User talk:HĐ/Archive 5

This is a subpage of HĐ's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

Girls' Generation

	Congrats, it's a...
	Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Girls' Generation

The article Girls' Generation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Girls' Generation for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Why (Taeyeon song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Why (Taeyeon song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taeyeon

Hi Simon, do you want to work together to rewrite her article? I already put together a layout/draft of how I think it generally should look like. But it still needs a bit more cleanup/rephrasing. After some fixes, it should turn into a decent-looking article. I have always wanted to rewrite her article for a while, but never got a chance to until recently. So if you agree, feel free to edit my sandbox. I don't mind. Thanks buddy!--TerryAlex (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TerryAlex: Happy New Year buds! And of course, I'd love to work on Taeyeon article ;) I have the ambition to get it to FA-status, but I think we should head for GA first hehee. — Simon (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you! :) Getting the article to GA-status (or anything beyond) would be great. She has enough activities for a generally comprehensive article, we just need to link everything together in the best possible way to showcase her artistry.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, let me know if you need anything. I'll follow your lead.--TerryAlex (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TerryAlex: Nah don't say so. Just do anything you feel okay per other quality articles (part because my English is not very professional while you are an en-Native user). And I may take a wikibreak for a quite long time until July to finish my finals. I've got works to be done hehe. — Simon (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been doing such a fabulous job. Wikipedia (and SNSD) is blessed to have good editors like you. Good luck with your study. Work hard but don't stress out too much. Wikipedia can always be your stress-free zone when you need it hehe :)--TerryAlex (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TerryAlex: Thank you so much! I may not be really active but can reply swiftly to messages so don't worry, ask me out if there is any problem! And why don't you bring Taeyeon to GA yourself? It's really worth a try! — Simon (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about transferring the current draft over to the main article. What do you think? I cut down some unnecessary details and think it's looking pretty decent and complete now. Anything to improve/revise?--TerryAlex (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TerryAlex: The draft looks great and is ready to go now I think. You did a gooooood job! Up to this point I can see no problem with the prose. However there may be some word choice prob which I will take a look later. Simon (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite happy with the current content already, but perhaps, some changes to certain word choice will make it better. I'll wait for your revise. Thanks buddy.--TerryAlex (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Why (Taeyeon song)

The article Why (Taeyeon song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Why (Taeyeon song) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Why (Taeyeon song)

The article Why (Taeyeon song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Why (Taeyeon song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why (Taeyeon song) has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, HĐ. Why (Taeyeon song), an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Girls' Generation

On 22 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Girls' Generation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Girls' Generation was among the five South Korean acts that best represent K-pop during the past two decades, according to a 2015 poll by Korea Creative Content Agency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Girls' Generation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Girls' Generation), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede 66 12:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great save on Shōjo Jidai on the Billboard charts

Hi HĐ - Thanks for your additions of SNSD's charting on the Billboard Year-end Japan 100 chart. Pulling all K-pop chartings has been a massive effort and having many eyes on it is so helpful to keep it accurate and up-to-date. I will soon correct the weekly song chart Japan Hot 100 and add chartings for SNSD. I admit to not knowing their Japanese name as I did TVXQ's Tohoshinki (which is also listed in their WP page lead paragraph). I stumbled across Supernova's Choshinsei (listed on their WP page info-box) early on. SNSD's is listed under a heading "Names" farther down their page. Maybe for duds like me, it would be helpful if it was in the info-box or the lead paragraph.

The Billboard.biz charts I used were helpful, as they listed the record company with the names, and I found a few K-pop artists I did not know that way.

Another editor is helping update the List of K-pop on the Billboard charts on a regular basis. If you have an interest in any of the charts and would like to baby-sit them every week, please jump in....just let GD.BB, (who is updating China V, Japan Hot 100, Hot Tours) and me (I am doing the rest) know which ones you want to work on! Otherwise, we would appreciate your continued review and corrections!

Another editor added the weekly GREEN highlight and we are tediously trying to keep it up weekly. Also, we are using WP style suggestions of just linking artist's WP pages once per chart, as the charts can be sorted.

Again, thanks for making the page more accurate!!!--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move request - could you take a look?

Hi Simon, I requested to move the page "Im Yoon-ah" to "Lim Yoon-ah" here. I was wondering if you could you take a look and offer your opinion on it?

Please read all that I've written, including my replies to Snowflake91's opposition, and all the evidence I provided in support of this move.

