Jump to content

User talk:Calvin999

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Winkelvi (talk | contribs) at 12:00, 29 March 2016 (→‎SSDD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

CAN'T RETIRE
Calvin999 tried to leave Wikipedia, but found that he couldn't do so…

List of Madonna songs

Thank you for doing this. I had been developing in my sandbox, can you merge that too? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe that the crap List of unreleased songs recorded by Madonna can be merged in this one]]. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw the unreleased one and thought it was a mess. I'm doing Confessions at the moment, but if you want to add any other albums from your sandbox then feel free. I've formatted the table different to how you have though. I was actually going to ask you at some point to help me with the lead anyway.  — Calvin999 10:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which formatting should we keep? I was referring to the recent song article FLs and that was the formatting I could find. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think how I do it is better. There's no point having a dedicated row just for a couple of featured artists. It makes it unnecessarily wide. I just put the featured artist in small font under the song title now. It looks a lot cleaner. I did the same for Ariana Grande and I've changed Leona Lewis' too, because she's only ever featured one or two artists, so it was pointless having a whole column with "None" every time.  — Calvin999 10:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, once you are done let me know, I will merge my sandbox content. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not editing the article for the time being. If you want to add the albums from your sandbox I haven't done then you can do it now if you like. You'll just have to format them to the current format but you've done the time consuming bit already so it's just some copying and pasting. Also, I've stopped adding the "Indicates single release" because I don't want to make tables single release-centric anymore, as the list is about the songs regardless of whether they were released or not. I don't mind the Solely written by Madonna one though. I think that's informative.  — Calvin999 10:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok doing it now, but I think we need the single release indication atleast, and Madonna also has quite a few promotional releases, so I will indicate them too. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, her singles discography does that. This is just a list of songs recorded and who wrote them. There needs to be a clearer distinction between the two lists.  — Calvin999 10:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See your point. Cool, but can I add the content now? I don't wanna edit conflict. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And with as many singles as she has, I think that much colour can become distracting. Yeah I'm not editing the article.  — Calvin999 10:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin let me know when you would stop so that rest of the songs I can add it. This is shaping up pretty good. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 20:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing the article now.  — Calvin999 20:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Calvin. You beat me, because I was thinking create this list in English Wikipedia (first, I created in Spanish —when its a GA nominated—). Thanks, Chrishonduras (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I see it's done very differently in Spain! I thought I was reading Madonna's bio at first.  — Calvin999 09:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you working on it now? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some from Rebel Heart but I was going to leave it for a while, so go ahead.  — Calvin999 11:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I will add the rest of them and then leave a note here. Then you can do again. I always fear we would edit conflict haha. By the way, I don't agree to that Spanish version at all. Its just so WP:UNDUE. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can add the rest later. I don't have booklets for Music or American Life. And Neither do I. It's too much and repetitive of her bio and albums.  — Calvin999 11:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its very different because, when I presented the list into GA system, the first reviewer ask me about a Timeline (in plan text) about her evolution and style. I already explained that its already figured in the main article. So I think that the first section its a copy edit, but the last, its good, because is refering about critics (and no details like in WP:UNDUE) about her work and put on the main will be exaggerated large and unnecessary.

I don't know I just commeted about the existing in Spanish Wikipedia (that however, the policies are a little different).

Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chrisonduras, but we do think that the Spanish article is unnecessarily bloated. Calvin999, I finished adding all the officially released songs, now we can expand the lead. As noted above, I want to add the unreleased recorded songs also in a separate section and merge this pile of garbage here. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 20:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For Chrishondura: I'm not underestimating your work Chrishondura, you've clearly worked very hard on that article and done what someone suggested to you, but I agree with IndianBio.
For IndianBio: Okay great, thanks. I worry that adding unreleased tracks on that scale would actually impede an FL promotion. I seem to remember something like this happening before for some reason. Unless a song has leaked and there is commentary on that song(s) from third party sources, I don't really see the point of adding unreleased tracks. Unreleased could mean written but not recorded, which would mean that it's not suitable for this list of recorded tracks.  — Calvin999 21:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, but can we see which ones actually had a third party notability and maybe add them? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Like on List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis, I added a few that were very well publicized because she really did record them and we know that.  — Calvin999 10:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked User talk:SchroCat for his opinion since he is a FL delegate, would know better. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 12:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Now you've added some prose to the lead, we have less than a week to write one and remove the under construction banner in order for it to be nominated at DYK.  — Calvin999 12:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we go for DYK now? —IB [ Poke ] 12:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so? Can always add more later. As long as no banner is present and it looks finished somewhat then yeah :)  — Calvin999 12:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, can you do that? I have no clue how to raise DYK requests :) —IB [ Poke ] 12:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really?! Okay. What do you think would be a good hook. Give me some suggestions to include.  — Calvin999 12:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about ...Did you know that Madonna wrote five of the eight songs recorded for her debut album by herself? —IB [ Poke ] 14:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's interesting enough. It needs to be something quirky. The lead doesn't have anything about genres or lyrical content and themes, which is where something interesting might be found.  — Calvin999 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about something from one of the poems she recorded? You don't come across singers doing that often. —IB [ Poke ] 20:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that would be more interesting. That needs to be in the lead though. And the DYK needs to be posted today.  — Calvin999 09:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will do some more expansion of the lead and add that poem line there. After that you can please nominate it. I will be done within the next 2 hours. —IB [ Poke ] 11:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I will do it this afternoon.  — Calvin999 11:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get round to adding the info IndianBio  — Calvin999 09:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, sorry for the delay, its done now. —IB [ Poke ] 14:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala DYK

Heyo Calvin999, I have implemented the changes that you suggested. I will be going out of town for a few days, and probably out of an internet connection as well. I still have half a day left before I leave so thought of dropping by in case there were any further issues. Regards, Yash! 11:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Laid Back (album)

Please see note on your DYK review. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Ramsey comment

How can you not be Scottish and British at the same time? You do know that Scottish people are British right? Scotland is in the UK. That is like saying you cannot be Californian and American at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.19.172 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God you're going back a bit. Last year? If you're born in Scotland, you're Scottish, no? I don't see why British would be used in any circumstance. Saying Scottish-born British is just perplexing to me. He is Scottish.  — Calvin999 23:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of songs recorded by Little Mix

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of songs recorded by Madonna

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen

:-)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 03:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the video where she did Rainbow (Interlude) before TGIFY.  — Calvin999 09:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I loved hearing the Rainbow Interlude again. She should perform that everytime before TGIFY--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User-space

Please stay off my userspace, is that so tough to understand?--MaranoFan (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please make it about the article, not about the editors. My attitude may be "disgusting". but getting an article to GA is positive work, something which you don't seem to be doing.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You accept your attitude was disgusting, but also say it is a positive process to make an article GA. The why are you being negative. Please, this is getting embarrassing! And I think you will find I said a lot about the article. So much so, that you've actually acted on what I said, not that you would ever thank me for it. I've indirectly helped you.  — Calvin999 09:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YES, THANKS calvin. I look forward to more comments from you. Talk about what changes to make to get it promoted, and not why it should be failed/ Thanks.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two go hand in hand. That's how a good article review works. If a lot is wrong or not good enough, then that constitutes discussion of failing. At the same time, up to five editors shouldn't be having to spoon feed you as to what is wrong and and what is right, and what to include and what not to include, which is what we've done. But you keep rejecting a lot of points. Why are you in such a rush? You was asking people if the article was ready for GA, they said not yet but you nominated anyway. As soon as it's nominated, you canvass for a reviewer. As soon as a reviewer opens the review, you immediately ask how long it will take. What is your agenda? It all looks suspicious. Assume good faith and be nice to Winkelvi. Half of the song nominations have been waiting since 2015, some of those for 8 months. Yours waited less than 18 hours. He is still being, I think, very generous by saying that there are so many issues and still placing it on hold when most would fail it.  — Calvin999 09:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna WP:Feed the trolls.. la la la. sha la la.. doobie doobie doo. hahaha..--MaranoFan (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You'll go very hungry then.  — Calvin999 09:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti (album)

