May 2013 bring lots of happiness and perhaps a change for the better here on Wikipedia. Emphasis on change. I know you would love one! —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 03:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Penguin! I hope the very best for you too! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year 2013
Happy New Year 2013
I wish you a Happy New Year for 2013 :-) AARON• TALK 09:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year
Happy New Year!!
Happy New Year! I hope you have an amazing productive year, filled with happiness. Much Love,
Hello, Status, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.
Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RfAs
Hi Sandy, I noticed you've struck the votes of User:MathewTownsend, while I understand why you're doing it, I don't think it's the appropriate thing to do, the RfAs have already been closed and reflect the state of the RfA back whenever the 'crat closed; as the closing 'crat likely took into consideration that vote, I think striking it is a bit misleading :) SnowolfHow can I help? 00:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the usual in similar cases? Maybe indicate it's a sock without striking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That matters in a closed RFA because...? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Status, I don't who the heck you are or why you're popping up in these conversations, but you smell like a stinky sock to me, so bug off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you put me in the washer and find out then? If you actually think just because someone thinks that it's stupid to go and strike out every comment from a sock that I must be one of them... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's the normal practice I'm afraid :D SnowolfHow can I help? 01:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. Unless you think, for some reason, the RFA only went through because of said sock. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your behaviour on talk pages, again
I've removed the section that you copied from User:SandyGeorgia's talk page. Your talk page is not a webhost for you to post any old material you wish, especially when done solely to harass another editor. I assume you were irritated by her removal of your comments (as she is perfectly entitled to do), which in themselves were unhelpful and completely unnecessary, from a thread on her talk page, and so re-posted them here to set the record straight. That is not ok.
This is the second time in a few days I've had to tidy up dirty tricks you've played on talk pages. Three strikes and you will be blocked. Like I said last time, it's time to head back to the article namespace.
I can post any such discussion if I feel so damn well fit on my talk page. I didn't revert her deleting my comments, I moved them to mine, as I would like to have it as an archive. "Dirty tricks"? I advise you to move along. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left a simple comment on her talk, in which she in tern accused me of being a sock of a user she hasn't stopped bitching about for days. If moving that discussion to my own talk is against some guideline, please, feel free to block me. Try me. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you to review
WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and kindly revert yourself. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
And? If I want to archive a discussion in which a user was being extremely rude to me for my archives, I am entitled to do that. Yes, I saw your response on your talk page, and it seems like you believe that I can't simply comment on someone else's talk page. I am not the one who brought on the attack. You are saying two completely different things. You threaten with a block, but also advising me to let a discussion go (which I already did, the two times you actually gave me a "warning".) Oh, and how am I being childish? Simply responding to people is childish now? This seems like a status issue to me (no pun intended). Again, if you don't revert yourself, I will. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I think you're well within your right to respond to comments aimed at you, but after you responded she then removed without commenting further. I have to be completely honest - I do think that you making a copy of the already-concluded discussion here was childish, as it serves no purpose other than to score points. Look, if you really wanted an archive of the little exchange, then you could have just put it in your archive, instead of posting it here where you knew she was likely to read it. I've been as reasonable as I can be here - I've apologised for the tone of my initial post here, and tried to have a good-mannered discussion with you subsequent to that. However, the substance of my initial concern remains, and I won't be reverting. I think I have said all I have to say.
Ok, I've just read your comment on my talk page, and how about this - forget my initial comment, I am asking you, please, don't make all this horrible mess any worse by winding people up on talk pages. You're bigger than that, you have more to offer this project than that and it will help everyone if you simply let it go (the same could be said for everyone else). I had no intention to "single you out" and apologise if it felt that way.
(edit conflict) For the record, I don't display them publicly, but I have archives of every discussion that ever occurred on my talk page, as well as several other notable discussions I copied to my talk. I archive discussions at a quick rate, so it would have been archived tomorrow, anyway. I accept your apology, and have responded on your talk page. I will be archiving my talk page now. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally
Thanks for your understanding. For the record, I think what you've done there putting it in that archive page, is fine. See you around
No problem. Yes, I can assure you I wasn't trying to start anything more by adding it to my talk. As I said, I archive everything usually at once after a few days. See ya! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read about Marvel/Disney Studios relationship as you are incorrectly adding Marvel Studios as a Disney Studios subsidary. Spshu (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you followed the wikilink, it would show its full quote from that page, so no, you have just failed to read the page. --Spshu (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Status: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
My bad. Someone left a comment on my talk page regarding the Disco. so I went to look at it and saw a ton of IP edits (including countries → type of certification, which I did not know was the correct style until now) and a reference nightmare followed by reverts by a couple different editors within the past 24 hours, I figured it was all vandalism and reverted it. I guess there's much more value in those edits than originally thought! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 01:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: WikiCup
Sorry about that, you should be added. I've given you the flag of Prince Edward Island for now, but I can change it. Your submissions' page is here. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. Nominations have to be made in 2013, and significant work needs to be done in 2013. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for letting me know. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discography charts
Zach, is it necessary that we use the same charts on both album and single sections in a discography? It's the first time I'm hearing this and Till told me to ask you. 五代 (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I would. I've got some free time now, just saying. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll make a few adjustments and then re nominate it. Also, why are you insistent on this move? It's unnecessarily. Just makes the title longer and annoying.
Yes, I understand it's longer, but the article is about characters that first appeared in 2013, not every character that was on the show in 2013. The title is misleading. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but imo it's unnecessary and nobody in the hundreds of year by soap character articles have used it. I'll ask around for other opinions. Also did you here a rumor that Jen's new album will be titled Infinite..?
Can you point me towards any of such articles that are GA? No, I didn't hear that! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has ever nominated them for "GA", because they classify them as lists. If they were articles, majority of them would be GA. They are just listed as "List-Class". Still sort of unsure why you don't think they are lists. 23:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
They aren't lists. A list involves a table. They are all prose, they would be nominated for GA. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are lists because they are a chronological timeline, just of character profiles and are not in tables. But I get you and sorta agree.
It does indeed list the characters, but it would qualify for GA because it's all prose and no tables. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly all of those (other soaps) have tables for minor characters. I have added a few tables for Y&R character articles but have yet to add any tables for 2013.
Even if it has a little table in it, it's still not a list. Albums and songs have tables for release histories do they not? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meh never mind anyway a ha as I said I'm sorta of bored of soaps. I want to focus on Jenny-related stuff for a few weeks:)
I already uploaded the image file of J.Lo on the People cover so I'm hoping to include the 'celebrity status' section in her main article within the next fews days. Any thoughts on this sandbox I've been working on? Too long? Should i include rough dates (Like In June 1942 she won this, In April 1974 she was, that sort of thing?) for the awards/recognition info. I hope you're still online.
It looks much better than it was before. I don't think so, it looks fine to me! I say it's time to be added back into the article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's great. 152kb... our aim is for 150, and I'm sure we will be able to get there. Once I finish cleaning up a few of the life and career sections. Choreography and music videos needs some work, do you wanna work on that? Other than that and a few life and career sections, the article is practically done. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to expand or reduce choreography/music videos, or just fix it up?
I think it covers her most important videos, it just needs some copyediting and reorganizing. Also need to choose a music video to show as an image. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Bennifer was still going on in 2003 (and she didn't do that much in 2003), I've merged it in with 2001/02. Now, 2004/06 does not have that much information. It needs one more paragraph, but I can't think of anything else that needs to be added. Do you know anything else she did in those years that could be added to the article? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm sorry but I'm not too sure. I think it covers all the important stuff she did, sorry :\ Btw, for the music videos section should I include what year every video was in?
Damn! Well, "J.Lo, The Wedding Planner, This Is Me... Then and Bennifer (2001–03)" is the only section now that needs re-writing. Once that is done, I'll see if there is any more shuffling around of sections that I can do. Yeah, include the years. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of changing it to "Music videos and performance" and include info about her stage performing. What do u think? No use?
Can you use a different pic for the 2011-12 section? Its a good image but its already being used on her Discography page.. Meh. Btw, what do u think of Music videos and performance? Is it too long?
Hello, I was wondering how can I nominate a DYK? I've seen that many articles have been nominated, as you did for Scream & Shout a few weeks ago, but I got really confused before creating a nomination for Something New (song). I've just promoted the article to GA yesterday and expanded it five days ago. - SauloTalk to Me 23:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See this. If you have any questions about anything there that you aren't sure with, feel free to ask me. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that my schedule for the next three days is getting kind of packed, so while I'd love to get the GAN over with, I might not be able to make any/many edits until Tuesday.
Fine by me. I have a few school projects to do this weekend and on Monday I'll have school and work. Tuesday fits perfectly with my schedule. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I found some time in between previously scheduled items. Actually I had a lot of time, since I over-budgeted for one of the items rather dramatically. Whenever you've got the time. I'm in no rush.