Thank you very much! GeT RiGhT (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of My Voice

The article My Voice has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Upcoming album, no chart position, no evidence that it passes WP:NALBUM

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 08:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Extended play

As I said in my edit summary, I'm not sure how the exact quote I typed out on the page, "[EPs] lack the number of songs required for a full-length album", can be taken any other way than to mean "it doesn't have enough songs to be qualified/classified as an album". Look, I get that you went to the article to question a claim after the user Hayman30 went around editing Korean artists' discographies with the edit summary that he basically took from me, that EPs are unqualified to be albums, but you cannot say that the book says "mini-albums ARE EPs", otherwise it wouldn't separate them, and that is a misunderstanding. It would say "mini-albums, or EPs". I don't think you need to be educated about "and" being used to separate two separate things, and "or" being used to equate them. The quote says EPs lack something that albums don't. If we say something lacks another thing does not, it's not the same as the other. Ss 112 23:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't edit war over your contributions. Per WP:BRD, you should discuss after being reverted. If we can't come to a resolution about the South Korean source, it should be removed, because your sentence is a misunderstanding of what the source says. Yes, I know EPs are equated with "mini-albums" in Asia, but that's not what this source is saying, because by that logic, a "repackaged [full-length] album", mentioned in the same sentence after "mini-albums, extended plays (EPs), and repackaged albums", would be the same thing. You appear to be trying to skew the page to say "EPs are still types of albums because of what Asian markets categorise them as", which is not necessarily indicative of the world as a whole. Ss 112 23:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added another sentence on extended play instead, but perhaps there is a way to re-work in something about the Korean market and what it considers EPs to be. I'm not sure about using the K-pop source I added there though, because as I pointed out, it appears that despite it being generally accepted that mini-albums and EPs are considered equivalent in South Korea, the wording that author uses appears to say otherwise. Ss 112 00:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taeyeon discography

Hi I know OST are also singles but it is better if her soundtracks will be separated please it is so confusing soundtracks are mix with her title tracks. I already saw some user did separate the OST but you reverted it.

It is better to be separated. I hope you will agree with this. JTY.39 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2NE1 Falling in Love cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2NE1 Falling in Love cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 23:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Amy Winehouse - Help Yourself cover.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amy Winehouse - Help Yourself cover.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) 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested input

Hello, I frequently see you contribute to articles listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture and would very much appreciate your input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture#Eradication of variety show sections so that a conclusion towards variety show appearances can be made. Thanks. Abdotorg (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divides at the end of wikitables

It's a minor issue, but I've noticed (mostly on several Girls' Generation articles) that if they were not there in the first place or after they were removed, upon editing, you reinsert divides (|-) at the end of wikitables, just before the close of the template. Divides are only used to separate entries and are not needed at the end of a wikitable after the last entry, so it's pointless coding. There's no need to reinsert them. Thanks. Ss 112 05:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see on your edit to Holiday Night (it's on my watchlist), you added another divide at the end of a wikitable. Just wondering/reminding in case you forgot. Ss 112 13:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MetroLyrics copyright violations

FYI: [1]. Given you're the most active editor of the article Elastic Heart, MetroLyrics is probably infringing your copyright. --Nemo 16:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award for Girls' Generation

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Girls' Generation (estimated annual readership: 7006156183800000000♠1,561,838) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! TheDragonFire (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist

Hey, just letting you know after your edit to Homemade Dynamite, per Template:Reflist, use of "reflist|2" is deprecated. Reflists now split automatically, or if it's under the number of references required to split it, a width can be forced by typing "|30em", for instance. I also removed the columns for the two wikitables you added as the infobox being there and no intermediate sections forces them to appear down the page as their width can't be accommodated next to the infobox. It's a pretty short page anyway, so I don't know that columns are required or beneficial at this point. Ss 112 13:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, HĐ. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

Just noticed your retirement notice. I send my best regards and will miss you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Lol I'm back now. I will no longer be so active but yeah, not completely retired. I'll not retire until my ultimate goal is to make Christina Aguilera a GA lol. Cheers! HĐ (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's good to know. Maybe someone else could take it to FA afterwards unless you also choose to go there someday. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, HĐ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lorde

