User talk:Leafy46

Your GA nomination of XXX 88

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article XXX 88 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Locust member -- Locust member (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of XXX 88

The article XXX 88 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:XXX 88 for comments about the article, and Talk:XXX 88/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Locust member -- Locust member (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Teenagers (song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teenagers (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 ChristieBot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Cancer (song)

On 10 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cancer (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the My Chemical Romance song "Cancer" was written in eight minutes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cancer (song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cancer (song)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Skylines and Turnstiles

I love My Chemical Romance, but I was not even aware the song had an article until I checked the GAN page today. This would make me the perfect person to review it if my schedule frees up. It would be irresponsible of me to take it right at the moment - I have an open FAC and I've got a GAR which is almost at kept - but consider this a message of intent to review it so long as nobody takes it before my two priorities are completed, which I would consider anyone welcome to if they so wish to. mftp dan ^oops 17:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan: Got it, thanks! I really admire all the work you've put into rock articles throughout the last decade-or-so, so I look forward to working with you if the situation works out :) Leafy46 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

So, my GAR has closed as a keep! I notice that you have another on review; would you like me to wait or just go ahead and take it? mftp dan ^oops 16:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan: Congratulations on the reassessment! Please go ahead, the reviewer on the other article has not posted anything for a few weeks now and I'm itching to get one of my nominations off my list :) Leafy46 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skylines and Turnstiles

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Skylines and Turnstiles 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of MFTP Dan -- MFTP Dan (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skylines and Turnstiles

The article Skylines and Turnstiles 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:Skylines and Turnstiles and Talk:Skylines and Turnstiles/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MFTP Dan -- MFTP Dan (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skylines and Turnstiles

The article Skylines and Turnstiles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Skylines and Turnstiles for comments about the article, and Talk:Skylines and Turnstiles/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MFTP Dan -- MFTP Dan (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

"Headfirst for Halos" release date source

Hi, in this edit to the page for "Headfirst for Halos", you added a source to back up the single's release date on April 5, 2004. However, I cannot seem to actually find any mention of the song in source provided, let alone on page 27. Infact, I actually checked the source for the release date of "Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us" as well, and I can't find the song mentioned there as well. Is there something I'm missing here? λ NegativeMP1 20:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: On page 27 of the magazine (not of the PDF), the song title is listed under the "Singles" section of "New Releases"; unfortunately, the PDF doesn't ctrl+f very well, but here's a screenshot for proof: link. It should be the same for "Honey", but let me know if you can't find the date on the source! Leafy46 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that it's just 4 pages ahead for the PDF version, being on page 31 instead of 27. I feel like maybe the reference should be adjusted in that case, but oh well. Thanks for the help! λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I also just noticed why you asked this question. Good luck with getting Bullets up to GA! Your re-write of it looks pretty solid, though it could probably use a proofread; nothing that couldn't be addressed in a GA review, though. Leafy46 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still working on some final details and a coypyedit before I take it to GAN. Also, I think I'm gonna rewrite the article for "Headfirst for Halos" as well quite soon (further stalling my FLW and WTTBP rewrites lol), which combined with your work on the three other songs from the album should allow for the creation of a GT exclusively about Bullets. Assuming everything passes, that is. λ NegativeMP1 21:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Of course, makes sense. It shouldn't be too bad, I think I've collected pretty much every reliable source on Bullets on the internet between the three articles I've rewritten lol, so it's just a deal of searching for the right information among them. Leafy46 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Update: Headfirst is done and is currently at GAN. Also, I have decided to make an article for "Demolition Lovers" (also at GAN now) since good topics require that every article that can exist in a specific field exist, and I feel that the song has just barely enough for an article. I also don't want to risk the future GTC possibly failing (based on what I've seen from past GTCs, people can be very insistent on this sort of thing). Anywho, I'm keeping track of the topic here incase you're interested. λ NegativeMP1 06:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Good to know! I'm a bit worried that they are also going to ask for "Romance" to be GA'd, however, given that it *is* listed and linked in the track listing. Leafy46 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I pray that they won't be that cruel. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us