I noticed you'd !voted. As it's likely to be removed (because the candidate hasn't yet accepted the nomination), you may wish to revert it yourself ... You can easily reinstate it, once the RFA is transcluded ;) Roger Daviestalk 16:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is now live. Please uncomment your support whenever you feel ready to do so. NW(Talk) 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it deleted? — AARON • TALK 22:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I requested it; changed my mind. (I was supposed to be doing school work... but I can't stop procreating... GRR!) — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw! It's looking good so far! I'm not really sure what else could be added. It looks pretty full for an upcoming single ATM. But whatever you need to me to do. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you find any reliable sources about them filming the video. I thought that would be the easiest part but I haven't found a single source yet :\
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYK for List of Billboard Social 50 number-one acts
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Belated congratulations on reaching the milestone of twenty-five of your articles featured in the Did you know... column of the Main Page! Your efforts are on the record and are greatly appreciated. Moonraker (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very much! I am honored! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user removed well sourced classifications past tenth place. You also reverted my corrections, such as describing Walter Villa as Venezuelan when he is Italian. Stating the positions do not require sourcing in the lead as they are clearly sourced later on. By reverting my reversion, the article is demonstrably less accurate. If you want to change the infobox, take it to the WikiProject and get consensus to do it. If you want to change the way the race articles are presented, take it to the WikiProject too because we have lots of motorcycle Grand Prix articles that would have to be edited if that was the case. I reverted Hahc21's edit as it added nothing to the article, barring a couple of pictures and a badly written lead. Readro (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the talk page is for, you don't go and revert every single edit somebody made to the article. Especially when they are a long-time contributor, that is just plain disrespectful. I'm not the one who edited the article, you don't argue you with, you argue with them. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re
I have not been abusing you, and you have been swearing at me which I have already reported you on AIV and you shall be receiving a warning soon. You just got annoyed that I found out about the single before you and you didn't like me editing the discography. Now I've prov=ved to you it is a single, you decided to merge the "featured artists" and normal singles together to so you get full credit. This shows how immature and pathetic you are. One of the worst contributors on wikipedia. Krusty111 (talk·contribs) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CloversMallRat keeps changing the LeAnn Rimes discography page and stating that "What Have I Done" is not a single and on LeAnn's official site it clearly states it is a single and "Borrowed" is the second especially here: http://leannrimesworld.com/news/117451 where in the first line it reads: "The second single off of LeAnn's upcoming album, 'Spitfire', is available now! Make sure you grab a copy today!" 184.58.0.27 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vamos a Celebrar
Hey, I just want to take the time and thank you for your work on "Vamos a Celebrar". Thanks :D Also, the live album. Thanks for that too, though, it wasn't shouting. The album's name is stylized with the last word capitalized. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing this list. I believe I have addressed your concerns. Please let me know otherwise. Thanks so much! --Another Believer(Talk) 04:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Swift discography
The Moment I Knew is a promo single as I showed the link for it also there is a news report on Taylor's site stating it has been released http://taylorswift.com/news/120541 and iTunes clearly states single but it has the album cover over a cover making it not an official single but a promo. You should look at things before you say no evidence. Thanks. 184.58.0.27 (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.
This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:
Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
Also, a quick mention of
oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell
on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
Hello
The Friendship Barnstar
Nice to meet you. Thanks for joining us at Editor of the Week```Buster Seven Talk 08:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of like a talkback
Status,
Could you take a look at my comments to Krusty on my talk page at User talk:Floquenbeam#Re: Please dial it back a notch? It affects you too. In particular, I want to make very clear what each of you are saying. You're saying you did not send him any email whatsoever, right? I'm not looking for an argument between you two on my talk page, so it might be better to answer here (or by email). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser for the email is a good idea. I'm beside myself in these "harassing email" claims, and it's getting rather annoying, and quite frankly, is quite an attack on me in a whole new level. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you sent anyone an email in the last few days? Evidently CU can't tell who the recipient is, only whether an account sent one or not. If you sent one to someone else, CU can't be used to prove anything one way or the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually rarely send out emails, I would say my last one was a few months ago. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. I'll see what transpires here... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked my inbox (as I remembered the user I had emailed) and the last email I sent out using the Wikipedia interface was on December 4. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must add his recollection of the story is quite exaggerated, for example, I never added any sources for the song and I never said anything like "I've just found this reference". — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I'm pretty confident I know what is happening here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind letting me know? (LOL) Here, or via email, whichever. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought I was gonna be hearing some big Illuminati-like conspiracy theory (LOL). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case there ever comes a time when you need to publicly clarify what happened here, you can point them to this comment. The claim that you sent a harassing email to Krusty111 is false, and he has been indef blocked for that false accusation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much for finally getting this all cleared up. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Today Was a Fairytale" Cover
Hello. I'm really sorry about the artwork thing. I had no idea they re-released it because it doesn't say it in the article. Also... Shouldn't there be an "Alternate cover" tab at the bottom of the template with the other cover? It makes more sense to me. Thanks for your time. Sorry about the confusion. ---Tsu'tey♫ (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. Well, yes, you could add that also if you'd like, as it the one that is really used if you buy the single now. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you. I'm really sorry about the confusion. I kind of assumed you were wrong simply because of the fact that I didn't look far enough into my research. I didn't bother to think about the possibility of a re-release or anything like that. Sorry again. ---Tsu'tey♫ (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Super Bowl halftime shows
I do think an infobox might prove to be helpful. Like I said, I might not create stubs for every halftime show, but I image many performances are worthy of separate articles, especially the most recent ones. I have no experience creating infoboxes, but I love the idea. Let me know if you need assistance! --Another Believer(Talk) 22:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will get on it! Shouldn't be very difficult to do, basically just adjust the current Infobox concert to meet what is needed for this type of infobox. What would you say the fields should be? Obviously, performer, date, venue, etc., but what additionally? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say date, venue, headliner, special guests, set list?, producer, director. A way to link to the Super Bowl [x number]? Good starting point. Oh, and image. --Another Believer(Talk) 22:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be added. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Krusty111
Let me know if you have any more trouble. I figured out his IP range, and have put up some more effective blocks.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will. Thank you very much! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I screwed up by putting "rowheader=yes" instead of "rowheader=true". Was the guideline you were complaining about asking for consistency, or do you think row headers are against guidelines for some reason?—Kww(talk) 03:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for the rowspans I was just removing the few that were there for consistency. I meant to say guide and not guideline, my mistake, and was referring to
MOS:ALBUM (charts and certifications are to be separate, I don't understand why they are combined so often when they aren't even close to being the same thing). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Consistently back now. "rowheader=true" in singlechart forces a row header, so they are all on, now.—Kww(talk) 04:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
There's no fancy ref formatting or anything: just the raw URL. That way there shouldn't be any arguments about appearance to keep people from using them, and I can get them all to autoupdate the next time Billboard changes everything.—Kww(talk) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! So, would you like me to start applying these to articles? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Just let me know when you hit trouble so that I can fix it.—Kww(talk) 03:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so, unlike the other templates, like SinglesChart, you still have to manually format the reference? And just include this coding under URL? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I got it. I'll start bulk changing over the weekend. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sing for Me (Christina Aguilera song)" — AARON • TALK 18:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It just directs to the main "news" page. Damn Billboard. They could have at least set it so old links would redirect to the new ones. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, guess I can't use it now. — AARON • TALK 11:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that one works. Thanks. Billboard is still fucked up for me. — AARON • TALK 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hadn't actually noticed any problems with it until that article. Very strange. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As in the entire website is just symbols, I can't look at any chart. There are no English words anywhere. — AARON • TALK 18:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could show me a screencapture? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I use this program. With the desktop version, whenever you go to print screen something, it comes up with a little crop box and the ability to edit it and upload it quickly to the web. I find it very useful. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The genre of "In the Zone" should also include hip-hop. The quotes from the reviews from The Guardian and Slant Magazine on the page also list that as a genre and they are already sourced and can be used as a reference for this. User5482 11:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A "hip hop style" is not a genre. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed as one of the genres in many of the sourced reviews, it's also in AllMusic and About. How else can a genre be sourced if it's not taken from professional reviews? User5482 11:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're gonna have to provide a source that specifically calls the album of the hip hop genre. All I can see in the article now is that it is in hip hop style, and style is not a genre. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
...I reverted your reversion to Hahc's userpage. Advertising your RFA is optional not a requirement - he chose to remove it intentionally. Cheers (