Hello, I just noticed you made several edits to a couple Lorde-related articles. Did not mean to lurk on your page but I saw that you brought the entire Lorde article into your sandbox. Are you planning to improve the article so that it can be promoted to FA-status? De88 (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Yeah that's exactly what I'm doing lol, nice eyes right there. But as a non-native English speaker it's definitely gonna be tough work. — HĐ (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I started editing Lorde's articles (late 2017), I checked the editing history to see which user was involved in promoting her articles (from The Love Club EP and Pure Heroine) to GA-status. Your username showed up more than anyone else so I kept it in my memory. I have been actively patrolling her articles and got every single song article and album that was not yet promoted to GA-status. The good thing about her main page is that it does not need much tweaking, at least from my eyes. I was planning on taking it to the Guild of Copy Editors for more polishing. The only big issue seems to be her Musical style and Songwriting and lyrics sections. Those seem a bit obsolete since they are void of any details on her new album. De88 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Let's work on it together then. I was semi-retired until a week or two ago when I decided to return. While the article is a solid GA for now, FA is much tougher because the prose needs to be comprehensive and succinct. But after two years improving my English I believe it is achievable by now :-). Feel free to drop any comment and directly edit at my sandbox (or yours? up to you!) — HĐ (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to help you out. Back in June 2017, I sought the help of a mentor (for potential FA-candidates) who gave me a general review of the entire article. He said it was "in pretty good shape, and generally well-written". I will mention that I think the Pure Heroine and The Hunger Games soundtrack section could warrant two images in total. It was the breakthrough year for Lorde and the amount of information on said section provides ample space for an additional image. De88 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: The article is definitely in good shape, but for FA it requires further work. And I disagree with the inclusion of two images for one section, since it will make the article looks like a cluster of disconnected images with no clear conveyance; one is enough to make the article readable. Other than that, I would love to collaborate to bring the article to FA status :-) — HĐ (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you replaced the images on some of her sections. They look nice but I think they should be compressed in size though. I do have several comments on the lead section that you are currently editing on your sandbox. Something I see in good and featured articles is the removal of clutter information in the lead section. I think the mention of "...one of the best-selling singles with sales of ten million copies" should be removed and placed at the last paragraph that mentions her total record sales as an artist. This part ("subsequently credited as a spokesperson for mainstream emergence of minimalism and dark pop") is a bit wordy. Most of this could be trimmed down by removing specific months and leaving the year only. Something like, "Lorde's debut studio album Pure Heroine was released in 2013 to critical and commercial success; it is credited with popularizing a minimalist approach to modern pop music." I think this sums up the main points of the album succinctly: release date, critic's response, commercial performance and influence. We should avoid adding mentions of commercial performance in the lead. This section should provide a sort of narrative into her life in one quick read. If we start to mention peak positions for singles, it starts to lose its focus. That is one reason why I went ahead and wrote about her career beginnings in the second paragraph, her breakthrough and subsequent releases in the third and some additional accomplishments and related info in the fourth. It helps to establish consistency. De88 (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Oh hey, sorry for the late response. I will focus on the body paragraphs first, and will come back with the lead later on. But I see you point and it's really constructive. Noted, HĐ (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think we should slow down and go through each section before it gets posted on her page. To truly elevate this article to FA-status, it has to look pristine and sound cohesive. De88 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Sure. Do you think we should bring it right away to Peer Review or Guild of Copy Editors? — HĐ (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually submitted it to the Guild of Copy Editors several days ago, though I think a peer review would help tremendously. Peer reviews tend to provide more in-depth revisions. De88 (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Never heard of Guild of C/E so I don't know how that works. I also think PR would help a lot, so shall we nominate it for PR and scrap the Guild of C/E? HĐ (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a peer review would prove beneficial in this case. I will go ahead and remove the copy-edit request right now. De88 (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance, her early life and career beginnings sections look great. As for the Pure Heroine and Melodrama sections, those will need a fine tuning. I think we should follow the way Lady Gaga's article looks. It is very informative and flows with cohesion. We should make each paragraph be of equal size. To have two large paragraphs and two small ones right afterwards offsets the balance and accessibility to the reader. For her personal life section, I think it should be noted that she became a patron of MusicHelps, a musical charity that helps New Zealanders in need. De88 (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Put it under PR! Let's wait for comments. HĐ (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Hey, I noticed your edits and recognised they trimmed down the article significantly. I don't agree on some points though. For example, the chart data for "Royals" needs to be more detailed because it is the single that brought Lorde to the global spotlight. The current version is quite too short and not sufficient enough to demonstrate how significant the single was. — HĐ (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some further points I want to discuss:

It is noteworthy to mention "Tennis Court" reaching number one in New Zealand

Instead of saying "in the United States", Billboard Hot 100 or Billboard 200 are actually fine imo

