User talk:Heartfox: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Your review: this is so absurd and bizarre
No edit summary
Line 125: Line 125:
::Nobody has demanded you do not re-read the article. You can read it hundreds of times and then post the comments altogether. Personally, I'm a minimalist and like to make the changes altogether rather than going back to it everyday. I do appreciate your efforts and have made all the changes. If you find this request unpleasant, I would like to regrettably suggest you do not need to review all of my nominations. Regards.--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 19:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
::Nobody has demanded you do not re-read the article. You can read it hundreds of times and then post the comments altogether. Personally, I'm a minimalist and like to make the changes altogether rather than going back to it everyday. I do appreciate your efforts and have made all the changes. If you find this request unpleasant, I would like to regrettably suggest you do not need to review all of my nominations. Regards.--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 19:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Don't tell me how to edit. Following my initial review, I have added '''''THREE''''' comments (question about foreign-language reviews, basic question about genre, MOS:IDIOM) that weren't follow-ups to your responses/edits. Two friendly questions and a basic MOS issue. If that's annoying for you, that's your problem. I don't know what you are going on about. You do not control other people's editing or tell me when I can post comments or not. I tried to be nice and review your articles so you would potentially review mine. Clearly you do not care at all. I will be certain to avoid you in the future. I don't know where you get this idea that someone writes comments, you edit, and then it's over. If an article is nominated for FA, there should be an expectation of some follow-up comments to edits and perhaps some new ones. You ''should'' expect to go back to it every day. I regret that I have wasted my time reviewing your articles. if you would rather have a non-subject area source reviewer who will justifiably point out things that I have generously ignored, that is your prerogative. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox#top|talk]]) 20:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
:::Don't tell me how to edit. Following my initial review, I have added '''''THREE''''' comments (question about foreign-language reviews, basic question about genre, MOS:IDIOM) that weren't follow-ups to your responses/edits. Two friendly questions and a basic MOS issue. If that's annoying for you, that's your problem. I don't know what you are going on about. You do not control other people's editing or tell me when I can post comments or not. I tried to be nice and review your articles so you would potentially review mine. Clearly you do not care at all. I will be certain to avoid you in the future. I don't know where you get this idea that someone writes comments, you edit, and then it's over. If an article is nominated for FA, there should be an expectation of some follow-up comments to edits and perhaps some new ones. You ''should'' expect to go back to it every day. I regret that I have wasted my time reviewing your articles. if you would rather have a non-subject area source reviewer who will justifiably point out things that I have generously ignored, that is your prerogative. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox#top|talk]]) 20:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
::::To be clear, I only asked you to avoid reviewing my work if it has been a source of stress for you. I think the article has improved as a result of your comments and I have not called into question the quality of your review. Asking someone to indicate when they are done is generally not such a big deal so I am not sure why it has been so provocative for you. Abandoning completed source and prose reviews on my nomination is extremely unprofessional and I'm surely not touching yours until those have been appropriately completed.—''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 21:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:18, 8 November 2022

It is approximately 1:39 PM where this user lives.

A commendation

Hello Heartfox:
I notice you grasped the nettle on this, and am writing to commend you for that: It was always going to be contentious, and whatever you said would have attracted a backlash. I also commend you for having the integrity to amend your judgement in the light of those objections. In the interests of full disclosure I was (or would have been, if I'd got round to it) opposed to the proposal, and disagreed with some of your conclusions, but nonetheless you done good. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyl 54: thank you. I read about WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and understood that an administrator's noticeboard section was possible in response to objections, but what I didn't expect were some editors unprofessionally inserting their personal opinions about the matter (and a bear photo with a paragraph-long caption??) into the AN discussion which was supposed to be about the close itself, not the she vs. it debate. It ruined what could've been a polite, serious exchange. It was a good learning experience about what "no consensus" means. I thought there was consensus for a solution/compromise, but it seems clear that many people view "no consensus" more broadly. I think I will stick to writing quality articles rather than involve myself in discussions that go nowhere :) Heartfox (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, consensus is one of those words that means different things to different people! Still, Illegitimi non carborundum, as someone once said… Xyl 54 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singles criteria

Hello!

I have a question regarding the subject above. If I have a Billboard source calling a song a single, it means it was released in the US (?), but no release date for radio. However, how do I manage that source in the article? How can I add it to it making sense of it, if I have nothing but the source calling it a single? There is no radio date, only under "cool new music", I have checked. It's not like Taylor Swift's "Exile".