Shout In the Rainbow!! to "Shout in the Rainbow"? You removed the capitalization from "In" and then omitted the two exclamation points (seemingly because it's on the title blacklist).—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Very old move. Well, "in" shouldn't have been in caps and then yeah, it was on the blacklist. It appears it's been fixed now. Status 23:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I went offline abruptly, my Sony laptop decided to have spasms and is still not working properly, so I am using my MacBook instead, but I can't download Google Talk as it isn't compatible with Apple software lol. — AARON • TALK 19:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's aright. I really haven't been online much lately. I can go on MSN if you want. Status 19:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added you. Status 19:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Truth About Love Tour Setlist
Hi, I'm sorry about the confusion we had earlier over the setlist for P!nk's The Truth About Love Tour. I just wanted to say that I know some info came from forums, but Rolling Stone magazine and P!nk's official forums are both reliable sources, are they not? Plus, several sources have stated "Trouble" is part of the setlist. ---Tsu'tey♫ (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found a better source (that includes the setlist in a full list) and added it to the article. Status 01:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate that, and I'm sorry for the confusion. What about the other three songs mentioned? Rolling Stone specifically stated P!nk included "True Love" in one of her shows. I think at least that one should be included somewhere in the article. The other two, I can see why they wouldn't be included in it, because the sources I had for them were forums, but... I think we should mention that P!nk included "True Love" in the setlist. If we keep having problems, we'll just leave it as it is now, and I can update it next month because I will be attending one of the concerts for this tour, so.... But again, sorry about the confusion. Thanks for finding a better source. ---Tsu'tey♫ (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata and Interwiki links
Please stop removing interwiki links from Wikipedia as you are currently removing links that are not yet on wikidata, see User:Addbot/log/wikidata. ·Add§hore·Talk To Me! 01:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have requested a peer review for Lana Del Rey's article. Since you are on the volunteers list I am asking you if you may peer review that article. Thanks, teammathi (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bot Request
You might try chiming in at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 53#Billboard URL repair about how great it would be for someone to write code that just fixed it everywhere. I'm not getting any responses from bot developers.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if you think I was calling you desperate. I meant that random search of sources to try and justify "Good Hit" was a promotional single was desperate. Its been taken out of context. But on a separate note, what's happened around here? Legolass got done for faking references, several others got in trouble for socking. Everyone seems really short all the time. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 17:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I apologize if I made it sound like I took it that way. I meant to say that me trying to find additional sources, not simply me. I was in the midst of writing an essay for English, so I wasn't completely here, if you know what I mean. I'll just let any other person who wants to state their business. I've said all I've had to say. And yeah, I know! It's crazy. Nobody from our days are around anymore, haha. Status 18:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check out the article i'm trying to make please and let me know what you think of it? Thanks. --Matt723star (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to
reliable sources. I think it has promise, however, such websites on Tumblr are not reliable sources. Let me know if you have any questions. Status 02:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Aw that's awesome to hear! I've been trying to make this a legit page forever. I used to move the article myself but I did it so much they banned me from making a "Most Popular Girls in School page lol. So I have it in my sandbox hoping a big wig will see it and help me out with the journey. I was wondering, because I'm relevantly new here, could you help me out with some of the glitches in the reference section? --Matt723star (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ANI
Zach, I asked Axel to help me out with this yesterday. He replied today. I did not know where to report. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, that's how I came across what happened. Ridiculous. Someone can debate whether or not the fandom shit is a personal attack, but misogynist is just 100000% unacceptable. I seriously cannot believe that. That's the worst thing I've actually ever seen someone call someone. Just, wow. Of course. Status 07:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He deleted some of my msgs on his talk page. And by the way, this is simply the limit. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for I Don't Give A (song)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Delivered by
Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nelly Furtado's Loose
Out of curiosity, why did you upload File:Loose cover.jpg and make this edit to the Loose (Nelly Furtado album) article? You duplicated a file that's been there for over 5 years, and now we need to go through through the deletion process to get one of them removed. Granted, it won't be too hard... But next time, just overwrite the existing file. Tom™(2¢) 17:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyonce
Relink that link to the Beyonce good article assessment page please. --
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the
to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants
to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Reply at my talk page. You may add it to your watchlist. --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Mirrors (Justin Timberlake song)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Um I did 1 revert on his videography page because I've had veteran editors nail me for doing exactly what was done to filmographies, they all go to the
WP: Filmography page as reference. You're telling me you really think how they had it looked better? Having box office numbers, directors, ect looks better? It makes it look cluttered and none of that is necessary when the film/tv has ALL of that on it's page anyway or should. But whatever. Lady Lotus (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Adding such information when the filmography section is on a biography article is undue, yes, but when it is its own separate article, and the purpose of it all is to display all the information? Then no. That's not my problem anyway,
WP:FILMOGRAPHY isn't a Wikipedia policy, it's a guideline. It can be followed, but not enforced. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Please ban user Xekoxeko
See his edits to Halo, and my page, after you had warned him. Uberaccount (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chartbot review
The bot to repair the Billboard site revision catastrophe has undergone its initial test run (see Special:Contributions/Chartbot). I uncovered a few small bugs in the initial edits, but any that I didn't revert are, to the best of my knowledge, good. If you have any issues with it, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chartbot is the place to bring them up.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll be sure to keep an eye out! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Weeknd
Thanks for the barnstar. The album (article) deserved better. Could you drop a comment at
First, the ten review limit has been exceeded. Next, the two sputnik reviews do not match the one in prose is not for the score in the table. Then, you either have to put both in the table and put in the prose for both or delete? Lastly, this is why I favored deletion! Not that I have the need or care to delete or keep a review one way or the other.HotHat (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, both are staff reviewers, so both carry equal weight and must be reported on here if the site is used to begin with. This site is similar to Jesus Freak Hideout and New Release Tuesday, who sometimes have double staff reviewer, so both must be taken or left out.HotHat (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Why did you remove the edit I made to the page? I thought it was good, factual and non-biased? Are you writing your own concert synopsis then? — Preceding Deem97k comment added by Deem97k (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for FutureSex/LoveSound
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Definitely the best or maybe eventually one of the best albums of the decade :). It's awesome! WB JT! :D — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the top three for sure, along with
Paradise. As a few reviewers said, it's like he never left! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't agree for this too, but however, yeah the reviewers are totally right ! :D — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Access denied, but if you're talking about that one with the lollipop, white background and ugly text, fake. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:No Hay Igual for things which need to be addressed. DivaKnockouts 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
A Madonna wannabe is a "a trend in the 1980s of women (as well as men) dressing like pop star Madonna." — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this term still used today (in various part of the world) and not only by "dressed". What happens is that the article itself is poorly written. Best regards,
Regardless, adding a "see also" link, referring to their whole existence is ridiculous. Besides, the article doesn't even have anything to "see also" about. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but No, no and no. This is not ridiculous, because inevitably is an article (which term is still used) related to these artists and is added in the right context (e.g. influences, public image...). Why do we have to be judges of this information? We must let the reader is informed about it. This is completely common sense (One of the five pillars of Wikipedia). Best all,
But the reader is not informed about it. All they see is a "see also" link with no justification. Now that is common sense. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A have question: What is not justified? That is an article (which term is still used) related to these artists?. This will always be common sense.
It's inclusion. I don't see any mention of them being called a "Madonna wannabe" in the article. So what use is it, again? It may be true, but the article doesn't mention it. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My estimated, please all in stride. Kylie Minogue, Gaga or Spears and other mentioned copiously to Madonna as influences on them. This is inevitable both in the words of the artists themselves, and of the press (globally, not only in English). Therefore, it is an article about the artists, because it is a term that is still in use (beyond that, as synonyms) and is properly included in the proper context: influences or public image. Best regards,
P.S. For example this book is a example that Gaga has been called as such ("He refers to her as a "Madonna copy cat" and a "Madonna wannabe") — Preceding
Hi Status! Talking of which, I'm just curious as to why did you reversed Justin Bieber after I added about the murder plot? Anyways, nice to meet you! :)
Hey Status, just so we're clear, I didn't revert your edits regarding the promotional singles in the Kelly Clarkson discography. I just fixed the tables and updated the sales from the latest reliable source. But I reverted it back to my last edit, because of consisted reversions about the promotional singles section. If you still insist that "Get Up" and "I'll Be Home for Christmas" are singles, you may want to talk to Aspects about that to reach a consensus, because he's the one who reverted it back as promotional singles. I'll be fine with whatever consensus you two will reach. Chihciboy (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Boomerang (song)
nominate
) 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I need a reviewer for a GAC
Hi! I've been working on this article for the last months and I already nominated it, but I'm having a hard time finding a reviewer. I noticed you got some experience reviewing music-related article, so I guess you'd be a good one for this article. I'd appreciate if you could take the time!
Hi Status! I'm writing an article for an album, and I want to know how to create an article for a tour. This is my sandbox. I've never written an article about a tour so I don't know which information should be left on the album article and which should not. Thanks. Erick (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, for a tour, information should include:
Background: Some information about an act's previous experience with touring and some information about the album in which the tour was launched in support of. Something that the reader would need to know to understand other things in the article. Information about the tour's announcement could also be included here.
Development: How the tour came about. For example, who was chosen to direct it, what is the theme of the tour, etc.
