User talk:Till/Archive 4

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your approved HighBeam code failed to deliver: please email Ocaasi
Hi! Good news: you were approved for a free WP:HighBeam account. Bad news: Your access code could not be delivered because of your email settings. Please: Thanks! --User:Ocaasi 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com with your Wikipedia username so I can respond with your account code.

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Adele 21
I've made some further comments here (after noticing someone reverted my original change that I mentioned to you). Would you mind commenting? Dan56 (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
AARON &bull; TALK  17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for removing the pics that I added in the articles you edited. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thanks Tomica! ;) Till 14:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Till! Thank you for your contributions. I am Zac and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Zac  13:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article


 * You've been gone so long it's as if you're a new user. Zac   13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for supporting, although it was closed shortly afterwards. AARON &bull; TALK  23:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Why oh why
Why do you kee deleting the Sugababes pictures that I uploaded and you kept replacing them with your own uploaded pictures just like the Red Dress screenshot? you know they were here like 5 years ago and no one removed them until you got here. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cause it didn't have any copyright information and the image was poor quality. Till 04:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Request
I was wondering if you could possibly vote at Featured list candidates/One Direction discography/archive1. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Push the Button (Sugababes song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna
Oh, really honey? http://www.lescharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Rihanna ... well, well, well :) Stephanie J Stone (talk 17:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Help
Hi, would you mind commenting at the FLC page of Jessica Mauboy discography? — Oz  (talk)   22:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC comment
Hi. Would you like to comment at the FAC page for The Way I See It (album)? Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Liberty Walk
Just letting you know, you had the wrong Tim James. Tim James (country music songwriter) only writes country; Tim James (music producer) writes for Miley Cyrus. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Delisting articles
Hi Till. Thanks for your interest in Good article quality control. If you wish to delist an article there is a process that you should go through. The first step is to create a reassessment page listing the problems with the article. Then you contact relevant editors and wikiprojects to give them a chance to save the article. If no one responds or the fixes are not satisfactory then the article can be delisted. You have a choice of an individual reassessment or community one (individuals are the easiest). This is important because the main aim is to get articles to Good quality, usually someone has out in a lot of effort to get it to Good status so we should give them a chance to fix it and even if no one responds there is a record of what needs fixing in case someone else comes along and wants to get it back up to standard. As such I have reverted your delisting of Stargate (production team) for this reason. I have no comment on its quality at this stage, if you want to reassess it add {{subst:GAR}} at the top of the talk page and follow the instructions. Regards AIR corn (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please, don't lecture me like I'm some noob that just started editing. For your information, I have delisted many articles in the past through individual reassessment; see this and this for good examples. The StarGate article is eligible for immediate removal of GA status because it is tagged. Till 06:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is not. I will start the GAR for you. AIR corn (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Started Talk:Stargate (production team)/GA2. AIR corn (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Notice how if you look here, the article history template states: "If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment." So yes I am correct when I say that the article can be delisted without a reassessment. Till 06:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Started a thread here to get clarification on this issue. AIR corn (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This delisting was inappropriate, because it gives no rationale as to why the article was delisted. Furthermore, is an inappropriate use of Twinkle; that was clearly not vandalism. --Rschen7754 08:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The delisting was not inappopriate because any Good article that is tagged should be eligible for immediate delisting. And the vandalism revert was a complete accident. I thought I had clicked on the regular Rollback (in the middle), but didn't realise it was the wrong Rollback. Till 08:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But you miss the point: even that rollback is for reverting vandalism only, not for warring over tags. And yes, you are technically allowed to immediately delist, but you must provide some sort of rationale in a /GA2 subpage. However, that is a bad idea for something like a copyedit, because it would be better to copyedit the article yourself, and then we still have a GA. --Rschen7754 08:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looked at the WP:GAR page, and it turns out I'm wrong. Please read those instructions in their entirety. --Rschen7754 08:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the article history template states if an article no longer meets the GA criteria, "you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment". Delisting it is exactly what I did—besides, now the article definitely doesn't meet the GA criteria because of instability. Issues have also been raised by a third-party editor at the reassessment page, showing that the article needs more than just a "copyedit". Till 08:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not too fussed by the vandalism label, it was obviously an accident as their other reverts did not contain it. I am concerned about your rationals for delisting though. How is the article unstable You don't mean the two reverts over the GA tag do you. AIR corn (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The delisting process is the same as the individual reassessment process at WP:GAR. Furthermore, WP:GAR takes precedence over any template instructions; ArticleHistory is not maintained by the GA project. --Rschen7754 08:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was delisted for being tagged with a copyedit notice. If you take a look at the good article criteria, a valid rationale for a quickfail is having a banner on the article. To be honest I think that applies here. Btw Aircorn I'm saying that the article is now unstable because of this. Till 08:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You made a good faith delist and I made a good faith effort to follow process when delisting. At the end of the day we will hopefully end up with clearer instructions. We need more people doing quality control in Good articles and hopefully we can all learn from this. AIR corn (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Song 4 Mutya (Out of Control)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A comment, the warning has been removed now anyway.
