User talk:Sun Creator/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thank For the Cleanup

I appreciate you taking the time to clean the article. Although you made one small error, you see he is in fact the youngest to achieve USCF expert level rating. Not just the basic expert level rating ( witch is unclear since maby ther a kid that surpassed him in FIDE ). I clearly put USCF expert level rating witch 100% accurate. But other then that good work and thank for your help (GSP-Rush 05:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks I misunderstood the expert level rating part. I thought it meant the highest rating for his age, but apparently it as USCF only. Now updated that part in the article. SunCreator (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Question : In January 2010 with a FIDE rating of 2119 he was the highest rated player in the world for his age group. This part in unspecific i would like to change the was to is.

Like with a FIDE rating of 2119 in the January 2010 rating list, he is currently the highest rated chess player in the world for his age group. But for some reason this doesn't sound right can you give me tips on how to adjust it? (GSP-Rush 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Also i would like mention, if it possible, that were taking about either Under 10 or 9 and under or born in 2000 and under. (GSP-Rush 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

About 'is' and 'was'. This article like a paper encyclopedia article may not change for months or years, as such you have to consider how it will read in the future. It's best to avoid is and was, although was is slightly more long term then is, as the is can soon become untrue.
The sentence you picked up on didn't soud right, I had a go at changing it. My tip would simply change it, if it's not improved it can be revererted back. Just be BOLD. SunCreator (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank, also i am bold am just trying to mutual improve this article slowly by slowly. Right now we have limited number of information and were pretty close to maximum. So right now wat important is the grammar and spelling. Once everything is fix then we can just update his recent tournament and follow his progress. But if it wasn't for the fact that this article is reaching it current maximum i would be alot more bold went it come to my editing. (GSP-Rush 16:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSP-Rush (talkcontribs)

Samuel Sevian

At Samuel Sevian, GSP-Rush and I are in a disagreement over whether or not to include a section listing all of his tournaments for the last 6 months and the corresponding rating change. Can you give an opinion? Thanks. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 20:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have already commented on the talk page. My suggestion would be let it go, it's really not that important whether the trival stuff is in or out. SunCreator (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaga and gender

Your edit summary at Talk:Lady Gaga indicates perhaps you saw an incomplete version of the interview. They did discuss rumors relating to gender. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Lady Gaga#gender.. SunCreator (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The portion of the interview which is excerpted in the article I linked to aired with the interview when it originally played on ABC. I'm sure if you doubted the authenticity of the excerpt and you wanted to verify, you could request the original transcript from ABC, or ask someone who DVR'd the interview from ABC to post that portion as a YouTube clip. Robert K S (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Would be great to see on Youtube. I'm not chasing ABC however the burden of proof is on those on making the claim, also you will note I'm on a wikibreak. SunCreator (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't "Wikibreak" mean "not participating in Wikipedia"? :-) No claim is being made, not by me or anyone else. I am only trying to assist you in correcting your misconception about what Barbara Walters and Gaga discussed in their interview. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
My wikibreak is a semi-wikibreak which means I can't spend as much time as I'd like; see WP:SWB. Thanks for your link that has made things clear. The claim however was being made see here, hence the requirement to check if your information was verifable. Initially I thought no such question occured in the interview but as you rightly point out the question was asked but answered with a no. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding what constitutes an extraordinary-source-requiring claim, I would only regard as such a thing, for example, someone posting to the Wikipedia article Lady Gaga text such as "Lady Gaga is not a hermaphrodite" or "Lady Gaga is a hermaphrodite". AFAIK nothing of that sort is being claimed on the article. Robert K S (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sun Creator. You have new messages at Andyzweb's talk page.
Message added 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

andyzweb (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC) more andyzweb (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gaga credits