Synopsis: A description of a typical performance during the tour. What songs were performed, maybe what the act was wearing, etc. Concert reviews generally cover this info.
Critical reception: Don't think this one really needs explaining.
Commercial performance: How many tickets were sold, what shows sold out, or lack of selling would go here.
And then we have a list for opening acts, set list, personnel and a table for the tour dates.
Of course, everything depends on the tour and must be adjusted to fit said needs.
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, call me Zach. And take a look at Zoo TV Tour for an example. It's the only FA tour article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zach! You the man! ;) Erick (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have time for a peer review?
Hi Status! Over the past couple of weeks, I've revamped the Demi Lovato biography article. Before I nominate it for GA, I thought it would be best to have it go through a peer review first. Since you've made such great contributions to music articles, do you have any freetime to give the page a lookthrough? :-) WikiRedactor (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Melin
I was just about to remove that, seemed dubious. Thanks. — Robin(talk) 18:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Taylor-Johnson
I see you moved Aaron Johnson's page from Aaron Taylor-Johnson to Aaron Johnson. But he is now credited in his film roles as "Aaron Taylor-Johnson". Doesn't that make it his common name? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I may be wrong in this case and may not just be entirely familiar with him, but from 2001 until 2011, he was known as Aaron Johnson. Only since 2012 has he been known as Aaron Taylor-Johnson. So for the majority of his career, he has been credited as Aaron Johnson, so that would be his most common name. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But aren't these things supposed to go by present common name? IMDB calls him Aaron Taylor-Johnson. I mean, if he was born a Methodist and was a Methodist for 20 years, but converted to Church of Scotland in 2012, wouldn't we list him as Church of Scotland? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing an article title to a religion isn't an accurate comparison. See this discussion for a similar issue. A quick Google search of "Aaron Johnson" comes up with 205 million results, while "Aaron Taylor-Johnson" comes up with 64 million results. It's clear what he is commonly known as. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is when someone changes an attribute about themselves, the article should change to reflect that. His "common name" is the name he uses to be billed in movies, and that name is now Aaron Taylor-Johnson. The definition of "common name" isn't time-dependant. BTW, in the Lily Allen example you mention, Allen did not release any new albums or music credited under her new name. That's not the case here. Johnson's most recent films, Anna Karenina (poster from August 2012) and Savages (poster from September 2012), bill him as "Aaron Taylor-Johnson" above the title. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, two of his films credit him as Taylor-Johnson, while 18 credit him as just Johnson. I can't explain it any better. A common name is what most people know you by, not what you are currently known as. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, his two most recent film credits, not two random film credits throughout his career. That's the point. The phrase "most people know you by" makes no sense to me. What "most people" allegedly "know" or don't "know" has no relevance to factual information. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what the Wikipedia guidelines are for naming. I agree that a person's current name should be the title, however, that is against our policy here. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Parker (2013 Film) Budget".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after
talk page
discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are
dispute resolution forums
.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be
the other editors
. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{
subst:drn-notice
}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with
four tildes
"~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 17:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help?
In my sandbox, I've put together some references for a page I'm creating, but they turn up red when you click them. Why does this happen? They're all perfectly healthy links. --Matt723star (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the {{ from them. They should appear in this format: <ref>http://website.com</ref>. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review
Hello Status. I see that you helped review Sharon Newman for GA and was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing Cane Ashby for GA as well. I've been working on it for almost two months and it would be great to get it to GA status. I understand you're probably busy, I just thought I'd ask. Please let me know at your earliest convienence. Thanks! Regards, Creativity97 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for the late reply), But I don't really have the time. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article Nominations Request For Comment
A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.
At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.
If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.
Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.
DYK for Pusher Love Girl
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey Status, could you please tell me what the word "fugitivity" means in this context? Seems to be extremely rare and is unknown to the following dictionaries which were the first I got with google -- not defined, not defined and unrelated. Incidentally, I have linked "she-ro" to Wiktionary. Cheers Moriori (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stage in the character's life when she was a runaway; a fugitive. I thought of the word choice to be a little odd myself, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Status, that means you assessed this GA with a word which you can't truly explain. Do you think you could amend that subheading in the article? Moriori (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that means that a reviewed this GA that I felt the word to be acceptable. If you can think of a better word, please, feel free to insert it into the article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say "fugitive", because that doesn't seem right in a heading. Something like "Life on the run and alter ego" would be too long. There is nothing wrong with Fugitivity. The word is self-explanatory.
"There is nothing wrong with Fugitivity". Please explain where that word is defined, and what it means. My question to Status was and remains "please tell me what the word fugitivity means". Moriori (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... is now deleted. Not sure why it took so long to do it, looks like you tagged it a day and a half ago. You can move whatever you were planning to move now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The person could just be posting the cover and claiming it was done by them. The official website of Nelly's management would not upload a fake cover. They also showed it on their Facebook account. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pie for you!
Oh come on...you didn't get my point about Wizardman..or the allusion to Jeanette Rankin...my point was that he should know better because we hold crats to be as good as they can be...and in that one instance, I felt he wasn't. MONGO 05:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Status,
I am not trying to argue or cause a rift, however I am curious as to why you are the one who constantly reverts and changes my edits. While I respect that everything should be sourced, you completely undo everything I edit even when it is sourced. I understand we aren't a "wikia", so I wouldn't cite anything that isnt a reliable reference. Also, I like to make articles look like other articles. Nearly every single tour page has a 'Box office score data' section as well as a 'cancellations and rescheduled shows' segment. I don't understand why the Diamonds World Tour article and the Truth About Love article should be any different. It's getting really tiring working hard to edit an article only to find later that someone undid all the work. I am trying to be peaceable and understanding and I trust that you will try to do the same. Please value other people's hard work while others value yours.
I understand you, however, the way other articles look doesn't mean everything has to look the same. It's really quite pointless to have a separate box office table, as it is much easier for the reader to see everything at once. They can see "Hey! This is what city in took place, country, venue, how much people went there and how much it grossed!" at once place, you know what I mean? As for cancellations and rescheduled shows, a table just adds extra space that isn't really needed. Adding a simple note gives the reader exactly what they need to know, without overdoing it. There are really no guidelines for tour articles, and I apologize if I have made you feel like I am constantly reverting/changing your edits for some strange reason, as that's true. Like you, I am just trying to better the encyclopedia. But please, of course, I am open to discussion about it. I just don't feel that because so and so article is one way, all articles must be like that. That's not a reason to keep it like that. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! I do see your point, and either way the article still looks good. Thanks for understanding!
— TheMadonnaMusicCN (talk, contribs) 10:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zac,
Just been super busy with my undegraduate research project TBH. I've lost my passion for wikipedia after the new wave of editors joined and its become really catty lol! Yes I still think Cassie is criminally under-rated! I dont think we'll ever get a proper album from her. I'd like to see her collaborate with David Guetta for his next album. It would really raise her profile i think. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 22:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with the project! Aww, yeah, I know what you mean. It can be a real bitch around here. I've tried to leave... but I just can't bring myself to. She really is and I don't think so either. She has already worked with the biggest names in the business and nothing has helped (lol). I just want her to do her thing, I don't care about its success. Just glad she's finally releasing something. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.
Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with
)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.
Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.
A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and admit to it now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Ok, so you've created a half dozen AfD's, MfD's, and god knows what else. Can we call it a day yet? You're just making work for other people. Also, you may not realize that every time you nominate an article for deletion using Twinkle, it leaves a confusing notice on someone's talk page. And, every time those AfD's get closed, it leaves a confusing message on the article talk page. Are you going to go back and clean up that mess? ‑Scottywong| speak _ 03:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that and was going around to clean up the mess myself. Extraterrestrial life was gonna be my last one. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious to know why this is the case. Et3rnal 20:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's the definition of what a promo single is. "Go Missin'" was just released for free download on Soundcloud. To be a single, it would need to be sold for profit. See promotional recording. Zach 21:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Timberlake discography
Hey, Status. I happened to pass on by this page, and there were a few changes I've noticed that have left me a little curious.
Why have you reduced the maximum number of charts in each table to only eight? Ten is, of course, the maximum: according to the page history, you removed France in particular for not "representing success". The choice of charts is entirely arbitrary, but if we only added countries in which large amounts of success had been received, then artists that only enjoyed success in their home country, for instance, would be screwed (off the top of my head, virtually every American country singer, most of their rappers or someone continental European artist like DJ Antoine or Timati). Instead of only choosing really successful countries, it would make more sense to choose ten countries in which Timberlake has achieved the most success: that way, we're expressing a more detailed spread of his chart performance, as it seems somewhat biased just to give the most successful ones. Surely there are more that eight possibles with this logic, anyway?
