User talk:OmegaWikipedia

/Old Comments
/Old Comments Part 2

My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now one of the most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 16:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Omega

Regarding the Carey single that isn't released yet, unfortunately I do think you should have kept "is not a crystal ball" in mind before you made it. As for the others, if they get developed more, I will cretainly change my vote. :) I promise to keep a watch on the pages. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I know what I said before...

..but I just saw this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines/Songs#Response_.231), which I felt was very unprofessional and downright messy.

For the last time, I am not jealous of your* articles, and certainly not of the number of them. I gues I'll have to be blunt now: the articles are poorly written, gushing with fan language and lacking in the way of honest objectivity. I requested assistance because I prefer working in a team, and so that I can get fact-checking, grammar, and wording assistance from others, and also so that the contributions are not "all mine", and any article can be listed any number of times on AfD as long as nominations are in good faith and not immediately succeeding each other. Also, I never ordered anyone to do anything; I believe I informed you that we needed work done on other R&B artists, but it was certainly not an order. I must have typed all of this 50 times within the last 2 days, but you still do not listen. This is far from nonsense; this is a serious problem, and I am hardly the only person who thinks this.

Someone else in fact came up with a perfect word to describe it: "fanglut". If you want to create a massive amount of pop music articles, detailing every single release and otherwise in exhaustive detail, you would be well-advised to start a pop star wiki over at WikiCties, where you can include pretty much anything youd want to. Here, we need decorum and consistency.

I don't have any bias against any articles, but I do realize that not every single ever released deserves a Wikipedia article. I could sit and write OutKast articles all day long, but there is no point. The group is covered in enough detail already; the only thing that would really need ot be done would be expanding their album pages. There's no need for seperate articles on each single they ever put out, and, were it done, I deal with them just the same as I had been doing.

(*) Re: "your articles": The articles don't belong to you. Mine don't belong to me. You don't have the right to "protect" and try to blame people for attempting to undermine your work. There is a reason why Wikipedia is not a face-to-face project, and a reason why we do not have any attributed authorship.

I've talked until I was blue in the face to you, and so have several other people. I have had enough of it all, and I am going to handle it, for the better interest of the encyclopedia. I'm not doing this for myself, or even my own personal benefit; I'm doing it for the sake of saving the music side of this project before it implodes and de-evolves into a free-hosted fan site. --FuriousFreddy 02:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't lie.

Check the message right above this one. That negated any "agreement" we had. Besides, the articles aren't neccessary anyways; if I didn't nominate them, someone else was going to do it. --FuriousFreddy 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

When it was written is of no concern to me; it's the fact that it was ever written. Don't write fancruft articles, and I (nor anyone else) won't nominate them for deletion. That seems simple enough.

I find it...perplexing...that you think I'm vile and hateful, or that I'm doing this only to hurt you. I'm not over here going "okay...how can I mess with him today?" I'm over here going "he's filling the encyclopedia with fancruft, and we need to get it under control if we are to have some sort of credibility as a scholarly reference. Maybe he doesn't understand what encylopedic writing is all about...maybe he just doesn't care. In either case, something needs to be done." (and that statement can be applied to many, many, many other problematic Wiki editors. In other words, "don't feel special.") This is an encyclopedia, not a fan wiki for usic artists. If you want to contribute fan information, you can start a fan wiki at WikiCities. It's free, it's built just like Wikipedia, and you can set (some of) your own rules. --FuriousFreddy 16:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

A chronic liar? A cheater? A deciever? A heartbreaker? No, I'm the nicest person, but also the most serious person, you could ever meet. This is about whether you're wrting fancruft or not; the reason I was willing to leave it all alone is because I didn't feel it was worth the stress of trying to talk sense into your head. But, after talking it over with other editors, that would be giving up, which achieves nothing.