An inline citation would be unnecessary in those sections. There is a hidden note that the information came from the liner notes of each song's respective album. –Chase (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you click the "[edit]" button at that section, this will be the very first thing you see: "==Credits and personnel==<!--Source: album liner notes-->" There is no citation because there's nothing it could properly be attached to.
Sorry that makes no sense to me. Have amended Revolver_(song)#Credits_and_personnel so you can see the problem. SunCreator (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to point out that track listing and credits doesn't need an explicit reference since it's inherently referenced to the single itself or the album itself, it's like the plot summary of a musical video or a movie. (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
While you can verify the vocalist by listening to the song, you cannot determine who mixed it. Thus, it is open to both error and undetected vandalism. SunCreator (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's When not to cite: If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information. Otherwise you should tag every single article about a song and album as almost everyone that have a track listing and/or credits section aren't sourced. (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Provide a link to your claim. Nothing shown in a [ search]. If such wording did exist it would be in conflict to policy. SunCreator (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Not everything needs to be cited here is the policy: Wikipedia:When to cite. (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not sourcing everything just the unsources section Revolver_(song)#Credits_and_personnel. Now you have at last provided the Wikipedia:When to cite rather then the previous stated When not to cite, you may like to check your previous post against the text found at Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed 'If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work'. Note there is no reference to any song in this section. From a film you have end credits which you can WP:Verify information. From listening to a song you can identify vocalist, but you can't identify the mixing, pro tools editing and others involved in the song. These things are to be referened or removed. SunCreator (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
And what is a song? isn't music considered art?. (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. A song is art. Understand your reasoning now. SunCreator (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

it's -> its

Nice work SunCreator (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits like

these are unacceptable and is a complete violation of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS and WP:N. I suggest you stop such additions if you cannot find a reliable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read the edit summary or understand that 'coming up' meant that more edits where coming up. Anyway I have now sourced it - the purpose of the edit, as planned but took extra time due to an edit conflict with your false allegation. SunCreator (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Adding a false reference is indeed violation of WP:RS and I suggest you take care while reverting. You are introducing the CRYSTAL failing "TBA" and "Alejandro" as a single, when no RS confirms it as such. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for those false allegation. You overlooked that I added [citation needed] to the item in question and the same should be doen with the next album, this is the way to get a source/reference and if not, remove it later. I recommend you make yourself familar with the general editing process on wikipedia rather then being so aggressive with removal; reading WP:BRD would be a good start. SunCreator (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Chess Wiki-Project?

What is the basis for treating list of child prodigies as a member of the chess wiki-project? It should include all sorts of activities where children can ocasionally outperform adults, and the vast majority of child prodigies in the world have never looked at a chess board. Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of inclusion in a wiki-project.

Yes, List of child prodigies could include all sorts of projects. Chess-wikiproject being just one of many. Articles can have many wikiprojects for example Benjamin Franklin has 11 different project tags. SunCreator (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I just had a reaction because it coincided with someone else's edit of the list where I had to delete a (pretty illiterate (or childish)) rant about Morphy, Fischer and Reshevsky.Julzes (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Hopefully the recent adding of Chess Wiki-Project and the rant of some editor where unrelated. SunCreator (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for letting me know the bot had stopped, a simple error that I have since fixed. Tim1357 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro (song)

Right now please do not take this the wrong way but my comments below are designed to be constructively critical. I previously discussed a consensus regarding whether fame monster was a an album or an EP. it was something which you were very passionate about. And its clear from the alejandro (song) consensus discussion that you are very passionate about all things Lady Gaga. But i feel like you are perhaps being a little too forceful in the discussion. You've made your point several times that you feel the article should be kept seperate and it is notable enough. That's fine its understood. But you should allow others to vote freely. At the moment it appears that you are commenting on virtually every vote. Im not administrator just a concerned fellow wikipedian. the last discussion i was in with an editor who did what you are doing resulted in him being banned for trying to force a consensus. see WP:PRACTICAL Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough i am aware that Lady Gaga-related articles are very highly trafficked and suffer quite a lot of abuse. But personally having been involved into to Gaga discussions with yourself i feel that my opinion is dwarfed and overshadowed not just by yourself but i notice that mad stans have been involved in the discussions. (in the past there's been sockpuppet investigations into voting). I am aware of WP:NSONGS but we need to take things in context. Yes charting makes a song notable but really unless its a single it shouldn't really have a wikipedia page unless there's a special reason. Especially with details for "Alejandro" being sketchy, no firm release date etc. it seems a waste. But you started a discussion which is fair enough and i've made my point so i guess we'll wait and see as to what the consensus becomes. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