The article Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us 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:Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us and Talk:Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Medxvo -- Medxvo (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us

The article Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us for comments about the article, and Talk:Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Medxvo -- Medxvo (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Chili

Who else would nominate the article? I am making it better. Also what constitutes as making major edits. Engage01 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Engage01: If you read the nomination instructions, which are included in the template I've sent your way, you'll see that a nominator who "is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship" is not fit to nominate an article for GA. Looking at the article's contributors, your username is not listed at all, and thus I've removed the nomination as a drive-by; in contrast, a user like Popcornfud or Jason1978, who have both written more than 10% of the article, would be more fit to nominate it. The reason this is important is because an article becoming a GA is not just a surface-level thing. It's necessary (and arguably more important) to deeply know the article's sources, and to verify that they support what is written in the article (and that doesn't even begin to mention how there are a lot of valid Citation Needed templates on the article, which would need to be resolved before a nomination is even considered). All in all, while I appreciate the enthusiasm, I hope you understand why I've decided to remove your nomination! Leafy46 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't look at what you have put on the talk page. Are you reviewing articles some of the time? If I am guessing you haven't been a reviewer yet. Engage01 (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

popcornfud hasn't been on there since Sept., hasn't been on Wikipedia at all. Engage01 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Jason1978 isn't coming back. I would suppose that the portal pages are used to develop articles. Engage01 (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia pretty much every day for a decade, heheh. Popcornfud (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, help me fix RHCP. No one sees much on there. Engage01 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Is this pf or Elmer Fudd? Engage01 (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Engage01: Is that a personal attack against Popcornfud I detect on my talk page? Let me remind you that anything you publish is saved in an article's history, so deleting it in a later edit does nothing but make it look like there's something to hide.

That aside, if you truly want to help and fix up the page for RHCP, then demanding a user to help you and refusing to take advice are not typically the best ways to go about it. As mentioned, I'd highly recommend first working through the Citation Needed templates on the article: for instance, I spot a relatively easy one next to the statement "[Californication] was later listed at number 399 on the Rolling Stone magazine list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time". According to this source, it actually placed at #401; by fixing up that line and including a citation to that source, you'd be improving the article in a way which meaningfully brings it closer to GA. Hope this helps give you a direction! Leafy46 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

If I find all of the cn's, I will re-submit the article. Engage01 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Engage01: That's definitely a good start, and is a measurable way to improve the article. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't suggest getting more experience with editing before you nominate any article for GA, especially one of this scope. The sourcing being accurate is a great place to start, after all, but beyond that it's all about writing prose which is up to standard; for instance, there is a "Focuses too much on specific examples" template underneath the artistry section which is still unquestionably applicable, and that's not something which can really be resolved without a good amount of experience in writing for Wikipedia. I hope that you don't see this as discouraging, and that you instead see this as encouragement to work on other articles first! Every Wikipedian has needed to start somewhere, but I have seen the struggles of users who have bitten off more than they can chew. Leafy46 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Leafy, I'd like it if you stay on a topic. Actually let's stop talking for a bit. You're too unusual for me right now. Engage01 (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Kire is being a problem. Could you please get him to stop? Engage01 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Engage01: Uh... while I'm flattered that you'd come for me for help, I'm not a hitman. I can't, and won't, step in in this situation to take care of a "problem", especially since I don't have full context of what happened. However, let me remind/tell you that a large part of Wikipedia's goals is to reach WP:CONSENSUS, and not to simply dominate over those you disagree with. I'd highly suggest reading this article, given that it seems relevant to your current situation: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'd also be aware of WP:NOTHERE, given that you don't want to be hit by a "Treating editing as a battleground"; dispute resolution and yielding is much more preferable than a fight. Leafy46 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Kire is being impossible. I found the commons mention, I made the edits they're referencing. They seem to want to talk with me and I have no interest. Engage01 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)