"He isn't attacking anyone. This warning is more of an attack, especially handing out a level 4 warning without going through stages 1, 2 or 3." I was put into edit conflict. AARON &bull; TALK  23:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Think of it as a single warning for each time he's attacked a user. Calling someone an "idiot" isn't a personal attack? My gosh... I wouldn't want to know what you consider a personal attack. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 23:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're overreacting. No single party is 100% at fault here. I've been watching what has been going on on "Diamonds" for a while now, and to place the blame and warn only one person is definitely not fair. AARON &bull; TALK   23:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No party is at fault for what? I'm not warning anybody for edit warring. I was warning Till for repeatedly calling Tomica names and taking gabs at his prose. It has been ongoing for months and months now. I thought Tomica was your friend, I would've thought you'd give a damn. Besides, when has Tomica been uncivil to Till? Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 23:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For what you are going around saying people are at fault for. You are reading into what I have said, or more specifically, what I have not said or implied in anyway, and putting words into my mouth. Like I said, no single person is 100% at fault here. Instead of replying to each other through edit summaries on "Diamonds", a discussion or conversation should have been carried out on someone's talk page to resolve any issues. Instead, aggression has come out through the edit summaries as a result of editing to what Till or Tomica thinks is correct or should remain. I'm talking from a distanciated viewpoint here, as I have observed both users actions, though both are expressed in different ways. So don't start playing the whole "I thought Tomica was your friend, I would've thought you'd give a damn" card; it's rude, impolite and not civil. I don't care who it is, if I think someone is wrong, I will say it, if I think someone is right, I will say that. I'm remaining neutral here. AARON &bull; TALK   23:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you are wrong on the premise of what this is about. Till has been attacking Tomica, while Tomica appears to remain civil in his summaries. I would have expected you to at least agree that calling someone an "idiot" repeatedly and mocking their prose all the time, friend or foe, is a wrong thing to do. Again I'll ask, where has Tomica been uncivil? Both of them have had fights over the content of that article, and others, but again, I do not see Tomica once being rude to Till about it. This isn't about a content dispute. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything which I would deem as an "attack". I'm talking about what I've seen on "Diamonds", which seems to be the main problem? Again, you are putting words into my mouth. I never said it was okay to call Tomica an "idiot" nor had I had that he had been uncivil to Till, but reverting each other also doesn't make it right, and that is on both sides. And this has a lot to do with content dispute, because the summaries you are talking about derive from change and disputes over content, so you're wrong there. I also don't agree with you becoming so heavily involved in something which does not directly involve you. AARON &bull; TALK   00:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how involved I am in this. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 01:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 23:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Till, please don't use edit summaries like this one. The edit itself was a good, constructive contribution - why derail it and the subsequent discussion with such a petty edit summary? I don't think it's a blockable offence in the current climate but please don't carry on like this as it does affect the atmosphere and in the long run could be seen as disruptive. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  10:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Kim. I'll try my best to avoid using explicit language in my edit summaries. I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing which is to help build up the encyclopeadia and finish writing up the articles I want to fix, so then I can finally leave and not have to deal with the (many) unbelievable people on this project. I would like to point out, though, that the editors I'm in a conflict with are not free from guilt. Till 10:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Till, I completely understand the frustration you must sometimes feel but to be honest it's in your own interests to play nicey-nicey! Calling inexperienced and/or non-English speaking editors idiots isn't going to make them go away - probably the reverse as they'll start to regard this as some sort of fight they must stay in to win. And what then happens is you get dragged to AN/I when you really want and need to get on with the article writing. I find I catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, if you get my meaning! By the way, please don't finish your "to do" list too quickly. Editors with your number of GAs are badly needed here! All the best, Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Leona Lewis proposal
Hello, I have proposed the created of Wikiproject Leona Lewis at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Leona Lewis. Please would you cast a vote or raise any questions in a discussion. Thanks. AARON &bull; TALK  14:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Favour
Can you revert this and this please. Tomica reverted him the first time for unsourced genre changes and removal/ignoring of a warning notice, then I did again last night when he added them back. I also gave him two warnings last night on his talk page. I'm still under a 1RR so I wouldn't be able to revert until 11pm or so this evening. AARON &bull; TALK  12:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ that. Till 12:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please you're back. AARON &bull; TALK   12:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna discography FLRC
A consensus of all of the other reviewers at that FLRC disagreed with your opinion and believed the list should be kept as an FL. The process, like FAC, works in a way that one valid oppose can outweigh a lot of support; however, when there are nine dissenters, including the other two directors, at some point their viewpoint is going to garner consensus. That's what I saw at this FLRC, although our opinions may vary. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 12:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ultratip
I had believed it to be a Bubbling Under equivalent, but I was wrong. Per the official website, "'De tipparade wordt als enige van de ultratoplijsten anders samengesteld. Vermits een tipparade vooral een signaalfunctie heeft, moet een brede waaier van nieuwe singles hier een kans krijgen. Deze lijst is een combinatie van verkoop en airplay. Nielsen Music Control is een internationale firma die zich bezighoudt met allerhande studies i.v.m. airplay op de radio- en tv-zenders in zowat de hele wereld. Via satellietstralen wordt opgevangen wanneer een liedje gedraaid wordt, op welke zender en op welk tijdstip. Vervolgens worden door de computer berekeningen gedaan en worden de gemeten plays gekoppeld aan de luisterdichtheid. Zo ontstaan de airplay charts die wekelijks worden samengesteld per land, per regio, per taal,… met de Europese top 100 als hoogtepunt. Voor België worden de Nielsen Music Control-metingen sinds 1998 door Ultratop gecoördineerd. Voor Vlaanderen worden momenteel MNM, Studio Brussel, Radio 1, Radio 2, Topradio, Q, Joe FM, FM Brussel, Nostalgie, RGR, C-Dance, FG, TMF, Jim en MTV NL gemeten. In Wallonië zijn dit Radio Contact, Bel RTL, NRJ, Fun, Pure FM, Viva Cité, Classic 21, La Première, Mint, Nostalgie, Twizz, MCM, Club RTL en MTV FR. Uiteraard wordt de samenstelling van dit panel regelmatig geëvalueerd. Alle liedjes worden met een bestand in de computer vergeleken. Zo maakt Nielsen Music Control per zender (en per regio) een airplay-hitparade op. De resultaten daarvan tellen mee voor de tipparade, die dus het resultaat is van verkopen en van het aantal keren dat een cd op de radio/tv werd gespeeld gekoppeld aan het aantal luisteraars. De single moet wel commercieel beschikbaar zijn, vooraleer hij in de tipparade mag. Op basis van airplay alleen charten in de tiplijst kan dus niet, alleen op basis van verkoop wel.''