I would appreciate that you would stop trolling through my edits. You are exhibiting quite the tendency of a banned user. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA and stop name-calling others. While you're at it, you might wanna check that I now actually support the keeping of Alejandro (song). So instead of calling others sneaky, or other names, construct something good for a change and not troll their edits to find where you can actually write something against them. You might wanna check User:Dance-pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) since your editing pattern and likes are so strong. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add your input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Singles release date is when FIRST being SOLD as a Single, NOT Radio Airplay

Hello, I think you may be interested in joining the discussion HERE. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I will comment there shortly. SunCreator (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Music Week

Here is where it mentions Poker Face: "Joe McElderry, who reached number one last week with The Climb, dips to number two, with his debut single selling a further 69,792 copies to take its 20-day tally to 716,358 – good enough for fifth place in the 2009 rankings, which are topped by the aforementioned Lady GaGa’s Poker Face, on sales of 882,059. A complete analysis of the 2009 rankings will appear in next week’s Music Week." I pasted that from the article. Jayy008 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Jayy008 (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

List of top 10 singles in xxxx (UK)

Hi mate, Thanks for your message and for praising my work on wikipedia. 03md 00:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN#One week later

Some input from an outside party would be good here when you have the time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Note to self. Research required for addition to guideline. SunCreator (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"City of Blinding Lights" FAC

Hey, thanks for your comment on the "City of Blinding Lights" FAC. I think that I've addressed your concern; could you revisit it to make sure that I've done so correctly? Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sun Creator. You have new messages at Gongshow's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Gongshow Talk 06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


No it would be like this:

February 1, 2010[1]
(See release history)

For all countries that will be for digital download or CD single but I propose for America because Airplay actually counts towards chart position and is such a big format, radio be allowed as a special dispensation. If this is denied I recommend using the music video release on iTunes as the release for the U.S. Jayy008 (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what we currently have here for example? SunCreator (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes!! Basically, but for ALL other countries make it a rule not to inc airplay cos it doesn't matter in those countries. If Airplay date is the first date from US it should be in the infobox. Jayy008 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like the display of all the release dates out of the infobox and in a release dates table; but that aside I agree on how the US release date/airplay chart connection works. SunCreator (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection that at all. The problem started about not wanting airplay in the infobox but I made it more complicated! Lol. I'm glad you agree because alot would have to be changed if the rule goes ahead, songs were know are singles would have to be changed to "songs" and called album cuts when they was actually singles. That would wouldn't be good for an Encyclopedia to give false information if you see where I'm coming from? Jayy008 (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, not good. Just out of interest what does US Airplay include? Is it just radio 'spins' or is TV views taken as well, maybe video views on a video channel or a performance on a TV show. Is the TV part considered airplay? SunCreator (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You know I've always wandered that myself, but I really don't know! It's not radio spins, it's audience impressions. I don't know exactly how it works but Airplay has a bigger ratio on Billboard charts than Digital Downloads per the rules. By the way I'm really liking what you're doing with the release history below post a message on my talk page when it's finished so I can take a look. Jayy008 (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


rowspan="3" for example will extend UK or wherever you put it to make it look clearer. Jayy008 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Release information

Work in progress.

Region Date Type Other Details
United States January 20, 2009[2] Airplay
January 30, 2009[3] Physical CD single, 12" Club Promo
January 30, 2009[4] Digital single
Brazil February 11, 2009[5] Digital single
Australia February 19, 2010[6] Physical CD single, 12"
February 15, 2009[7] Digital single Radio edit
Germany April 3, 2009[8] Digital single
United Kingdom January 22, 2009[9] Digital single Live version
January 25, 2009[10] Wikipedia remix
April 1, 2009[11] Radio edit featuring Chipmunk.
February 1, 2010[12] Physical CD single, 7", 12", CD Maxi
Worldwide January 18, 2009, 2010[13] Video to air