Do yourself a favor: copyedit the articles yu have written. Fact-check. Cut out extraneous information. Redirect articles about songs that didn't hit the Top 40, or songs that are covers of others. Only worry about listing significant statistical information; remember you're writing for the general public, not Mariah Carey fans. And don't take personal ownership of articles; they don't belong to you. For as long as you feel like people are out to get you and "your" articles, you'll never be able to understand the issue. You need to make it a top priority to do all of these things, because if you do not, someone else (amybe me, maybe not me, but most likely me and quite a few others) will. That being said, I've got to get back to work now. --FuriousFreddy 17:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never once claimed ownership of any of the articles I've worked on, nor have I gotten mad if anyone edited them. You have added unverified and non-factual informatio nto some of them, which I corrected just as I have done anyone else. I have never gone back and reverted a useful edit to any page (and about 80% of all edits have proven to be useful). I have to clean out the Michael Jackson page once a month, because it gets overloaded with excessive detail on albums that have their own pages, and with POV language.

Furthermore, I do not write articles with fancruft. Everything I write is verfiable fact (and I make sure of it), and if there is any doubt, I always get second opinions or fact-check and reference. Perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:Fancruft and see what exactly I mean by that term. I'm not being a hypocrite. --FuriousFreddy 17:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You know I didn't write that. Yes, I've been editing those for months, and, if you notice, every time I edit it, I reword it. I've been tracing back over these articles to do full-fledged edits for the last few days. Just yesterday I went through all of the Marvin Gaye articles. I did some minor cleanup on these; since you think it's not enough, I will do some more. That's not fancruft, it's POV writing. It's still not acceptable, and I am working on it.

Oh wait, its R&B its ok. Pop music sucks and R&B rocks. Thats what youre thinking. This is so biased and you know it. But of course, you'll probably defend these articles. Meh

If you really believe I think that, then you'll believe anything. --FuriousFreddy 22:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

...so, what you're actually blaming me for is...not being fast enough of a one-man cleanup taskforce? I know BrothaTimothy writes articles with biased language. At the same time, he doesn't revert my chages when I clean them up, so I made it a secondary task to go behind him and clean them up. You, on the other hand, have been known to revert any change that you don't like to your articles. I wouldn't be making an issue about your POV writing if you'd let other people correct it without complaining.

The Jackson 5 articles are being updated as I find time; my first directive was to give them infoboxes, and I corrected the POV that I did find as I sped-read the prose. I'm not allowing any POV writing; I just haven't gotten around to correcting it. I've got several thousand other articles on my watchlist, including some of the most vandalized articles in the encylcopedia. GIve it time, and the POV language wil lall be gone.

Now let's see you do the same thing.

This is something a child would do--accuse me of "allowing" POV in an article just because it's about R&B (but wait...last time I checked, Mariah Carey was an R&B singer, too. And Whitney Houston as well). I have this image of you as a fifteen-year-old or so kid who doesn't quite understand how to work with others. I may very well be wrong, but that's the image you present.

Oh, and I removed the bit about the arpeggios hitting Alicia Keys because, as you now know, she didn't compose the music of "Fallin'" from scratch. Nothing hit her, but possibly a recollection to hearing James Brown's song. --FuriousFreddy 23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Not watching

If you're talking about the edits on Shake It Off and We Belong Together I've already conceded them to you, and have agreed in the toning down of the sections like the live performance section, and I haven't reverted them back. You stopped reverting and "conceded" only when Mel Etitis intervened.

If you're talking about the single articles, I believe the charts should be seperated, but I'm not following anyone around. The articles have been on my watchlist for months, and you can look at the history if you dont believe me. Ive been editing them for a long time, and Im not following anyone around. That doesn't mean you are automatically exempt from abiding to Wikipedia policy. See Talk:The Trouble with Love Is. I have already explained to you why those edits violate Wikipedia policy. As usual, you aren't listening.