Kind regards, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious

I noticed that it states you are in University. I was thinking that maybe it would be worthwhile to ask a professor and get their opinion on the matter of the template:series overview design structure. It may not affect consensus, but I'm genuinely curious about the response of a trusted professor. Feel free to dismiss the idea, I bare no ill intent whether you oppose or support my proposal.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings question

Hello again. I hope you are doing well. Sorry if I already asked you this before, but could you possibly do me a favor for the Shannen Says article? I have the ratings for five of the show's eight episodes, but I was curious if there was information for the other three episodes. I could not find anything, but you have had much better luck with finding ratings information in the past. Either way, have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Sorry I couldn't find anything. Heartfox (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for checking. It was a small show on a smaller network and got very little publicity so that does not surprise me. I appreciate that you tried though! Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genre-specific song sales charts

Hello. In regards to your removals of the World Digital Song Sales chart from several articles, I don't believe this is what is mean by the note on WP:USCHARTS. The World Songs chart typically includes songs of all genres, and I don't particularly get what Billboard considers a "world" artist to be, but I don't think considering that they include songs in English that it means "world music" as a "genre", if one even considers that to be a genre. If the World Digital Song Sales chart is included in this definition of "genre-specific" charts (which I always took to mean rock, Latin [although that's almost constantly being debated], country music and R&B/hip hop charts), I think we need to seek further clarification on the note. I usually remove US component charts myself, and haven't come across anybody (else) who regularly cites USCHARTS having an issue with this chart. Ss112 03:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox, just as an aside here instead of continuing an argument with the other user in the thread on the Finnish chart at Wikipedia talk:Record charts: as you said "I would like to see more evidence of notability/significance of the hittialistalla/Rumbassa positions before they are added", you should be aware that HumanxAnthro has made it clear that they will continue adding the charts, and it appears they already resumed doing so earlier on several articles. I know we as users can't forcibly stop them short of mass reversion, and I do think they should respect (rough) consensus, but they've already said they won't listen to anyone else. As I've lost much hope of getting through to this editor (as it always results in personal attacks and a needless-back-and-forth), I asked for admin intervention after their tone and incivility yesterday and Sergecross73 did he say would look into it but as yet nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if Wherelovelives continues without comment either. Ss112 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rupert Hotel fire

Hello, Heartfox. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rupert Hotel fire".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of Retail Singles number ones

Information icon Hello, Heartfox. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Retail Singles number ones, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wishes and Cngratualtions

Hey there. I used to do a lot of work on Mariah Carey-related articles years ago, and seeing the work you've done - especially on Here Is Mariah Carey - is truly heartwarming to see. You have done an amazing job on the article. Truly well balanced and sourced. As an old timer, I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to her pages and emphasize how impressed and thankful I am. All the best!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Songs like "Can't Take That Away" and "Through the Rain" really helped me through hard times so I am indebted to better Carey-related articles. Heartfox (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetheart (Rainy Davis song) FAC

Hello there. Just so you know I will wait to add further comments to the FAC until my other comments have been addressed, such as adding the credits/personal for the Davis original, putting the credits/personal for the Carey version in the prose, etc., as I would want to read-through the article more thoroughly after all these changes. Apologies for posting here and not on the FAC page, but I did not want to clutter that nomination with more comments. I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is now ready for you to read-through more thoroughly. Your comments and help is much appreciated Heartfox (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. I greatly appreciate your patience. I have left two responses on the FAC. I will do a more thorough read-through later today. I have a comment that I will point out here. The article does not mention the song's appearances on other compilation albums by Carey, specifically Greatest Hits, The Remixes, and The Essential Mariah Carey, so I would add that information in a brief sentence. I completely understand rusty on things. I have not done a television episode article in a while so I would probably make a lot of mistakes there, and congratulations on your first song GAN/FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of Canadian singles charts and number ones

Hello, Heartfox. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Canadian singles charts and number ones".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sweetheart music video.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sweetheart music video.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your review

As I stated in my last comment with a ping, I would like an indication as to when your review has concluded. I'll address the rest after that.--NØ 05:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is highly disrespectful that you demand reviewers never re-read an article or make follow-up comments in response to changes made. I thought one follow-up comment about "just" adding url-access parameters for citations that weren't in the article when the original review was conducted indicates it is pretty much over. Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has demanded you do not re-read the article. You can read it hundreds of times and then post the comments altogether. Personally, I'm a minimalist and like to make the changes altogether rather than going back to it everyday. I do appreciate your efforts and have made all the changes. If you find this request unpleasant, I would like to regrettably suggest you do not need to review all of my nominations. Regards.--NØ 19:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me how to edit. Following my initial review, I have added THREE comments (question about foreign-language reviews, basic question about genre, MOS:IDIOM) that weren't follow-ups to your responses/edits. Two friendly questions and a basic MOS issue. If that's annoying for you, that's your problem. I don't know what you are going on about. You do not control other people's editing or tell me when I can post comments or not. I tried to be nice and review your articles so you would potentially review mine. Clearly you do not care at all. I will be certain to avoid you in the future. I don't know where you get this idea that someone writes comments, you edit, and then it's over. If an article is nominated for FA, there should be an expectation of some follow-up comments to edits and perhaps some new ones. You should expect to go back to it every day. I regret that I have wasted my time reviewing your articles. if you would rather have a non-subject area source reviewer who will justifiably point out things that I have generously ignored, that is your prerogative. Heartfox (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I only asked you to avoid reviewing my work if it has been a source of stress for you. I think the article has improved as a result of your comments and I have not called into question the quality of your review. Asking someone to indicate when they are done is generally not such a big deal so I am not sure why it has been so provocative for you. Abandoning completed source and prose reviews on my nomination is extremely unprofessional and I'm surely not touching yours until those have been appropriately completed.—NØ 21:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heartfox&oldid=1120794331"