The reliability of Zobbel.de has long been an issue. It appears to have been set up by a man named Tobias Zywietz in 1996 (based on the domain name, the site is based in Germany). According to this, he claims to get his information from two reliable UK chart newsletters: MusicWeek and UKChartsPlus, which both cover the positions up to 200. Basically, then, if you believe him, unless he is violating copyright (which, based on the age of the site, I am not inclined to believe or the 70-year old OCC would have removed it by now) then his site is a reliable source.
Hey Rufus. No, no... That's what I meant in removing France. I wasn't calling the country successful; half of his singles didn't even chart there, and the album peaks weren't very good there either. And he also has one single certified there. I was going to replace them right away, but since he just released a new album, decided to wait to see how the recent stuff goes. As for zobbel.de, if he gets the information from them, why can we just not get the information them instead? The website itself is self published. If I created a website that publishes the positions for the Bubbling Under chart in the US, can it be cited? Zach 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Strawberry Bubblegum
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
There's a discussion about the title of this album on its talkpage
here. Since you were the one who moved it I think it would benefit from your input. Specifically the policy that states the dash should be replaced with a colon. Thanks, James086Talk 17:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
c_meindl (talk·contribs) 10:45, 6 February 2014 Taking a WikiPedia class and had to join a WikiProject. I am interested in supplementing song stubs and articles!
[[User:<Pushandturn>|<Pushandturn>]] ([[User talk:<Pushandturn>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Pushandturn>|contribs]]) 00:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC) optional: Im a longtime U2 fan and I went to the U2 360 tour and love sharing their music!
Currently, I am seeking an opinion at Talk:Lana Del Rey#Performances section. Since you are a frequent contributor to this article or related articles, I approached you for input. If you have any ideas, please feel free to list them there. Thanks! Additionally, I made some changes to Burning Desire (song) that caused me to undo or severely alter some of your contributions. If you would like to look over the article and send me a message with any concerns, I would greatly appreciate it. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes on the Taylor Forrester page
Begging your pardon, honestly. :) The mistakes needed to be corrected and a previous poster had listed the changes he/she made. There was no hit and run, Taylor stayed with the car. The 'pregnancy/miscarriage' talked about concerning Brooke was never proven. Hunter Tylo's career was not like Arre has it listed and it's speculation, Arre nor anyone else knows why Hunter Tylo was let go from Bold, Brad Bell nor anyone else stated what was on Arre's version that said Brad was letting Hunter go to proceed with other stories. It seems that article was written by someone who was not a Taylor/Hunter fan and while I'm not one either, I do know misuse of facts when I see them and total outright non-facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.172.163 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take the image issue on "Heart Attack" to the talk page. I've warned Thevampireashlee as well.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did start a discussion on the talk page, and it was ignored, and the picture was restored anyway by Thevampireashlee, even after I asked him to discuss it. Zach 00:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just spotted that. She seems to be talking now.—Kww(talk) 00:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks bud. I'll look at yours this weekend (which starts on Thursday night, 3 day weekend, woohoo); I've been super busy with school work. Zach 19:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Just letting you know that I've done the GA review for "Little Miss Obsessive". There's only one little tweak that needs to be made, and once it is completed I'll be able to pass the article. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wel'll leave the reference as it is, and I'll pass the article! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; thanks buddy! Zach 21:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They do not look the same, the one that Status uploaded is with better quality. — Tomíca(T2ME) 06:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They actually do look the same, regardless of quality, it's the same image, you can barely tell a difference. It is just splitting hairs. NYSMy talk page 07:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... while the size has tripled. Same with File:Rihanna - Rude Boy Cover.jpg vs. File:Rude Boy.png. I do not agree that the quality was improved there, and uploading cover images like those as PNGs does in my opinion not make sense. Amalthea 08:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the Good Girl Gone Bad cover, the original uploaded photo was stretched. If you compare them side by side, you can see this. Same with the PNG vs JPEG. PNG is of better quality, and that's a fact. "Rude Boy" features the correct colouring, and is taken directly from the iTunes Store. Same with Good Girl Gone Bad. Zach 17:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lossy compression can by definition not be truer to the original than a losslessly compressed image, but that is not the only relevant criterion. Download size/speed is another, particularly for mobile devices and places without broadband connection. With the cover photos I see in your recent uploads, I am certain I could always upload a noticeably smaller JPG version and you wouldn't be able to tell which is which -- in particular since the source image is almost always a JPG as well. E.g. File:Jennifer Lopez - J.Lo.png vs. File:Jennifer Lopez - J. Lo - CD album cover.jpg: The JPG has a light 1px border for some reason, but other than that the JPG is visually the same at half the size. Visible compression artifacts need to be fixed by uploading a better version, but the goal should be 'as big as necessary, as small as possible'. Going always for the PNG makes no sense. Amalthea 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that I don't think the goal of including album artwork is to give the clearest, highest quality possible image, but more to give a basic idea of what the cover looks like, and JPG achieves that. NYSMy talk page 19:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Melbourne show on october 1, 2013: Can You search a good source for this fact ? It's real. 100% sure! Because when I search a source, the source isn't good according to you.JLeemans1 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help
Can you please help us file an ANI (or whatever that is called) against Aichik? Look who has been attacked lately by Ai.... Jivesh1205 (Talk) 01:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the film a while ago, its not one Tim Burton's best films, in my opinion. I not even familiar with the TV series that the film is based on, but to me I felt the film by its self was very off and half executed. By the way, just out out curiosity, if you could name your top ten favorite Tim Burton films, what would they be? QuasyBoy(talk) 05:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is not one of his best, and neither am I; I still found it enjoyable none-the-less. I've only actually seen ten of his films, I have been working on buying them all, however. I don't think I could name a favorite. Edward Scissorhands is definitely up there. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? I love it! They should have included it on the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 17:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing! They really should have; I'm so dumbfounded that they didn't. But I've come to realize that in ending her contract with Epic, she could only take leaked songs with her to Island. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Media rationales
Just copy-pasting rationales that are already there really is bad form- it completely defeats the point of having separate and specific rationales, as is required by the NFCC. Not only that, but it (almost inevitably) introduces inaccuracies. In this case, for instance, the piece is not "Used to illustrate article about song". The purpose section is there so that the importance of the piece for the article can be explained; it's there that you explain what that particular sample adds, and why it is needed in the article. This is particularly important in this case, when you use three separate samples. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How are you? Legolas was asking about all of us and he wants a group chat with me, you, Tom, WP and Tbhotch. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've... been better. Battling the flu at the moment. Just tell me when. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I surely will. I hope you get fully fit very soon. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have time for a GA review?
Hey Zach! I've been asking around if anyone would be interested in reviewing the GAN for Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded – The Re-Up, but so far I haven't been able to find a user with the time or interest. Might you interested in taking this one on? The article's not too long, so I would imagine the review wouldn't take too much time to do. (No worries either way!) WikiRedactor (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on a completely other note, I requested the move for Femme Fatale (Britney Spears album) to Femme Fatale (album) to see if a consensus could be reached this time. Several editors oppose for a supposedly ambiguous disambiguation; since you brought up the Thriller (album) example in the first place, might you be interested in commenting on the discussion? You'd probably have a more convincing argument than myself. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey; sorry for the late reply. I'll see if I can get to it this weekend. I think before such a move can take place, I think a new discussion should begin whether or not to use primary topics for albums, as it seems pretty controversial(ish) in some cases. Seems more like a wider thing that needs to be fixed. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen
I'm just wondering why you removed the awards section -- since you didn't give a reason. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for this very late reply! :O
Im new to wikipedia and what i did was a mistake, thanks for fixing it btw.
Any advice you can give to me about editing pages would be greatly apreciated.
Sign up for the May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Birthday Zach!
Happy Birthday
from the
Birthday Committee
Wishing Status a very happy birthday on behalf of the
As a courtesy, I've regraded the above article to C-class. There is no way an article of that length is start class. If you want, feel free to revert.--Launchballer 10:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Ain't It Funny (Murder Remix)
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! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Mi Reflejo
Hey Zac! Thanks for the cleanup for Mi Reflejo. How does the article hold up to you? Erick (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! It's looking great! Good job! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man! :) You know, I was looking at "No Me Ames" again, and I wondering, do you think it might have a shot at being FA? Erick (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... I think it's gonna need some more work, but why not? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Status. I currently have an FLC out for Taio Cruz discography, but reviews have not been pouring in, to put it mildly, and since I can only have one open nomination at a time I'm struggling to get other projects finished (it has been out for nearly two months now). I understand you're a busy editor, but would you able to give me some comments at the FLC, so I will know how to improve it and hopefully finally get it passed? Your ideas and time would be greatly appreciated. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Albums
Per
WP:NALBUMS
, since when does having a cover and release date make an album notable?