As for the grounds for your RFC: as I have already told you more than once, you are in violation of the policies at Wikipedia:Harassment (whether you had the pages on your watchlist or not), Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, as well as the guidelines at Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Fancruft. The RFC is going ahead whether you want it to or not. Extraordinary Machine 18:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem when one person allows another to edit an article only when an administrator intervenes. This isn't about the conflict at Shake It Off, this is about you and your attitude towards other editors who disagree with you, your insistence on doing things "your" way (even if that way violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines), your constant guarding of these articles as if you own them...of course, this probably isn't getting through to you (it didn't the last half a dozen times, so I'll go out on a limb here), so I'll stop now. Leave me all the messages you want on my talk page, but I refuse to respond to a brick wall. Extraordinary Machine 18:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Boa

Reversions

Can you please stop reverting in the album articles? Please work towards resolving the dispute(s), rather than reverting. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your "outside view"

Hello again Omega. Thank you for the kind words on my talk page the other day. I appreciated them but didn't quite know how to respond, so laziness and procrastination resulted in my not responding at all. And while I have a hunch that an RfC on one user is not an appropriate place to praise another user, I also appreciate your comment on me there.

As you know, I tend to agree with Mel on these issues and to disagree with you. Sorry, but I can't sign my name to your "outside view", even though there are bits and pieces within it with which I sympathize and to which I even agree.

However, it's not my agreement or disagreement that I want to write about here. Rather, it's the phrasing of the specifics of what you say. Here's an example: My main issues were about the spelling out of numbers as numerals and remix capitalization. I told SlimVirgin that the MoS allows numbers to be spelled out and provided links.

The first time I read that, I was baffled. "Spell out" doesn't have a precise meaning but I think it has strong connotations of writing or saying something at length. So (in my idiolect, at least) one person might spell out "57" as "fifty-seven", but another person wouldn't spell out "fifty-seven" as "57" (he'd write, represent it, etc., as "57").

You continue: As I mentioned above, the MoS does allow numbers to be written out. [...] Although his manuals may say otherwise, if the Wikipedia MoS says we can write out numbers as numerals, shouldn't we be allowed to?

The first sentence there again suggests to me that MoS allows "fifty-seven" rather than that it allows "57". It's only when we get to the second sentence that we see you have the opposite in mind.

As I recall the argument (and putting aside the style guides and the claimed benefits and drawbacks for the moment), Mel wants one- and two-digit numbers written out ("fifty-seven", etc.), while you prefer (want?) them as numerals ("57", etc.). (I think you also like single numerals, such as "5th", but offhand I'm not sure and I lack the energy to go through page histories to find out.)

Meanwhile, I don't know what you mean by "remix capitalization".

You probably shouldn't edit your outside view, because Anittas has already signed it as it is and others may have signed it too by the time you get around to looking at it. But I suggest that you add a signed and dated clarification below it.

No need to reply; but if you do want to reply, please do so here rather than on my page. -- Hoary 01:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking out of curiosity, what do you agree and disagree with on my outside view? Anyway, sorry about the confusion. I should clarify the matter. Thanks for pointing it out. What I meant was I believe that the numbers (in the single articles) should be in numerical rather than written-word form. Like I believe it should be "#57" not number fifty-seven.

By remix capitalization, I mean that I believe all titles in the remix should be capitalized as they are the formal title of a song. Like it should be "Honey (So and So Remix)" not "Honey" (remix). Just as we go "The Roof (Back in Time)" not "The Roof" (back in time) OmegaWikipedia 05:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

My Humps

Hey! Thanks for the message--I really apprechiate it. Okay, I can understand why we wouldn't be alloud to post them, so yeah, an external link would be just fine. Thanks, God Bless! Matthew.

Mariah & Gwen

Hi! The unreleased song article is much better now. :) I wanted to vote for the Gwen Stefani song, but the voting is now over and it was kept :-) Alensha 10:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Federalist No. 10

I've replied to your comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federalist No. 10; if you could take another look that would be great. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've removed 6 redlinks and added stubs for another two. A few remain, but these are only in the reference section (links to Supreme Court cases). There are none in the body of the article. Are any other changes needed to get your support? Thanks for your consideration. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

...just so you know

RfC's aren't toys to be used as empty threats to try and make people back down off of you. You can't threaten me with an RfC (which you don't even have any grounds to file) and think it's going to scare me in any way.