"Green Light" is not that big of a hit to be defined "commercially success", I think mentioning the single's reaching number one in New Zealand and within the top 20 of Hot 100 is fine

The songwriting credits for Broods and Bleachers don't have to go chronologically because it breaks the flow of Lorde's Melodrama era

— HĐ (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to trim everything down as much as possible. I used Lady Gaga, a featured article, as a blueprint. Billboard Hot 100 is replaced with United States. I think we could squeeze in that "Tennis Court" went number one in New Zealand. As for "Royals", its commercial success is presented where it mentions its number one positions on the largest music markets as well as the amount of records it broke. All that information can be found on the song's article. We should try to avoid using a laundry list of records and chart placements as this is Lorde's article, not just "Royals". We should make the article flow chronologically since this section is about her life and career. De88 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think the Personal life section should be removed. I looked at Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift's articles (FA-status) and they both do not include this section. I find it useless to have a very small section that could easily be implemented into Life and career. Also, is there another picture that we can use for the Pure Heroine section to swap out the one in place? The current one looks a bit odd. De88 (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Hey, if the section is too little then it can be merged. For the file any picture is fine as long as they have appropriate licensing and sourcing, but the current one is fine to me. I don't emphasize much on that. — HĐ (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I truly believe that the the lead was fine the way it was before. The new version omits her Golden Globe nomination, discovery by her A&R, and fails to specify her breakthrough with "Royals" ("chart-topping single" sounds too promotional). It is way too clunky as it is right now. This bit is odd, "She has been credited as the spokesperson for the mainstream emergence of minimalism and dark pop embraced by a following generation of artists. A self-identified feminist, the singer is noted for her incorporation of youth disillusionment and personal struggles into her lyrics." The second sentence sort of makes it infer that because of Lorde identifying as a feminist, her music reflects that belief, which is contrary to what her music actually says. The first sentence is a clutter of words. Instead of spokesperson, say something like, "Critics have credited her for popularizing a more minimalist and dark approach to pop songs in the mainstream." I still stand by the idea that there should be four paragraphs in the lead: first talks about how she is recognized and her birthplace, second mentions her career beginnings, third mentions her breakthrough and her subsequently studio releases and the fourth gives details about other accomplishments and ventures. I say this because the second paragraph is huge and the whole lead feels inconsistent. If we want this to pass the FA-criteria, it should maintain consistency. That is why I suggested removing her Personal life section. De88 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: I don't think so. The lead was previously four paragraphs and it's a really bumpy read especially for a relative newcomer to the industry like Lorde. Her discovery by an A&R can be traced down to the Career section and it isn't of significant importance to add names of her friend or the A&R in the lead. The awards won by "Royals" are repeated by the inclusion of her accolades in the last paragraph. I stand by the current organisation, but I'll have someone to check the sentencing and wording. — HĐ (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Tennis Court" edits

Hey, so you reverted the edit I made on "Tennis Court". I still hold a strong opinion against writing out each line of the song into the article. Not to mention that a certain line from the article cites 4 sources rather than just one or two. That was a mistake I did on the Melodrama song articles. From a reader's perspective, it would be best to provide overall interpretations of the song (like the way the "Composition and lyrical interpretation" section is formatted on the "Royals" article. As someone who values simplicity and succinct prose, this definitely needs further polishing. It was fine the way it was written before. I realise you may have just reverted the entire edit without actually reading through all the changes since I included a very important piece of information regarding the inspiration of the song. De88 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: Hi, I still opt for elaborating on the lyrics, as the song is open to much discussion. Summarising it to i.e. "high school stereotypes" is indeed short but will cause confusion, so I think it's not a good idea to cut it just to simply the main themes without shining lights on them. And I just noticed you added an inspiration to the lyrics and apologise for removing it; that is indeed needed. — HĐ (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read the entire section and I think my comments were a bit harsh. It sounds rather coherent; however, I do think this line is self-explanatory, "which feature "class clown" and "beauty queen" stereotypes of high school students". The lyric pretty says this already. I do think commentary on lyrics should be reserved for lines that are ambiguous or that require explanation like the line that says, "...But my head's filling up with the wicked games, up in flames..." The first paragraph is way too long. It feels like it could be split into two. One mentions its production while the other mentions the comparisons of its sound. De88 (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, feel free to edit the article without informing me (except for major issues like expanding or removing stuff) :) HĐ (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