Basically, that means that they combine airplay and sales, but only count airplay for songs that are for sale. Thus, a song can chart on the Tipparade based solely on sales, but never solely on airplay. The description doesn't say it, but it has always appeared to me that once a song charts on Ultratop it no longer appears on Ultratip. That's why I thought it was a bubbling-under type chart.&mdash;Kww(talk) 07:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also thought it was a bubbling-under chart, similar to the Tipparade chart of Dutch Top 40. So if a song charts on the Wallonia Ultratip chart at number one, for example, can we explicitly say that 'X reached number one in Belgium (Wallonia)'? Till 01:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Mutya Keisha Siobhan
Hi, you yanked a whole section of the page with the summary "unnecessary, WP:BLP violation".

Unnecessary, maybe, but how is having this information here a BLP violation? — Smjg (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Till, in the meantme I have restored the information because it is pertinent to the article. Can you explain where it violates BlP? Moriori (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page." Till 02:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whaaaaaatt? What was contentious? The name of the article is Mutya Keisha Siobhan and the singers you removed were Mutya Buena, Keisha Buchanan and Siobhán Donaghy, the members of the group. You removed three paragraphs about those different singers, each one wikilinked to their own standalone article. One of those articles has 79 references, one has 27 and one has 26. If you want to move some of those that would be helpful. Moriori (talk)
 * So ? It's still irrelevant and unsourced. And it only has 79 references cause the article has been copied and pasted from the main Sugababes article. Till 03:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal (album)
I reverted your reversion. If you are not happy with my close, come to my talk first and we can discuss reopening it or not. Going ahead and reverting a close without being an admin or asking me to do so first is not the way to go. I am open to talk about it here. Are you willing to discuss? — ΛΧΣ  21™  22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, sorry if I was too harsh on the previous comment. You and I, as far as I know, have been friends since I reviewed your GAN about a Sugababes song a long time ago :'). Do you remember? Well, back on track, I just get upset each time someone reverts without asking me to do so, when I can easily revert my close if you ask me... I hope you are doing okay. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  22:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry all, i undid this close starting before Till undid it and without realizing there had been edits subsequent to the close, so now it looks like a fierce argument in the history!86.44.24.94 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "If you are not happy with my close" don't talk to me like you have authority over me. Going ahead and closing a good faith nomination three days early is completely out of line. Perhaps you should read WP:NAC, which explicitly states "Non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:
 * The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the deletion debate (which you did)
 * A closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous (which it is)." I will be notifying administration of this. Till 23:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I voted? No. I wrote any comment on that AFD? No. So, "The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest" does not apply here. I will leave it opened. I don't have any authority over you, but now that you came and talked to me with this non-friendly tone, I guess is not pleasant to talk to you anymore :(. And, notify every admin if you wish; I won't get harmed. — ΛΧΣ  21™  23:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)