This is my last attempt (out of many) to ask you to take this matter into your own hands and fix your own problems (which I am not going to repeat or enumerate again: basically, listen to what I, Mel, Hoary, EM, Volatile, and others have been telling you over the past half-a-year. Since we don't know each other, have never seen each other, and don't talk to each other outside of an occasional note here and there on Wikipedia, do you think it's possible that there's a reason why we're all telling you something is wrong? We're not doing it for our health). You're an intellegent enough person to know what you need to do, please do it. It will be beneficial both for you and for the WIkipedia. --FuriousFreddy 04:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again...

This is hardly an empty threat. Its very weird of you to criticize me of fan-cruft when you write articles full of it too.

Where? Show me; I'd like to see. Do you even know what the word "fancruft" means? See Wikipedia: Fancruft.

And what exactly is the problem? You dont believe there should be sections on remixes and chart perforance, from what I remember. Since this is your personal preferences, its weird to see you claim its fancruft just because you dont agree with it.

No. Go to the library and open an encyclopedia. You'll notice the lack of overly detailed information. That's the level of detail an encyclopediua article should have. As far as the history of culture is concerned (which is why articles are written about music in the first place), all that is need are mentions of peak positions and mentions of notable (meaning released to radio and gaining major airplay) remixes. That's not hard ot understand. Go to Wikipedia: WikiProject Songs. Read what it says there, and how it says to do it. It's not my personal preference (it's neither personal nor a preference), because if it where, how come several others say the same things? An article should not be half or more made up of lists and charts; it is supposed to be made up of prose. The grand sweeping majority of the readership does not need ot know what whoever's single charted on the Hot 100 airplay chart; all that is need are mentions of major national charts and, in the case of the US, the R&B chart, the Dance shart ,and the AC chart. Anything else is too much information, and we've told you this so many times. What is so difficult about simply deferring to the precedents that were already set before you got here? I just had some other guy (see above) run off crying because people told him there were rules to follow. I'm sorry that there are rules, but, yes, there are rules. And we (you, I, everyone else) must follow them, or they need to not edit. Now if you really and honsetly feel I am breaking rules in my editing, show me and I will correct my errors. But otherwise...stop trying to threaten me. It doesn't look good. --FuriousFreddy 04:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I know regular encyclopedias do not include song articles. My point is trhat song articles should be written and covered in the same way that an encyclopdeia would if an encyclopedia covered song articles. There's not really a comprable example I can point out to you: any coverage of singles elsewhere, allmusic.com included, is literally filled with biased writing (and often gross inaccuracies, which is why I hate using AMG as a reference--it's only about 65% correct).

As far as singles having high airplay, low sales, etc., etc, and things like that...that's what I'm talking about when I talk about overinformation. None of that matters to a reader, and can end up confusing them with over information. They don't need ot know whether a song got to number one by sales or airplay (unless it specifically lacked one or the other or there was some extraordinary circumstances surrounding either item). A lot of the singles articles read like score card analyses, not scholarly writings about musical recordings. You have to write the articles like you were doing a college english composition paper, in that same style and voice. Professional, succinct, and unpadded. About Carrie Underwood's song, just say it hit number one for one week and that's enough. The chart trajectory is too much, and you know this because I know you originally didn't want to include it. And...the "reign" of Mariah Carey's "We Belong Together"? Although that's a mild example, that's exactly what we don't want to do here.

As far as important remixes, what I meant by "the ones that are relased to the radio" are the ones that actually are commerically promoted by the label and are widely heard by audiences outside of clubs. A list of all 20 - 30 remixes of a song is less than neccessary, and serves little honest educational value to the user (really, any list of anything serves little educational use to the user, because unless they are thoroguhly engrossed in the subject at hand, they are not going to read it. There's a Wikipedia project page that says something to the effect of "Keep the user in mind", I'd try and find it but it's getting late). There's a lot of information available on anything and everything, but there must be some discression in as far as what to include and what not to include. The guidelines don't say it shouldn't be included becasue it never says that it should be included. WHen articles on songs and albums approach 30K and 45K, one should realize that there is a problem at hand. That's what the RfC would be about: getting updated guidelines in place, so that there is consistency for all of the singles articles in the entire encyclopedia.

