly and I do not understand why I wasn't. Carbrera (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC).[reply

]

Hello, I assumed that that page was under you watchlist because it is within the Gwen Stefani WikiProject. It was insensible of me to edit without first notifying you. In my defense, however, I believe that the portions I removed were more relevant to the other article. I hope you understand, HĐ (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rare (Selena Gomez album) album covers

'Alternate covers are acceptable if they are either significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original.' 'File:Rare_(Alternate_Album_Cover)_by_Selena_Gomez.png' replace the original in Japan, that's why I would like to place that in article if it is possible. Thank you for your suggestions, I mainly work in Polish Wikipedia. We cannot use album covers at all so I don not know the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookienr272 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookienr272: No problem! Welcome to the English Wikipedia. As we do allow non-free files, sometimes the use of copyright images/files gets rather excessive. Take your time and learn! Cheers, HĐ (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a random question

Have you ever considered being an administrator? Just wondering. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu: I have never considered as such... I am not very interested in involving myself in the bureaucracy; plus I don't think I have the qualifications of being a moderator of conflicts lol. May I know why you are wondering about it? HĐ (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I was just curious. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]