I've been better... very busy. How have you been? I never stated that it is notable because it has a cover and release date, but that proves that the album is coming soon. Even without that, I'm sure the article could be expanded (a lot) to prove its notability. I would, but I really don't have the time. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same really! its bloody exam season but the warm weather has cheered me up massively. In reference to the edit, reverting it when I redirected the album saying its not yet notable, implies you thought it was notable. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 19:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposite for me... the weather has made me cranky. I don't like the heat. xD The Don't Look Down article is shit, with all honestly. The point is that it could be expanded more to prove that it's notable. I'll try to add a few things, as I have nothing to do this evening. BTW, just say the cover to Talk a Good Game... very... interesting. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I agree I think until expansion happens it would be better redirected but meh! Yeah im very disappointed with the cover tbh. Its all very half-hearted so far. Tbh the album sounds really well put together. The cover and styling for Kisses Down Low was really cool, yet the album cover is massively bland. She's not promoted this album at all! NOT a single live performance of the song. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing
Also Status, please don't undo the addition of {{
WP:BOLD) and I don't think it should be reverted without a good reason for why... (which should not include, "I don't like mid-bullets). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 13:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
Indeed you have... it looks great! Haha! A lot of work changing it... though. No more need for using   anymore it seems! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yes! like you can use &Nbsp; but I only just realised the track listing still appears different on every screen. I only worked out the issue after temporarily using a 15" screen then noticed differences when you use a 19" screen. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 21:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least it now adjusts itself to different screens. BTW... I didn't ask you... how do you feel about JLo's new single? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im really excited! I heard a snippet and it sounds extremely summery. Disappointed it features Pitbull (yet again)! she should have asked Enrique or someone else. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 21:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I am very disappointing... I was so excited when word got out that she was finally working with Cory Rooney again. I had such hopes... Now another RedOne-produced Pitbull-featured song about dancing. Yawn. BTW, did you hear about her changing labels again? Now she's with Capitol Records and RedOne's label. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Hits Daily Double reported she'd joined RedOne's label but his 2021 records is with CashMoney. Perhaps Rooney has an imprint at Capital. It was weird cause her contract was tied to LA Reid so when he moved, she did. She seemed happy under his guidance. weird she moved if she has... She's apparently replacing Carey on Idol next season — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 21:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Status. I'm here to ask you for your assistance in resolving a few matters in some Disney articles. Below, I've provided links to the respective talk pages where the two main contentions are being discussed and a brief description of the issue at hand.
A.
The Walt Disney Studios but simultaneously as an active subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company
.
B. Issue #2 - Whether the studios' distribution unit as a whole or one of that unit's specific film banners (e.g. Disney, Touchstone, etc.) should be identified as the distributor in the respective infobox parameter for all film releases.
I would greatly appreciate your input since neither discussion has gained any traction without there being disagreements and edit reversions erupting every now and then, hindering the chances of a consensus ever being reached. I'm also asking the same from other editors, in an effort to gather as much diverse opinions as possible, in the hopes of reaching a consensus that satisfies every editor's concern. Thank you, ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a peak at the discussions in a few hours. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with
Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions
) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.
The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.
A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
I have added "Survey" and "Discussion". I wonder if I can move some of our comments to "Discussion" subsection. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded for things which need to be addressed. jonatalk to me 02:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
Could you tell me why "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely" is Aguilera's single as the main artist, not as the featured artist? — HĐ (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because she is the main artist; it is credited as a duet, and not as a featured artist. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
There was no need to change the title of the article! This article uses an ampersand, but other articles use "and." You should change that back because there was no need to move the article! ChicagoWiz 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And? What's the point? "&" and "and" mean the same thing. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain something to you: I don't like your attitude, so you better watch who you're talking to! Just figure out a way to change it back! There was no need for you to change it in the first damn place! ChicagoWiz 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the new standards on Wikipedia definining promotional singles as "free" only when I edited
Marina and the Diamonds discography
, I am having an issue with an editor who insists a song by the title "Radioactive" is a promotional single, even though it is not promotional by these mentioned standards. Could you provide a source for me or something among those lines explaining that a promotion single is a free, non-commercial release.
Sure thing! I'll begin the review page and finish the full review before the end of the week. Regards, WikiRedactor (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware there is a difference between an executive producer and actual record producer of an album, right. Scott Borchetta is not the latter, he's an exec, in other words he handles the business side of the album being made. Which is why I added "(exec.)" next to his name in this edit: [8], which you removed for some reason. If you insist on having his name added to the infobox, it should be known that he is an executive producer, to distinguish from the actual record producers on the album. QuasyBoy(talk) 07:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Live It Up
Its silly to list every country on iTunes, see
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Remember the whole debate over at Talk:Trouble (Leona Lewis song)? In this instance as it looks like the song was released pretty much around the world on May 8, 2013 it might be worth listing it as "worldwide" with a single iTunes reference. Telling the reader that the song was released in Singapore, the Philippines etc. is tedious and tiresome particularly as these countries do not have a corresponding music chart and are relatively small markets. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 14:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
Ah no, how comes? — AARON • TALK 19:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the end of my final year of HS coming up, and preparing my life for next year and beyond... I can't be distracted. I'll be back late next month/July. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
June 24th seems like a good date to return. That was me, last night, stressed to the max and rage retiring. Gotta stop doing that! WikiBreak Zach, WikiBreak! They exist!! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah kk. HS meaning high school? I have my final Bachelor's exam Tuesday. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have my final undergrad exams this month. Going travelling in my couple of months off and then starting my Masters degree. — AARON • TALK 09:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abou Jennifer Lopez Feelin so good
Why do you rever my version of the home video: Jennifer Lopez - Feelin So Good??? The tracklist of the dvd is important. Without it the page seem weird.--
I saw your corrections and passed the article, good work! And enjoy your Wikibreak, I (and surely several others) am looking forward to your return! :-) WikiRedactor (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another hook to come up with? Someone said that the original hook is too opinionated. --George Ho (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Don't Hold the Wall
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You undid the redirect, but didn't provide any sources. There's no source in the article confirming a tracklist or release data. The closest there is is https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/stars-dance/id656454307 but that's a dead link: no album exists at that link. Why did you undo the redirect?—Kww(talk) 00:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sign up for the June blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox single, you only include information on the original/first version of a song. That's why remixes usually get a separate section/infobox, we include the first album that the song was released on, the length of the first version as that's what the track listing/format section of an article is for. same principle with album infoboxes, you only include the length of the standard edition even if the deluxe is different. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 21:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per Sanity.com.au, the cover in the article was the one used for the international CD single for "Give It Up to Me". Per the principles of
WP:NFCC, where multiple covers exist the one which is more difficult to explain in words and thus more detrimental to the understanding and identification of the article is most significant. Since the cover you're adding is just words etc. it makes more sense to use the cover that has an image of Shakira on it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 11:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Scratch that. apparently the full international CD single was scrapped and limited one was released instead. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 11:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to bring this up again, since you ignored my last message [9] and undid my edit here again: [10], but what is the harm in having (exec.) added to the infobox next to Scott Borchetta's name. Are removing it because it looks ugly or something? If it is informative to the reader, appearance should not matter. Having a hidden text saying that he is an executive producer, hardly serves any real purpose at all. Just looking at the infobox without going into the editing text (to see the hidden "executive producer" text), any casual reader is going to think that Borchetta is a regular record producer, which he is not, which is even further evidenced by going to the track listing and seeing that he is not one of the actual record producers. I would just like a solid straightforward answer from you, if you don't mind. QuasyBoy(talk) 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I already stated that we don't say "Name (music)" in the infobox. What is the difference? The "Producer" field itself links to an article that says "Today, the recording industry has two kinds of producers: executive producer and music producer". If we're going to denote the executive producer, then music producer would have to as well. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink to the article Record producer, which is in all the album infoboxes in Wikipedia, is primarily about the role of the record producer, not executive producers, who only handle the business side of the album being made. This is why I am singling out Borchetta of all the producers in the infobox, because he is not an actual record producer like Jeff Bhasker, Nathan Chapman, etc., who actually produced songs for the album. If you insist on not letting it be shown that Borchetta is an exec to actually differentiate from the other record producers on the album, his name should just be removed altogether, and leave the actual record producers in the infobox. QuasyBoy(talk) 17:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are two types of record producers; executive and music producer. Scott is an executive (who oversees the process of every song), while Jeff and Nathan are music. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but when the casual reader sees Borchetta's name listed in the producer parameter, they are going to think that he a regular producer like Bhasker and Chapman. Which is why "(exec.)" has been used for years in Wikipedia, to differentiate between execs and regular record producers. QuasyBoy(talk) 17:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CFD
Hello; you recently participated in a discussion about Category:Reissue albums, which I closed as "no consensus". The category has now been re-nominated for deletion; you may be interested in participating in this second nomination. The discussion is here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've reviewed Cold Case Love, and have made suggestions for improvements on its review page. I've placed it on hold for 7 days. Et3rnal 17:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is WDYLM a single now? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance for a review?