I still want to know what "fancruft" articles I wrote (and/or apparently edited) and where they are.

Several others (Mel Etitis, Hoary, and several outside people who've read articles when they're listed for deletion) have pointed out the fact that a lot of the content in these articles are unneccessary or padding (several people pointed out that the Whitney Houston Star-Spangled Banner could be easily trimmed down to 2 or 3 sentences and merged, which is very true).

It's not biased for me to think the R&B, Dance, and AC charts are the most important ones: they are. As far as figuring out what needs to stay and what needs to go; those are the only ones worth keeping, in addition to the already important main pop chart and those for intenrational countries. Those are the only ones that get reguar referencing in most other professional music write ups, and those are the only ones record lables usually print in liner notes. I have never in my life seen information on any component charts printed in a greatest hits album discography; not saying that it doesn't exist, but it's highly uncommon.

If a song is notable for its sales records, then there's nothing wrong with mentioning that. I never said there was anything wrong with that. But not all songs are notable for their sales records, and therefore not all song articles need that information. Detailed descriptions of week-by-week sales and chart records aren't neccessary.

Just because there are no rules doesn't mean you can just do whatever; you should use the rules that are given and get consensus on new rules, instead of wanting to do it your way and being mad when several people point it out to you. Ask. If you're consistently having problems with editors saying that you're spreading fancruft--and you know that I'm not the only one who's said aything to you--don't you think that maybe there's a grain of truth to it? --FuriousFreddy 05:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the Mariah Carey articles in question, only the pop (didn't you read where I said the main national chart for each country?), R&B, AC, and dance charts are important as far as the US goes. For different artists, you have different foci. And not everything everyone adds to every article is always important. Just because someone adds information doesn't mean that some one else shouldn't take it and cut it down.

There is no consensus. If there were, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. A consensus means all parties (not one clique of editors) agree on the policies and guidelines pertaining to an issue, and that there actually has been a discussion to establish a consensus. And, again, you know I am not the only one who has complained. Anyone who's complained of what I've done has only done so because I'm actually trying to get them to realize trhat Wikipedia is not a free-for-all and that you can't tell people that they "have to keep this [unneccessary and fancrusted] article" just because they want it, and that "I'm only doing this because I don't like Mariah Carey" (news to me). And if you empathize with that Beautifulstranger person, then you're obviously looking at this issue from the wrong end: he knowingly and willingly broke the policies, and complained whne someone pointed them out to him. All I did was make one post on his user page, and if that's what drove him to quit in a hurry, then that's just too bad. He was a problematic editor who didn't want to follow the guidelines.

..If "Just My Imagination" were full of fancruft, it wouldn't be a featured article. And certainly somone else besides you would have said so; I was surprised at how many compliments it got. Are those Beatles song articles full of fancruft too? What's so fancrufty about the article? The mention of why the song was written only makes sense to include on any article for a song. The fact that I have mention the exact two days the song was recorded; the Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums states that you are to mention when and where a song was recorded in detail. A generic "1970" or "fall 1970" makes little sense, when saying "November 25, 1970" takes up no more space and is no less readable? The mentions of the arranger and the musicians? The Funk Brothers are highly notable: they've had a book and a film made aboutthem, and two of them have won positions in the ROck and Roll Hall of Fame for being nothing but "generic studio musicians", as you say. The mentions of Eddie Kendricks quiting the group during the recording and relase of the song? Every bit of information I ever read on the song mentions that fact, and that is really the most important reason the song is notable: Kendricks rode the success of that song into his own career. That's the sort of information that's important for encyclopediaic coverage of a song. Did anyone important work on it? Why was the record successful, not just how it was successful. What is its impact on culture? On history? On the carers of the persons involved? The very fact that you would even try to state that the article is full of fancruft is ridiculous. It's at a decent but not overly long length, and it covers the song in just enough detail so that there is room to learn more about it elsewhere.