I know you are busy at the moment but I hope that you might take this into consideration when you complete your endeavors. One of my ultimate goals is to get "Royals", Pure Heroine and Melodrama to Featured Article status. I know this is an ambitious task and one that would require additional assistance. Would you be interested in lending a hand? In the future, of course. The aforementioned articles are all GA-status so this may be easier to complete, especially since I went in and made significant edits to the "Royals" not too long ago. De88 (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@De88: It would be awesome to get them to FA status! While I'm not sure from when and for how long I will commit to the projects, I will sure join in to help, especially since Lorde is one of my go-to music artists. HĐ (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi guy, are you a sone ? Đông Minh (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bạn có nhiều thành tích, anh văn chắc giỏi lắm nhỉ ? Đông Minh (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Đông Minh: No cũng đủ xài thôi, tiến cử vài bài lên FA mà không được bài nào :)) Mà lên Wiki tiếng Việt nói chuyện cho dễ đi. Thanks for commenting on James Dean candidate anyways

— HĐ (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thất bại thì làm lại, lần sau sẽ tốt hơn lần trước. Bạn có thể chỉnh sửa giúp mình Trần dynasty military tactics and organization không, mình viết lâu lắm rồi và bị treo bảng đến nay. Bạn chỉ cần làm khi nào bạn muốn và có thời gian rảnh. Năng lực tiếng Anh của mình cũng hết cỡ rồi mà còn bị gọi là dịch máy. Đông Minh (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1989

Hi, sorry to see the FA nomination for 1989 was archived. Albums aren't my area of expertise but from a quick look, it appears to be in good shape. I'd suggest comparing it to featured articles on albums and then taking it through GAN and/or a peer review and then trying again. I'd be happy to help with the prose as long as everything else is in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Hi, thanks for your kind comments. I'm taking it to GAN and will proceed to peer review once my college finals are over. I hope you can give some input for future peer review, especially regarding the prose, my weakest expertise :) — HĐ (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Taylor Swift - Style sample.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:Taylor Swift - Style sample.ogg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNSD awards

Hi, I see that you removed some non-notable awards at List of awards and nominations received by Girls' Generation and you listed inclusion criterias at the talk page two years ago, but now someone has added them all back just because "awards are still awards", are those crap awards like "bugs awards", "gallup korea", "monkey3 awards" etc. now notable or still nah? Snowflake91 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowflake91: Hi, thanks for reaching out to me. Definitely not, per talk page. If this continues, it's better to have the page protected from non-autoconfirmed users. — HĐ (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lorde discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SZA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style (Taylor Swift song)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article "Style" (Taylor Swift song) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: Hi, may I know why did you remove authorlink for several writers in some references i.e. Kitty Empire, Neil McCormick etc.? — HĐ (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know these are not required. For an FA status article you want all of the citation formats to be appropriate and consistent, which I believe they now, are. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked: my idea for the first paragraph (and probably nobody else's):

"Style" is a song recorded by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift for her fifth studio album 1989 (2014). Swift wrote it along with Max Martin, Shellback, and Ali Payami, who are also credited as the song's producers. On February 9, 2015, Republic Records, in partnership with Swift's label Big Machine, released the song to US radio stations as the album's third single. "Style" incorporates several musical influences, including disco, funk, and pop rock. The lyrics are ambiguous; music reviewers have interpreted its themes being about beauty standards and reflections on past romantic relationships.

Don't say I didn't warn you! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady Gaga - Applause (Music Sample).ogg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lady Gaga - Applause (Music Sample).ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this might be useful

Hi,

Just spotted this, it looks very useful! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Your GA nomination of Style (Taylor Swift song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Style (Taylor Swift song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Style (Taylor Swift song)

The article Style (Taylor Swift song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Style (Taylor Swift song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arular

Done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Norton

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Edward Norton has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the Peer Review.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive summary

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Brigitte_Bardot&type=revision&diff=888911525&oldid=888910942

Says "adding info" yet you completely wiped out a parameter of the infobox listing Bardot's past cohabitants. What's the explanation for this? Iistal (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iistal: Chill, why do you sound so aggressive? I clearly added info on her childhood and pre-stardom career. Regarding her list of partners she apparently dated tons of men in the industry, and per {{Infobox person}} only really notable partners should be included. So instead of listing all of them in the infobox why not leaving space for married partners only? Hope my explanation clears your concern, HĐ (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:M.I.A. Paper Plans video screenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:M.I.A. Paper Plans video screenshot.jpg. 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. Aspects (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Book:The Love Club EP

The book Book:The Love Club EP has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Small book with content already covered in the more complete Book:Lorde.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, books may be deleted for several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated book prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the book's talk page.