Sorry to bother you but this FAC has been up since April 21 and I was wondering if you would be kind enough to leave a review? It would be very much appreciated. Best, jonatalk to me 19:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject AFC needs your help... again
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
What is exactly your problem with me since day 1? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with your actions of making (how it seems) every less-successful single of Beyonce a "promo single".
Beyoncé Knowles discography being at FLC gave a opportunity to make such corrections, and the nominator of the article was in agreement on the matters. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Would you deem "
Green Light" a single or a promo single? It was only released digitally, not to radio or CD single. Same as "Daddy"... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You know very well that this is false > "making (how it seems) every less-successful single of Beyonce a 'promo single'". Calling "Dadday" a single is beyond ridiculous. No word can qualify this. The world know "Crazy in Love" as the lead single and "Baby Boy" was the follow up. There no point in having a conversation with you. Goodbye and thanks for making of each and every second I spent here unpleasant. But you won't experience this pleasure anymore. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your contributions to bring "Pusher Love Girl" to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Robin (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you move a page, don't forget to fix the inbound links. There are still a ton of links to Safe & Sound (song) that need fixing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zac! The music credits was removed per the GA review. Erick (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the reviewer isn't fully aware of how credits work, and has only ever seen the "Writers: Name, Name, Name" type of credits. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on
Talk:House of Cards (U.S. TV series)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the
Hello! I noticed that you reverted the name change on
Pixar Short Films Collection: Volume 2, the article name should be changed back to "Pixar Short Films Collection: Volume 1". Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for The Only Promise That Remains
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Status,
While editing Did It Again, I had an edit conflict, and later on while checking the edit history I noticed it might have been with you. I didn't try to revert you, but I had edited the article to fix problems laid out by Divaknockouts in the talk page. Your edits have The edits you made removed my new adjustments :3 What do we do to make both our edits fit? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; thank you for the explanation. My apologizes. Edit conflicts are the worst! I'll try to comb through it and fix it. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything's alright now. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm not exactly! I redid the ones you missed anyway! It's alright now! Thank you! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I Am... World Tour
A year ago when I nominated I Am... World Tour (album) as a GA its name was only I Am... World Tour. Then, several months later, a user changed the name of the tour from I Am... Tour to I Am... World Tour and the name of the album was changed from I Am... World Tour to I Am... World Tour (album). Now when I nominated the tour article for GA, it shows the review of the album. Do you know what should I do? My love is love (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this has been corrected by another user. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Drop Dead) Beautiful you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:(Drop Dead) Beautiful for comments about the article. Well done! Sorry about the long, strange trip :-); congratulations and all the best, Miniapolis 14:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Combining lead singles with featured singles
Can I ask you why you've been combining lead singles with featured singles in artists' discography pages? Is this a new guideline? Thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.
Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note.
Boletus luridus
.
A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Bonus tracks
I notice that you've been "cleaning up" album tracklistings by removing some bonus tracks, e.g. [12], [13], [14]. Why that? What are your criteria for inclusion? YLSS (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Parker: Adding the budget.
It's July 1st, and per our agreement of over three months ago, time to add the budget. I was assuming you or Arre would add it, but if you'd prefer, I can certainly do the job myself.Xfpisher (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeezus: July 2, 2013
I have made the change to Yeezus stating that the album was released by the label. Please show references that you have proof that the album has not been released by Roc-A-Fella Records 11Block |talk 03:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox album
Could you show mere flatlists are acceptable at template:Infobox album? Genre, Label, Producer, and other all indicate that they should be separated by commas. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox single was recently updated, including the guideline; nobody has gotten around to the album one yet. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you. Access is not the issue. Following the template guidelines is.
Per
WP:BRD, you were bold in restoring what you thought was the correct format, I reverted, discussion is next. Do not restore the incorrect format again until after consensus has been reached at the template's talk page. Are there other articles that I will need to visit to fix this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no such thing as a "template guideline". Please take this nonsense elsewhere. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing a cleanup template when the problems evidently still remain (the lines in the sand are 300 by 300 for album covers and 64kbps for samples) is not at all productive, and that edit summary is downright deceptive. I'm adding the template back- please do not remove it until the issues are resolved. The article has no business being a GA until those problems are dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I saw that was being mentioned was the length of the sample, which I saw was reduced. You readded the non-free template for that reason alone. It wasn't made clear of what the actual problem was. Please learn to
WP:GOODFAITH and not call an editor's edit non-productive and "deceptive". — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Removing a cleanup tag relating to non-free use with an edit summary of "c/e" is deceptive, whether I'm assuming good faith or not, and an edit summary can be deceptive without you meaning it to be. I most certainly did not readd the template because of the length of the sample alone- when I said "reduce", I was also referring to reducing the size of the album cover and reducing the bitrate of the music, not just the length of sample. I had made these problems clear in my earlier edit summaries on the file pages, though I admit that I could have probably been a little clearer with it. I'll bear that in mind in future. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter
Hi Status, can you provide some commentary as to why you're reverting edits on the Elephunk page please? The six changes that you reverted seem to be genuine contributions, not vandalism. Not disagreeing with your reverts, just interested in why you rejected the edits. Might help if you wrote something in the edit summary? :) Thanks.
ak47wong (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message. First of all, they added unsourced content (about the re-release) and removed formatting from the track listing. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why did you remove Sweden from the list of the 10 charts in the discography? Are you replacing it with a bigger market? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed. She's had like, 3 or 4 songs even chart there, and not high. Norway also gotta go. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which markets do you think would be better suited? She's not that successful on the other side of the Atlantic IMO. :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She's been doing pretty good in Switzerland, and has several certifications there. Same with Denmark. I think those could replace Sweden and Norway. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Went and added them all... and I was not correct. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, genres cannot use flatlists but producers may. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the template says so, then why did you revert it? (You clearly didn't even read documention) And I could have sworn I gave you the impression you were not welcome on my talk page? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
July 2013
My first suggestion is to look at your own faults before you began to "talk down" to others. There are hundreds of articles where you have (1) removed sourced information, (2) with a reliable reference with a non-reliable reference, (3) moved pages without discussion or explanation and (4) blindly reverted edits. I am not sure what your deal is but the fact you feel you can scold me, while hilarious, has zero effect on me. For months, you have chosen to ignore other edits and give childish explanation as your reasoning. You cannot decide to follow rules when it becomes a convenience for you. Either follow 100% of the time or none at all. I will not start a ridiculous edit war with you while you moan over your edits not being accepted. I will simply follow protocol. If this behavior continues, I will follow the proper process and inform administrators. Itsbydesign (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite unsure about what your deal is. Really. You come on (usually) once a month to make major changes to an article that fit your view on how it should look. Without giving a legitimate reason I might add (such as saying "updating boxscore", when it was already up to date). When you decide to change almost the entire format of an article with no explanation as to why, and are reverted, per
WP:BOLD, you should discuss these changes and why they should be made. Instead, you continue doing the same thing time and time again. That is quite the opposite of "following protocol". Edit warring with no edit summary? Yikes! If you wish to do this "protocol", please, start a discussion on a talk page of an article and let's discuss. I'd be quite interested in the reasons why you think that tour dates should be listed twice in an article (once on their own and again including its gross and attendance) and why we should include every single tiny change to a set list on an encyclopedia (when there is even a note explaining this and its reasoning). I'm also curious as to why replacing reliable, third-party news reports in favour of primary sources (an artist's official website) is acceptable in your eyes. And I'm sure there's a few additional things that I'm missing. Next time you want to talk to someone about how they have the nerve to "talk down" and "scold" you, you really shouldn't do it back. Especially when you are also calling that person a hypocrite at the same time - awkward. Less threats and more discussing the issues at hand, OK? — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
FYI
You seemed quite anxious to engage me is a discussion regarding some recent reverts. I have responded to you
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, I'm JustBerry. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! JustBerry (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you seem like a fairly valid editor, let me know your reason for making that edit, or if it was a mistake in general. --JustBerry (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I know it may seem odd, but the song is actually called "Let's Get Retarded". It was edited for radio for "Let's Get It Started". See here. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I know that song, but I have never heard that name before. I will revert the revert if you have not already done so. --JustBerry (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know... it's crazy, haha. No worries; I can see how the edit would look fishy. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I have reverted my revert, but you may want to consider putting what you told me onto the talk page of the article. Other editors may feel your edit is "vandalous," hence attempt to revert your edit as well. Also, putting a reason with your edit would decrease/stop reverts to your edit as well (preferably with a direct link). A third thing you may want to do is directly link the "alternative name" to a source. Let me know if you have any questions. --JustBerry (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just added a note. I hope that will avoid any future confusion. Best, — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, just remember that for future edits. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you need to talk to me. --JustBerry (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JustBerry, I'm curious as to whether you actually looked at the talk page of the article? It's been discussed there on and off for the past 7 years :) ak47wong (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beware (Big Sean song)
"Beware (song)" is a terrible article. It should be deleted. That is why I turned it into a redirect. Please replace the article with the redirect. 11Block |talk 03:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFD is where things get deleted. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
track list}} for the track listing section in single articles? When there are only two release formats and one song in each digital download it seems pointless and looks silly! lol — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 11:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
here, (I know this is for albums but the principles apply) it says "A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list. In more complicated situations, a table or the {{Track listing}} template may be a better choice." Seen as this isn't a complicated situation its not a great editorial choice to use a track listing template, the only reason of which I can see being that you've added them to some of the JLO and other songs you've worked on. Confused face. :S — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 15:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
I just saw your note about emailing you. Can't see your addy anywhere. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk] 15:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GAN in
Wikipedia:Wikicup/Reviews
Hey, Status, can you give me a poke if no-one reviews that GAN you have by next week? I'd do it now, but...