Someone has changed the genres and added insignificant details about dancehall, I'm new and I see that you're big into Rihanna can you revert their edit on it please? 3LWfan (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of songs recorded by Olly Murs

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Big Beat

Hey Calvin, haven't seen you around in a while, hope you're well! I don't suppose you remember the time you reviewed "Ice Princess" and passed it as a successful GA, do you? It was the first song released in 2015 to be promoted, and I was stoked. Well, it seems that history may repeat itself. I've recently nominated "The Big Big Beat" for GA, would you happen to have the time to review it? If not, no worries at all. It's rare that I specifically ask someone to review my nominations (evidenced by the fact I'm spots #2 and #3 in the Songs waiting list haha), I just thought it'd be kind of neat if for two years on the trot, you reviewed the first song to pass as a GA in that year, and I be the one who nominated it (that is, if TBBB is up to scratch). I also thought of you because you're in the WikiCup, so there'd be a nifty 4 points in it for you haha. Let me know either way, and good luck in the rest of the WikiCup! Azealia911 talk 18:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm still pretty active, editing most days lol. I might do.  — Calvin999 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notifcation

Hi, Calvin. I'm just posting to let you know that List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 28. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.  — Calvin999 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), and New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by There's always time for skeletons Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with Lancashire J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Love Me like You

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Many congratulations on your first featured topic with Overview of Katy Perry. -- Frankie talk 14:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Democracy

Hmm, it seems Ringerfan23 has been absent from the article for a while and improvements pretty much haven't been made. I'd like to take the time to ask that if he doesn't return, I'd like to help handle the review, so if/when his time is up just let me know and I'll take over. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 02:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine.  — Calvin999 08:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI

How are you, nowadays?--MaranoFan (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic.  — Calvin999 12:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have 84 GAs and 244 GA nominations, I find it surprising that you find time to follow me around. Why don't you return to some of that?--MaranoFan (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you scared that I'm going to become a threat for you at the GA Cup or something like that? I see no other reason that an editor who has a history of positive edits suddenly plops out to disrupt any time I try to get something promoted. Lets sort this thing out.--MaranoFan (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what you believe? Allen3's user talk is on my watch last. I just happened to notice you post and had a look at what you'd written. I don't have your user or user talk pages watch listed. My number of GA articles and reviews is completely irrelevant to this conversation.  — Calvin999 12:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Calvin, I support you, I idolise you. I brought about your GAs in order to remind you that you are above the disruption. Can we please co-nominate something and make up?--MaranoFan (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why the change of tune? A few weeks ago you said that your would report to me ANI if I posted on your user talk again.  — Calvin999 12:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The truth is that I admire the work you and Tomica do for Rihanna, SNUGGUMS and IndianBio do for Katy Perry, etc. and want to bring a little bit of that goodness to Meghan articles. Is that too much to ask? Why do you always get in my way instead of giving me a pat on the back?--MaranoFan (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to use me to make the Trainor articles better? Sometimes it's just too little, too late. You've said some not so nice things about in the past, you haven't wanted interaction and you never listen. Why should I give you a pat on the back for that? If you have always admired "my work," then you've certainly demonstrated a very odd way of showing it.  — Calvin999 13:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wager?