Please consider improving the book to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated book prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes still exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and the miscellany for deletion process allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:1111 - Taeyeon (song sample).ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1111 - Taeyeon (song sample).ogg. 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) 17:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna article

Hi, I reverted your article and I did add an explanation for a previous edit before making that one, so my mistake. I just didn’t see how your edit was constructive as the page had been like that for quite some time before, although you obviously see a reason to change it. Thank you for your contribution, although it could’ve been left. --Unitedfenty (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Hey HĐ. How are you? I hope everything is going well for ya. Lately, Rihanna's article has been struck with so many changes by users who have done only few edits in the past on Wikipedia and I honestly don't think they are making the article better. As a result of that I didn't even bother to actually look at your changes when I reverted. I apologize for that. The lead certainly reads great now. So, I am sorry again. Another thing is, I brought so many Rihanna articles to GA/FA status, but her bio is just really hard to do it by yourself since she has done so many things since the beginning of her career. If you are free and willing to do it, we can work on it? I really need a partner in crime to make her article at least GA, because I feel like she deserves it (or nah, cause she doesn't want to give us R9! :p). Anyways, if you are down for it, it would be great! — Tom^(T2ME) 12:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomica: Hi, how have you been doing? No hard feelings cause I take everything with just a grain of salt :) I'm definitely in to bring Rihanna article to GA/FA, but I may not be very active from now till the end of June because I'll be showered with college assignments for the next two months. However, I'll still give a helping hand occasionally, and till I'm freed of college for summer break, I'll take full-time work on the article with you. Cheers, and looking forward to R9 as well — HĐ (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I will probably have more free time during the summer as well. So let's wait till we are both free and work on it. We will need to make a good concept for it, since it's a load of info and messiness right now! — Tom^(T2ME) 10:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Planes (song)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article "Paper Planes" (song) has been completed.

I added a British English tag to the article and checked it is used throughout. I did not do it, but would suggest that you rename the section "Contemporary Critical Reception" to "Critical Reception" and move it after the release section. As it stands, the article's layout does not follow the layout suggested in the article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice which would also apply to articles on singles.

It's an interesting, well-written article.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible FA renomination

Hello! I was thinking about eventually renominating All About That Bass at FAC in the future. But of course I will have to attend to the concerns you raised in the first nomination before that. So would you be able to provide comments if I started a peer review page for it? I was personally satisfied with it before the FAC so I need someone else to help me re-write it and specifically point out the parts that need simplifying lol. Thanks in advance.--N Ø 17:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: Sure, I'm glad to help with the PR although I find myself struggling with the prose sometimes as well. Anyways, since I got some input during Lorde FAC and advice from some GOCE editors, I'd try to help out as much as possible :) HĐ (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case the ping didn't go through, I just wanted to alert you about this page I opened as a followup to our discussion.--N Ø 18:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

Hi, HĐ. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011 – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 17. 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) 00:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christina Aguilera, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Montblanc and The Advocate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Paper Planes (M.I.A. song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paper Planes (M.I.A. song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1989 (Taylor Swift album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1989 (Taylor Swift album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Paper Planes (M.I.A. song)

The article Paper Planes (M.I.A. song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Paper Planes (M.I.A. song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Was nice working with you on "Paper Planes" and currently can see you're involved with MarioSoulTruthFan. For further discussion related to the former, I did not myself to be a fan of the song and can tell you are too; I listen to quite a lot of rap, are you a fan of the genre in general? --Kyle Peake (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I wouldn't say rap is my go-to genre though I do like certain artists and songs. I usually listen to electronic, synth-pop and R&B and only hit up rap songs with certain moods. HĐ (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, I am a big fan of Kanye West, who is one of the most diverse rappers. He has certain songs that include elements of different genres, what are your honest thoughts on West's music? (Not getting offended by opinions) --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I haven't gone through all of West's catalogue so I can't comment on his music overall. For certain tracks that I've listened to, though, I can say he's hella experimental and innovative. While his flow is far from the best, his beats certainly have something in them ;) HĐ (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 1989 (Taylor Swift album)