Weren't you the one who objected to the article becasue you wanted a detailed desciption of the song's trajectory on the pop charts (something I couldn't do without paying Billboard to unarchive old 1971 magazine microfische)? You don't think that's fancruft? (I shouldn't all it that--I should just call it excess information). In fact, that's really what's wrong with a lot of the artciles you put together: mush of the material is made up of chart information and synopses of music videos. A reader doesn't get an idea of how the record came together or why it was important (other than how much it sold or how much it was played on the radio). --FuriousFreddy 06:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't lack knowlege of the music industry. I actually am in the music industry. Are you? The Billboard Hot 100 (and whatever other name it's been called over the years) has always been referred to as "the pop chart"...by record labels, recording artists, music scholars, biographers, and more. The fact that Billboard decided to start a "pop 100" chart this year because people complained about the "bias" towards hip hop and R&B songs doesn't push out decades of calling the Hot 100 "the pop chart". I know what I'm talking about.

I am not the only person who realizes that there is a problem with your edits and those of your group. I, Mel Etitis, Hoary, Volitile, Extraordinary Machine, BMICorp, and others who see the articles and comment on their poor quality are all only one person? No--you're just trying to isolate it because I'm the only one who's actualy said anything to you at legnth. But that doesn't mean they all haven't said anything, either.

The article became featured because apparently it was seen as quality work. I resolved all of the actionable objections (you know full well you only said what you said trying to start crap) that were listed to the best of my ability. I worte three paragraphs on the meaning of the song because I that is what I was supposed to do: explain the meaning of the song. Yes, I could have done it in one sentence, or even a half of a one, but I wrote that article as a featured article candidate. You can write on the meaning of the song as long you don't use weasel words and POV language like "female empowerment anthem" and the like.

"You didn't want a trajectory". Fine, but you essentially wanted a summary of one. "You just cant throw out random numbers and expect people to understand what they mean." Telling a reader that a song became a number-one hit on two charts, and a top-10 hit on another seems pretty straight-forward to me. If a reader can't understand that, then they should click the link for the chart and read and learn more. The type of verbiage I used is the type that you regularly see in writings on music.

I'm not "biased against [information on music videos and chart info because most articles you write are very old when videos didnt exist and when there was only one chart". That's the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said to me on here. I've told you before: We don't need a blow-by-blow cutting commentary of what goes on in a music video unless there is an actual plot to the video Otherwise ,summarize the look and feel and move on. There were plenty of charts back in the 1960s and 1970s (and even some by other magazine companies), but the important ones are the ones that get the mention ,and not all of the arbitrary ones. Stop assuming things, and stop, again, trying to find fault in my work because several people find fault in your work. --FuriousFreddy 07:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Carrie Underwood song

I can't believe you want to actively mislead readers of this encylopedia. The Carrie Underwood song hit #1 then dropped like a rock. Unlike you, I am keeping the reader in mind. If I wanted to mislead people like you are trying to, I could save myself a lot of time. This needs to be an accurate encyclopedia, and giving them an impression that a song is more succesful than it really is, shouldnt be the goal of being here.

1. I don't want to actively mislead the readers of this encyclopedia. You know that.
2. the fact taht the single "dropped like a rock" can be said in prose, without a trajectory chart (not using the words "dropped like a rock", of course, but something NPOV). The trajectory chart is excessive and confusing, and even you stated yourself that you did not originally included for that reason. --FuriousFreddy 07:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Look

1. I'm not being hypocritical; I'm thinking directly of the "Crazy in Love" video (which has no actual plotline) when I talk about the detailed descriptionso f the music videos.