Can add whatever you like to above. So flexible. Maybe even Digital from album date? SunCreator (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Deffo not album date, it doesn't count as a release because it wasn't intended to promote that porduct only the album? Also I really like what it is now, like when you say Physical and in Other Details "CD single, 7", 12", CD Maxi" stuff like that. Jayy008 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your format is perfect, all I did was expand the countries etc to make it look cleaner and put dates second, other than that it was great for use and full of all information you could need. I propose deleted the earlier model off the discussion creating a new title with "===" bars and asking people what they think. Make sure you include that Ke$ha infobox you made too. Jayy008 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the other details column really helps. I'd prefer that format so that it didn't cover different countries because then the sort doesn't work, but that's minor and maybe sort not required anyway. SunCreator (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I think it's perfect the way you haven't got a date in the infobox then nobody can moan about what goes first. It should resolve any issues! Jayy008 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually i have a suggestion inline with other wikipedia debates. Recently critical reception was removed from the infobox of albums but a note was not left in its place. if this is to be the consensus then i think release dates should be left completely blank so that catagory doesn't appear in the infobox at all. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is critical reception a parameter in the Infobox single? ....goes to find out. SunCreator (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
no its not but i think for consistancy its best to keep the release date catagory blank. the point i was trying to make was that in past discussions (which i wasnt involved in) where infobox catagories were deemed longer fit for use they were simply left blank rather than inserting notes and instructions like (see release information) etc. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that seems like an implementation problem. For now, I'd like to focus on getting agreement on what is most suitable for all. SunCreator (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Dont get me wrong i think its the best solution for a problem that's been bubbling over for a long time and im glad someone's come up with it i just think the clickable link to the release history is not required thats all. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Alejandro (song)

Yes, you may, whatever. It was clearly a mistake that I commited, but I reverted it as soon as I realized what I did. Fortunato luigi (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the old version if you care to use this

Here is with my name change :)

Okip (formerly Ikip) 04:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Please stop. Mass unilateral changes are not a good thing. Setting up archiving bots w/o talk page consensus is frowned upon, and often not needed, such as inactive pages: In Wikipedia talk:Governance reform the last edit was almost a month ago, and before that in August 2008; the last edit in Talk:Veterinary chiropractic was May 2008. Also, pointing out WP:SIZERULE is misleading: it is guideline for articles, not talk pages.

On top of that, you're doing it wrong: miszabot requires each parameter to be on a separate line. On many pages, you've effectively disabled auto-archiving. Please self-revert. Rami R 16:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted/tweaked your additions of auto-archiving, as I discovered that not only are they unproductive, they are potentially disruptive: one line archiving code can cause Miszabot to archive to /dev/null (meaning that it simply deletes the threads instead of archiving them). Rami R 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
ah, thanks for your input, I self-reverted articles you didn't. SunCreator (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

hmm, another thought.

Hey your table at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Release information. I had the idea of renaming the section as it would appear in article usage to: Radio and release information.
Those of us that don't believe that Radio = Release (per industry standards) should find this more agreeable. It would clearly indicate that Radio info is being appended to the 'release information'. Of course the Infobox area would then be 'See Radio and release information' with link to section at 'Radio and release information'. What do you think of this? (So much confusion at the Project talk page, I thought I'd ask you over here for your thoughts first at least.)—Iknow23 (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am happy that the section title is anything agreed. Radio and release information would be fine with me. SunCreator (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) had wanted to add: This to be for any table with Radio or Airplay in it, not only if Radio or Airplay is the top item.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Great. I am trying to collect my thoughts from discussions with you and others and from the Project Talk page, to present 'suggestions' for consensus. I hope to at least start this attempt in the next day or so.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't feel we are at an advanced enough stage to agree on a recommendation as we appear to be criss-crossed with different definitions. SunCreator (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is tough, agreed. But I have revised my position based upon the discussion. I hope that the thinking process I underwent thereby will help me to put forth something that will be at least understood, if not agreed.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(more)Oh, and Yes, my definition has changed and I will present that as well.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope so also :) SunCreator (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Release Information Debate