The article 1989 (Taylor Swift album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1989 (Taylor Swift album) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations buddy on "Style" becoming a FA. I think you did an amazing job with the article. Did you have time to check the Rihanna sandbox? I am free this week, if you are also, we can start working on it. — Tom^(T2ME) 15:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomica: Thanks so much Tom; the article could've failed without your input ;) I'm planning to brush up some parts in your sandbox too, haven't got much time to do it though. HĐ (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're very much welcome! Of course! Feel free to play with it. I think I am going to add more info later today or tomorrow. — Tom^(T2ME) 13:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the slight c/e in the sandbox. I managed to add more material to the next section! Hopefully, you have more time soon, so we can get on it more serious. I somehow got excited about it haha. :) — Tom^(T2ME) 18:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomica: While I'm having some free time I'll make sporadic edits to balance between real life and WP (I'd been spending a lot of time on WP...). Still that doesn't mean I don't pay attention to the article. We'll definitely have to bring it to at least GA status ;) HĐ (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Awesome work with the "Style" article, and congrats to it become a FA! Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Aoba for your suggestions and warm support! HĐ (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

Hello,

I'm currently nominating Never Let Me Down (Kanye West song) for deletion, I would appreciate your expertise on the discussion with a vote and comment if possible. Moreover, if you do manage to find the time I would appreciate a vote on Talk:Spaceship (Kanye West song) and Talk:Two Words, as well.

Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELEVAR

Thanks for linking to my WP:ELEVAR essay. Good to see people are finding it useful (hopefully). Popcornduff (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi. I just got exposed to the article recently and what can I say... less is more I guess. Thanks for the insightful article, HĐ (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1989 (Taylor Swift album)

It isn't his fault. The template created those blank spaces. Quakewoody (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hanoi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Red River and French Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with FAC

Hello again. I was wondering if you could look at my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or would prefer not to, but I thought that I might as well ask. Either way, have a great rest of your week and good luck with your current FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Iggy Azalea - Beg for It (sample).ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iggy Azalea - Beg for It (sample).ogg. 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) 02:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hà Nội and Hồ Chí Minh City

Hi! I've seen you have write lots of good articles (GA) and several featured (FA) ones relating to artists. Do you have any plan to develop these two cities article into GAs in the nearest future? Night Lantern^halo? 05:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as much as I want to do so, I'm afraid it would take an extensive period of time to finalize because 1) I'm racked up with college assignments and 2) I have rarely ventured out of my main field of contribution, which is popular music and cinema. I'll try to work on the articles regardless. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Random question

Hello again! Great work with the 1989 FAC so far. I was just curious if you were planning on taking any of Taylor Swift's other albums or songs through the FAC process? Apologies for the random question, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no need to apologise for such a well intended question ;) As much as I want to, I'm thinking of taking a break when 1989 FAC concludes (hopefully it gets promoted) to focus on personal stuff. That said, I'd still be active on WP and keep an eye on articles to revert vandalism etc. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good plan to me. Wikipedia can definitely take up a lot of time and energy so it is important to maintain a balance with your own personal stuff. Good luck with your off-Wikipedia work! Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FA review?

Hey. I noticed your current FAC nomination, and was wondering if you'd be interested in trading reviews? I'd love to get as much feedback as possible this time around for my nomination, and would be more than prepared to review yours in return. I understand if you don't have the time, though. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07: Sure, I'll drop by some comments! HĐ (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to Jill Valentine's FAC. You probably had no idea of the sort of quagmire you were stepping into by reviewing Jill's article, but your uninvolved, unbiased critique was exactly what was needed: it genuinely helped clear the air surrounding the article of a lot of its toxicity. I can't explain in words in a barnstar of how appreciative I genuinely am. Just... thanks for all your help. And I was sorry to see that your own nomination wasn't promoted. Message me on my talk page if you want any help utilising the so-called "academic" sources for 1989, and I'll be glad to do what I can. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1989 (Taylor Swift album)

Hi, If it would be helpful, I'd be happy to provide detailed comments on prose ahead of any further FACs for this article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: If you have time, I'd definitely need your consultation. Should I initiate another PR? HĐ (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe after expanding the article a bit? A PR now would likely produce similar comments to the FAC. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that, HĐ (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me and/or drop me a note on my talk page when you'd like me to look in on the article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with potential FAC

Hello again. I hope you are doing well. I was wondering if I could get your insight on a potential FAC. I might nominate "Drake Would Love Me" fo a FAC in the future, but I do not have a lot of experience with putting song articles through the FAC space. I was inspired by "Missing My Baby" to do a FAC for a non-single song. Since you successfully had "Style" (Taylor Swift song) promoted to FA status, I was just curious about your opinion. Apologies for the absolute randomness of the request. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for the correction; I sincerely apologize. Sc2353 (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what WP:OVERLINK says