re: An alleged recent retirement... Any bets on how long it takes for the individual to return either as themselves or a sock? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably relevant: User:Only/On retiring. only (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not very long. I took it with a pinch of salt. Why he wants to be my best friend after me being his number-one enemy who he thinks is out to get him all the time is completely and utterly beyond me. He won't want that DYK to slide.  — Calvin999 20:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely relevant, Only. Bedtime or homework, I imagine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it immediately as a suck-up ploy, Cal. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I wasn't buying it lol. Somehow me declining was still me "getting in the way". I don't know what else I have supposed to have gotten in the way of?  — Calvin999 21:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol Winkelvi  — Calvin999 18:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could have been a decent editor, but instead decided to become a pain in the ass disruptive troll. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Winkelvi And now he is going in for me here, or attempting to. He doesn't even know what vandalism means.  — Calvin999 09:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he tried, anyway. No one (other than the subject of the AN/I) noticed or cared he commented because, as you noted, no one takes him seriously anymore. Which is all his own doing, of course. If high school students/teenagers are going to become editors in this largely adult Wikipedia world, they need to do it seriously and stop treating it like a bus station and/or social media site. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin I politely request you archive this thread. I am not liking what this is turning into.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MaranoFan. It doesn't reflect well on you, Calvin999 that you allow discussions on your talk page about other editors that attempt to belittle and insult them. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, Liz? A good number of us are sick and tired of MF's bullshit and disruptive "editing" along with repeated user space harassment, trying to sabotage GA noms, poking at noticeboards and taking the side of disruptive sock puppets and other editors who are waging war against editors he doesn't like (see here, here, here, here - there are many, many more examples, by the way... this is just a small sampling). Apparently, to some degree, Only must agree as he also commented above. One can only take so much and give so much good faith. At some point, it's time to call a spade a spade. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with venting your frustration publicly, either. Or would you rather people talk behind backs via email? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with all that's being said here...I just was commenting on a common trend of people retiring only to come back soon after. only (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, Only. Hence my comment, "to some degree". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree that every editor should act like an adult. sst✈ 01:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask Jaguar, Dr. Blofeld and Cassianto to archive their threads on their talks about me, which are far, far worse Liz. I haven't commented on this thread since yesterday morning. It's everyone else that has been. Let this be the last comment. I don't want several big purple archive boxes on my user talk.  — Calvin999 09:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra

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

I've reverted your edit to the infobox as unfortunatley, it is not you who gets to decide whether the collapsing of it was unhelpful to the reader or not. Also, please note that there is a long standing consensus on the articles talk page to have the IB collapsed. In future, if you see such a format being used, and one that you have "never seen before, then you can lay money on it that there is a discussion somewhere that supports it. I would spend a bit of time investigating why the strange format is being used before simply reverting. So that being said, and just in case it's not clear to others, I've left a hidden message saying just that on the edit screen. CassiantoTalk 08:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the time people just put these silly templates on without asking anyone in the first place Cassianto.  — Calvin999 09:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As was not the case here. This silly template, as you put it, serves a purpose and appeases both the "support" and "oppose" camps; as you know, IB discussions are often troubled and become heated very quickly. This template is a happy medium between the two, wouldn't you say? CassiantoTalk 10:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. It shouldn't be there.  — Calvin999 10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you'd like to discuss the matter then, a thread which you started, on the talk page. I think you'll find that most people are against you. Or perhaps that's exactly why you're not taking part? CassiantoTalk 11:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I am.  — Calvin999 14:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How big of you. CassiantoTalk 16:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's a medium, but please don't use "happy" in the context. - There was a discussion about collapsing infobox content in 2013, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 7#Collapsed or hidden infoboxes. Peter Planyavsky was collapsed then, but isn't any more. (Remember, that was an article I wrote, but first wasn't "allowed" an infobox for because he also is a classical composer. Then it was collapsed. Interesting discussion ;) ) - We improved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be impertinent Gerda. "Happy" suggests that neither side have an issue with the collapsed compromise. Hence why it's a compromise. If I were strictly speaking, I'd be happy to get rid of it altogether. CassiantoTalk 15:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by impertinent. Happy, for me, means happy, full of joy. A collapsed infobox is better than no infobox, but no reason for me to be happy. Please remember that by infobox I mean just telling readers when that person lived where and what he did. I don't care for other parameters. We write for readers who never saw that face and never heard that name, - at least I do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This does nothing but disturb the peace. There was at least a stable long-term compromise on a collapsed infobox. And that was only out of respect for people who may find the infobox useful. If you can't accept that as I do then perhaps it's time to rid of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you even want to hide the info box? Might as well blank the info box and not have any info. That's the whole point of it, so you can read the essential facts quickly.  — Calvin999 14:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! That's exactly what we want, not to have an infobox. It's just that some of us are not being childish by deleting the box altogether. We respect the previous compromise of collapsing it, a compromise which both you and Gerda show utter contempt for. CassiantoTalk 15:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Every bio has an info box and they are important? Why would you delete the box altogether?  — Calvin999 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again; not every biography has an infobox, in fact I am seeing more and more at FAC now that omit them. Next? CassiantoTalk 16:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I haven't seen any of these and I'm yet to come across a person's bio who doesn't have one. Are you a politician? You're avoiding every question I pose to you. Obviously you can't answer any of them.  — Calvin999 21:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may get your rocks off propping up the loonies at ANI but I'm afraid I don't so I don't take part in ANI discussions. I find them to be a waste of time and infested by silly little admins and their own groups of fanboys. As such I'll post here telling you not to template me in future as I find it patronising. That is why I told you to fuck off; I don't like being patronised. Secondly, I find it puzzling to think that you have never come across a biography without an infobox. What about these, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, not to mention the many more listed at WP:FA. CassiantoTalk 00:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like being patronised, then don't patronise me by telling me "things are here to stay" and to "shut up." Telling me to "fuck off" is immature and it doesn't make you sound or look good, or even clever. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. You've been completely uncivil from the off. You've obviously gone to a lot of effort to list each of those bio's, but no, I haven't seen any of those before (because I don't know who any of them are, so I would never have needed to look or search for them).  — Calvin999 00:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entitled to tell someone to fuck off especially if that person deliberately templates me on my talk in order to patronise me. You certainly won't be getting an apology from me, if that's what your after. Don't be under any illusion that ANI in the least bit bothers me, because it doesn't. I find it hilarious that you've now gone from declaring that all biographies have infoboxes to now saying that you didn't know any of the subjects I listed above, existed. There seems to always be an excuse. Oh, and btw, if you want to see another collapsed IB that works well, here is another example. CassiantoTalk 07:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What entitles you to think you can act like that with me or anyone else? No one is beyond a warning for not assuming good faith, as you have demonstrated and still demonstrating. There's no point keeping on posting links to collapsed info box articles saying "it works well," because you support them being hidden. It's superfluous and a waste of time. We don't agree on this issue, but you think you are superior and asserting ownership in a "my way or no way" style.  — Calvin999 10:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need warnings as I'm not a fucking child. Moreover, I don't need to be reminded of "my behaviour", especially from the likes of you, a mere 24-year-old. If that wasn't bad enough, you then feel the need to template me with a warning and pointers to various civility essays. That's why I told you to fuck off. In regards to your assertion that "it's my way or no way", then again, you are wrong. There was a consensus to have it collapsed and that very much stands; in fact, going by the response on the Sinatra talk page, the view now is to have the whole box deleted. The difference is of course, I'm not childish and I don't stamp my feet when I don't get my own way. Live with it. CassiantoTalk 12:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are acting like a child, and no one is above a warning. What does my age have anything to do with you or this? I can guarantee that I'm more intelligent, educated and informed about life than you are. I take it you are an old/older person who thinks it is his right to speak and act as you please. Wrong. Age doesn't earn you respect. Note that I've not reverted you posting on my talk, but you have me. Are you sure you're not immature? You are hilarious, you've provided me with a lot of chuckles. If you claimed to be mature and responsible are you keep alleging that you are, then you would stop harassing me on my user talk.  — Calvin999 13:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I can guarantee that I'm more intelligent, educated and informed about life than you are. " -not true, if you knew what Cassianto's profession was and what he's experienced with his job you'd eat those words with humble pie and disappear back into the basement you belong in. Cassianto is one of the most intelligent editors on wikipedia and I can vouch has eons more life experience and education than you have. His only misdemeanor here is not adhering to Mark Twain's "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."... Now please drop it and move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, proof it's not true? Do you know my profession? Do you know my education? Do you know my background? Very good but try again. Why don't you drop it and move on. 13:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you know Cassianto's actual intelligence, education or background? No. So stop making silly comments like "I can guarantee that I'm more intelligent, educated and informed about life than you are". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-hah, see what happened there? Small fish took big bait.  — Calvin999 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are literally doing my (and no doubt everyone's) heads in. What kind of reaction would expect when you send a patronising template on not one, but two experienced editors? Nevermind that Dr. Blofeld has been on here for ten years and has over 500,000 edits, the least thing any editor would want is a 'not assuming good faith' template on their talk page. Where do you think all this is going to get you? Your behaviour is on par with a 10 year old. You're an attention seeking troll. JAGUAR  13:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The stop harassing me on my talk page? No one asked you to come here Jaguar. You three are doing mine and others heads in, so the feeling is reassuringly mutual. You're closer to 10 years old than I am, just saying. Also, edit count is not symbolic of expertise and experience.  — Calvin999 13:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You truly are pathetic. I'm not going to entertain you any longer, I suggest that nobody engages with this editor any longer as it would only give him more of a reason to troll others. JAGUAR  13:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked that the three of you be banned from interacting me, you missed the bus on that one. Added to that, I never asked any of you to harass me on my own user talk in the first place, so who are the trolls? Are you sure you're just calling me pathetic because you're attempts are bashing me down aren't working? I think so. Goodbye.  — Calvin999 13:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI

Don't edit other people's comments. Now step away. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it editing? I didn't change what he said.  — Calvin999 23:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man Down (song)

Just a quick note, I thought the IP's genre-warring was good faith, though disruptive. This is important because you were at risk of being blocked for edit-warring too, though the disruption can be stopped in this instance simply by blocking the IP (which I've done). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's why I stopped at 3, but the IP did four. There's nothing good faith about it if you are told multiple times to stop and you carry on Ritchie333.  — Calvin999 14:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3RR explicitly says you are not given a "free pass" to revert 3 times. I generally expect the experienced editor to know better. Since the loss of the "big orange bar", I am not convinced new users even notice warnings. See Ludwigpaisteman, who I've been waiting to unblock for ages as soon as he communicates. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's the first time in a long time that I've gone up to three. And it's called 3 for a reason. I see many editors use the full three quite a lot.  — Calvin999 14:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I almost always stop at 1. (See User:Ritchie333#One revert guarantee). There is no real reason ever to go to 3. I'd be interested to know which editors go up to the line without crossing it, because in my view they would be gaming the system and can be sanctioned anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Usually vandals take note of one. I don't see the point of calling it the three revert rule if you are going to be sanctioned for making two or three reverts. It means you can revert three times on one article in a 24 hour period, the clue is in the name. If it is discouraged so much, then it should be less grey and more black and white. I haven't got any specific examples right now, but I do see three reverts in a 24 hour period on a frequent basis.  — Calvin999 15:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions Cardiff

Lipped whistles aside, this video is everything.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? London last night was live.  — Calvin999 09:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron are you collecting reviews/sources in a sandbox for future section updates for the tour?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 03:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Live 2016

Hi Calvin999,

I noticed the edits you made in Adele Live 2016, and shows/sellouts is very unnecessary. It makes the table look too big, and all other tour pages does not say shows/sellouts. And when you add boxscore sources, they are put in the row where the continent is. Thanks! Musicpoplover12 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It doesn't really, because it's already white space not being used. It is relevant, because it shows how many dates at one venue are sellouts. I'm only including what Billboard itself includes. You will end up with too many boxscore URLs for where you want them to go.  — Calvin999 19:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SSDD

This happens and then, voila! A little more than an hour later, this happens. Same shit, different day. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calvin999&oldid=712491997"