I, personally, am not that interested in most modern pop music, and so would rather someone who'll enjoy them more does them. But, at the same time, I don't want you to lose out in the Wikicup because I'm off reviewing history and classical music and medicine GANs. And, you know, after some practice in earlier rounds, I certainly can review pop song articles; I just know I enjoy the other ones more.
My offer to review all GANs brought to my attention in the last two weeks of August's round stands, though. Someone needs to do that. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Adam; I certainly can. I'm not too particularly worried about the article being reviewed just yet, regardless, as it's still pretty early in the cup. Yes, I understand what you mean. I've done a few reviews outside of modern popular music, but of course, the more familiar you are with it, the more comfortable you are in reviewing such types. Thanks for the offer. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 10:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And then I felt so bad that I started reviewing it. Adam Cuerden(talk) 10:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha; that's quite alright. I'm the midst of a Buffy marathon and will check back in later. Best, — Statυs (talk, contribs) 10:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's below. I've asked another person to review my review, though, as the sort of section it is justifies a fair amount of quotation, but it often gets really close even outside the quotation marks, and the structure makes it sound like the source of each sentence's information is only responsible for the second half of the sentence.
It's fixable, but awkward.
Comments
I was wondering if you review my featured list article (
You need to check out all of their pages; they're completely filled with non-filled references and fansite sourcing. And whenever someone tries to fix these pages, one consistent IP address keeps undoing those edits and re-adding fansite references. A lot of their pages should not even be allowed on Wikipedia since they're all fansite sourced!! 71.233.227.127 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have undid my edit (I added in the certification table). It was true, it's such a pity. Her single did get awarded with a Gold. BTW, just to let you know that Burning Desire, Carmen, Off to the Races and Blue velvet are all promo singles. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.117.153.229 (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I was wondering if you are interested on giving comments on my featured list
Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First you wanted it as only "Marc Anthony", arguing it's "his legal name". You then revert an edit to keep it as just that. THEN, you want to change it completely to "Marco Muniz"? Who nobody has ever heard of? Please tell me, what is wrong with "Marc Anthony (Muniz)"? Its keeps his well known professional name while adding his real last name in brackets, so readers realize 1) who he is, and 2) why this is Jenn's current last name.
I left a comment on her talk page which you haven't responded to (like you demanded last time). Could you please explain yourself (here or there) before going for your 3rd revert (in 24 hrs)? It would be appreciated. Thanks. -
There you go again, saying I said things that I never said. You complained about nobody understanding Muniz, so I changed it to put his legal name instead. "Marc Anthony (Muniz)" makes absolutely zero sense what-so-ever. It's either Marco Muniz or Marc Anthony. There's nothing in between. At all. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once you finally learn how to talk to people (which clearly you cannot), I will respond to you. Until then, don't expect a response from me. Or post on my talk page for that matter. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Status, I've noticed your recent changes on Bionic (Christina Aguilera album), as you changed "I Hate Boys" as the third single, and "You Lost Me" as the fourth. I'm a little bit confused about this, because "I Hate Boys" was released exclusively in Oceania, while "You Lost Me" was released worldwide on the same day. — HĐ (talk)
Hey HD. Well, since they both came out on the same day, it should go by alphabetical order then. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confused
I'm confused as to what you're talking about? All the genres are sourced?
"Genre: Electronic" from
Allmusic
"Musically, the album is rooted in electronic, garage house and dubstep " from Voxxi
"Review: Selena Gomez's 'Stars Dance' a sassy pop-EDM mix" from
The Los Angeles Times
So I'm confused why you're vandalizing the article by removed sourced genres, not "influences"? --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do you know what vandalism actually is? The article itself only states the album's genre is electronic, and then goes on the different "roots" (which is not the same thing as a genre; it's an influence). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is the removal of sourced content for one user own preference, no? And you're basing this off a SINGLE Allmusic article, you're refusing to look at the other sources. --(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait did you actually even look at the sources? I'm the one that wrote that... It made sense since all the genres are somehow connected under the electronic music umbrella. No source actually specifically it's an electronic album by itself, aside from Allmusic.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the two songs that you added were Singles. They were just released on iTunes Store only, which means it doesn't make sense for the two songs to be singles. — HĐ (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add them, you removed them. A single is a song released for purchase apart from an album (or a song sent to station stations). "Hoy Tengo Ganas de Ti", "Slow Down Baby" and "Oh Mother" weren't sent to radio, for example, does that mean they aren't singles? No. We live in a digital world. A digital single is a single in 2013. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Lopez
I have restored the hatnote to the meteorologist that was removed by your edit[15] with no explanation. Tassedethe (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join a discussion
Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "
WP:D was approved at VPP. I notify you about this because you has participated in at least one RM discussion in which PDAB is cited (in any form). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D or to ignore this message. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 05:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
It's not canvassing if you keep the request perfectly neutral. I believe I kept it neutral. Furthermore, why? I would of love if you send me on my e-mail. Are you deliberately trying to embarass me? I could lose a lot of user friends because of this. I really do not appreciate this, please respect me. Also, I asked them if they are willing and if they said ″no″. I would respect that decision. I don't see asking people for reviews, a problem. I was not asking for a support. But thank you for warning me, I will stop asking. I never thought I was doing something wrong.
It's okay. Thanks again for warning me and sharing you're opinion! You know what, I happen to agree with you ( only request comments from other users unless the FLC is dead and is in a desperate need for them). It's sometimes, you feel that you want you're list to pass for featured status ASAP. Like Caringtype1 said, I was not trying to do anything shady or insinuate something like, "I'll support yours, if you support mine". Thanks again!
Gaga discog
Status, did you gain a consensus on the talk page for the major revamp of the page? I did not find any and have reverted your edit for now. I believe the page was fine as it is in the old version with the singles of different type splitted. I did not find any constructive edit summary also. Request you to raise a discussion in the talk page of the concerned wikiproject please or the article. PS: Pardon any sp mistakes, i'm on a new keboard and it sucks :( —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for The 20/20 Experience: 2 of 2
nominate
) 06:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
A little favor...
Hey there Status! I have a little favor to ask of you. I brought Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 up to GA a short while ago, and I would love to bring it to FA in the near future. Since I've never nominated a page for FA before, I put the page up for a peer review a little while ago. I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing it based on that criteria. No worries if you're not interested! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually just saw that on my watchlist not too long ago. I'll try leaving some comments soon. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Thank you very much(: WikiRedactor (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3RR warning
Are you serious?
Also this is only revert #2 and I'm effectively restoring a status quo on a poorly decided article that is only 2 days old.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGain are you really serious with this? You think that article is valid? I've started a thread at
WP:ALBUM seeking input but I guess I'll go with an AFD as you suggested.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I never claimed the article was valid or invalid. I only stated that since the merge was contested, it should be discussed or taken to AFD, rather than the constant undoing of each other. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is not as if it's you and WikiRedactor (talk·contribs) in dispute about the article's creation. It's several different users/IPs. The best way to keep it going back and fourth (which obviously would and is happening) is AFD. I personally agree that the article shouldn't be created just yet, as the creator of Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded (which began this reissue article trend), but clearly there's a dispute that has to be resolved. And the undo button isn't a resolution. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA RfC
Hi, would you like to elaborate your rationale in the General Discussion section?--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 09:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, 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 reduce 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
A question
Hi Status!
I had a question I was willing to ask you, since you seem like an experienced editor to me. Recently, as you may have noticed, I was editing Shakira song articles like Did It Again, Gypsy, She Wolf, etc... What I had done while editing these articles was that basically I did them all from scratch, and almost rewrote them entirely. I am currently working to get the topic to which they belong, She Wolf, to a good topic, and I realised the old content had just got to go. Do you think that can put me in conflict/rivalry with the users who had initially edited the articles?
Thanks for taking the time to read,
--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
I've got some free time now, just saying. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I didn't hear that! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Previous issue | Index | Next issue 
to High 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (
Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 
12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.
Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