Thank you for swooping in literally three minutes after I edited Taeyeon discography, but I'm well aware of what WP:OVERLINK says, and besides that, I think you mean WP:REPEATLINK. They now refer to different things. OVERLINK refers to terms that are so well known they offer no benefit to readers to be linked, and REPEATLINK refers to multiple of the same link. Also, I didn't cite OVERLINK at all, so I don't know why you assumed that must be why I unlinked Billboard in one reference. While I am fully aware of REPEATLINK stating it applies to the body and not citations, it still offers little to no conceivable benefit to link to the same article in adjacent references, but if you are troubled by editors removing it enough to restore it and "correct" other editors over it three minutes after they edit an article, go right ahead. You don't need to ping me if you reply, and you do not need to cite guidelines at me in edit summaries in future. I'm open to being informed about things I may have missed—because no can editor knows every guideline inside and out—but things like this always come off as condescension. Thank you. Ss112 05:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Hi, I didn't notice that you edited three minutes before me, so please don't take it as an offense (I rarely pay attention to those kind of stuff, and everyone acts out of sheer good faith) :) HĐ (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award for Lorde

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Lorde (estimated annual readership: 1,400,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taeyeon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Thanks again for all of your help this year. It was very much appreciated. Wishing you and all your loved ones a happy and healthy holiday season. And remember to take the time to do what you want to do in 2020. Over the course of human history, only a relatively minuscule amount of people will ever be able to say they lived through the year, so make it a good one! ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the jian similar to the kiem?

I had been in a dispute with SimeonManier (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jian&diff=945108100&oldid=944245559) for over 2 weeks. I am not sure if this Chinese sword is similar to the Vietnamese sword. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinnerLaserz: Yes they are. I re-added the Vietnamese transcription, but we'll need to find scholarly sources to back it up. HĐ (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Soul: 7

Hi. I have seen you have a lot of experience and have helped in promoting album and song articles to GA status. Would you mind helping in improving the Map of the Soul: 7 album article? Thank you.--Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2NE1 - I Am the Best (alternate cover).jpeg at FFD

Hello. I nominated File:2NE1 - I Am the Best (alternate cover).jpeg, which you contribued, for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 10, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift articles may need an eye kept on them

Hey HĐ, I know you haven't been as involved with the Lover era articles. But I wanted to let you know that a couple of South Indian editors (the same person?) are continually adding fancruft to Swift articles, ranging from unnecessary alternate covers, fanmade artworks, unjustified audio samples and images with wrong copyright tags. Recently, they also seem to have taken to 1989 so I thought I should let you know in advance. Hope you still have it on your watchlist. Regards, N Ø 12:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth (EP)

Hello. I would like to ask you if you would like to contribute. Only if you interested. 183.171.115.209 (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote vs. quote box

Hi there. At MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, it recommends that quotes that are "more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters" be formatted as a block quotation, which can be done with {{quote}}. The relevant quote is 41 words, 170 characters without spaces, and 210 characters with spaces. The MOS also advises against coloured backgrounds, which was what {{quote box}} was used for. Editors have been using the background colour to reflect what they think suits the album most, e.g. black for Reputation, pink for Lover etc. The documentation of Template:Quote box also discourages its use in articles. MOS:COLOR and Help:Using colours advise on the use of colour in articles, and cautions that colour use should be made with accessibility in mind. Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do understand, but as the quote is rather disconnected from the prose as a whole, I think a box is better in representing Swift's views while avoid obstructing the flow (feel free to argue otherwise). Also, thank you for mentioning the colour issue. I'll keep it in mind, HĐ (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think quotes are used too liberally on some articles. My opinion is that if quotes are to be used, they should be used sparingly, and only if the quote itself is representative of the section. In this case, I would work the quote into a paragraph. A quote here and there distracts from the body and makes the article look less like an encyclopaedia and more like a newspaper opinion piece or magazine column. Shuipzv3 (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't get what you really mean by "should be used sparingly"... If it's scripted as a paragraph, I don't see how it really fits in with the prose as I mentioned earlier. The box kind of captures what Swift personally thought during conception of the album without disrupting the flow, but if you insist, I suggest it be removed completely, HĐ (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that there are some articles with a quote like that in every section. That, to me, is a bit overboard. I see what you mean about the box. While the documentation of Template:Quote box does not recommend it being used in article space, I see it in articles regularly anyway, so I don't know if anyone actually follows it. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi. Do you mind to take a look at this discussion. 115.164.186.92 (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]