I am slightly concerned that it appears that you have implemented change on wikipedia without actually having a proper consenus. i've not been that active on wikipedia recently but i have been keeping up to date with the discussion about release histories. its clear to me that there was a perfectly good concensus discussion going on which was nearing a decision. since then you offered another solution to the problem which people were still discussing. and now i've noticed that many articles appeared to have started using the new solution. but as far am im aware the discussion is still on going and has not been closed to reach a consensus. the whole point of using voting for policy change is it makes it clear what the outcome of a discussion was. by interjecting a new solution that process has been disrupted and it appears that a concensus between a handful of users has gone ahead and been implemented.

i suggest that a proper vote-only consensus is set up as many different opinions have already been displayed but it is not clear from all those involved in the discussion what the solution is. Also it is quite a complicated issue which has quite a big impact on articles and so a thorough discussion/decision making process would be deemed best for the situation. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no I have not implemented anything. I can be totally sure about this, because at this point I haven't a clue what it the best way to do it! I guess you refer to the 'release history' link, if so then that idea pre-dated even the discussion on release date and while I have observed it is a useful way to reduce edit-warring, it's not my idea and I can take no credit for it.
A vote-only is not a good idea see WP:NOTVOTE, discussion is. I fully agree it's a complicated issue, so much so that at this point I'm struggling to solve it in my own mind. A thorough discussion would be best and so far even with willing editors is has been difficult, although I feel productive (see end of this section). There is still uncertainty about the basic term 'single' so discussion goes at a slow(and often muddled) pace. SunCreator (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Me and Bobby Fischer

I think this can be sourced, albeit with some difficulty, and is a truly marginal case. Do you want to send it to WP:AfD? Bearian (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If it passes notability then I am happy to give it a chance. SunCreator (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I did a few searches and found a few things, but not much. You may be right. The funny thing is, I have heard of this documentary, but can't document it. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Telephone Official Cover

Let me get the original source from the creator of Gagapedia. His quote to me was "...this came from a Universal Music Group". HausofGagarazzi made a post of it, but accidentally wrote "Remixes" on the topic. When MiKael (Gagapedia creator) gets back to me, I'll give you the link to the copyright.
hEyyy XxMjF (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Right, I realize they are both just "fan sites", but MiKael did get it from an official site, so again, as soon as he gives me the reliable source, I'll direct you to it as soon as I can! I'm just as eager to figure out where exactly this photo came from.
hEyyy XxMjF (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if you change it back to the gray cover for the time being. I'm hoping I can get back to you soon! :)
hEyyy XxMjF (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

the blog made a mistake. The remix cover includes "The Remixes". I personally wish/hope that the cover that was published isn't the official cover, but according to MiKael, it's the official single cover. I'm still waiting on him to give me the link to the site. He did tell me that it's a B2B site, so to protect privacy, I think it might be better if I can give it via e-mail, or something that won't be published to the public, easily found. Let me show you the conversation MiKael and I had. towards the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HEyyy XxMjF (talkcontribs) 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What does ARC stand for?

Absolutely Not a Reliable Chart? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 18:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Airplay article

I remember that we had discussed this article before. I thought that you might be interested that there are now references for the article. I didn't do it, though. —Iknow23 (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Life Preserver.svg The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Fairytale left.png Previous issue | Next issue Fairytale right.png



Work in progress.

"Blah Blah Blah"
Single by Kesha featuring 3OH!3
from the album Animal
Released (see Release information)
Format CD single
Recorded Lotzah Matzah Studios, New York City, New York
Genre Electropop, dance-pop

New gastropod articles

Thanks so much SunCreator for giving us something to work on! I really appreciate it even though the bot is not properly fixed. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We have come to rely on getting the results each day and they are really invaluable to the project. I hope when Alex gets back from his trip maybe he can fix the bot so that every project gets results equally, every day. Invertzoo (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Sun Creator. Is there any chance you could nudge the bot again? We did not get any more new results today, which I suppose we should have gotten? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, thanks anyway for what you were able to do before. Yes, I hope Alex gets back soon... Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ fake ref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref
    • ^ noref