1. Even as Mel and Hoary edit articles, you're still writing more. And they haven't fixed all of them yet, nor can they, as two human beings, fix them all by themselves in a reasonable amount of time

1. I'd like to see where anyone (outside of people who don't want to follow rules ) has complained about my "behavior".

1. My ignorance? That is an insult, and a direct one. I know that a song's trajectory is important in relation to the music industry and the people who are actually earning money from this, but, as far as scholarly writing is concerned, music writers, by and large, only inc;lude peak information, and sometimes a very brief description of when the song entered the chart and how long it stayed. That is the established precedent for music writing. All that really matters in the grand schem of thigs was whether the song was a hit; in most cases, a peak can illustrate how important of a hit a song was. Otherwise, you wouldn't bold all those number ones like you enjoy doing.

1. I've had enough of this constant arguing back and forth, while you try and twust everything I say and do so that you can try and take the focus away from what you're doing wrong. I'm not writing fancruft articles. If I was, someone would have told me by now. You have been causing problems since you've gotten here. You've frustrated several editors with your stubborness i nthe past ,and ave only recently backed down from full-scale edit wars and wholesale reversions. However, all of the previously done articles still remain and still need to be fixed. And that is my primary goal. I don't care who does it, as long as they do it and do it soon. Reguardles, I am going to do what I need to do to fix this problem. And I am going to bed. --FuriousFreddy 07:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

reply

The opening scene begins with Beyoncé wearing a tanktop, shorts, and red high-heels performing an elaborate solo dance. The scene shifts to a gold set detailing a mock photo shoot, before moving into a scene with dancers detailing Beyoncé and dancing against a wall while wearing caps and full length pants. In a controversial sequence, the video then shifts into its next scene, which shows a helpless Beyoncé struggling inside a car. She is apparently unaware that there is a trail of gasoline outside of the car, which Jay-Z ignites, causing the car to explode.

Beyoncé is not hurt, and is next seen dancing to Jay-Z's rap in an exotic silk print over a fur coat, before kicking open a fire hydrant and dancing in the resulting sprays of water. The video ends with Beyoncé and her dancers in front of a giant fan in vibrant dresses in contrast to the more neutral colors of the background.

That doesn't sound summarized to me. Controversial? To whom? Who of authority deemed it such? Where? Why?

1. I'm not attacking sections on music videos. I am telling you that music videos don't need to be described like above. That is not encyclopedic writing.

1. I'm not attacking analyses of chart performance. I am telling you that details of how a song performed on airplay and sales charts are not neccessary in writing an article on a song.

1. The articles are not all fixed. There are stil lseperate articles on covers and Christmas songs for Mariah Carey. Unless someone goes an makes seperate artciles for every other major hit version of each Christmas songs (which is, of course, not a good idea) there is no way that Mariah Carey needs her own. The article on We Belong Together contains sixteen paragraphs on the song's chart performance and sales (convince me that's not excessive). And this is before we get into the articles on Christina, Britney, and the rest. Before you got here, none of this was ever an issue. Although you are not solely to blame, you are certainly one of the major figures in the issue. --FuriousFreddy 08:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

...and look at this:

Hoary, FuriousFreddy is acting up again and being hostile over a debated matter. He seems to be making insults and threats over a situation without really stating what his specific problem is. His behavior even drove someone to quit Wikipedia today. However, I'm very willing to talk it over, but seeing as how he always seems to rant and ignore my points, I'm wondering if you would mind helping us settling the matter? Maybe you can get to him? Thanks OmegaWikipedia 04:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

...I'm "acting up again?" So, if I just left you alone to do whatever you want, you think that would be a resolution? You really and honestly don't think something is wrong? You haven't looked at articles written before you got here, and realized that you're not doing what they're doing? --FuriousFreddy 08:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, no, I'm not tattling like you claim. And Im not asking him to save me. If you knew anything about him at all, youd know he tends to favor your sort of views. I asked him to be a third party to mediate and compromise the matter. If I wanted someone to talk to about the matter who would be on my side, I would not have talked to him. OmegaWikipedia 08:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

you're one to talk about insulting and rudeness.

Trust me, I could throw back what you're throwing, but I am not. I heve never once been rude to you, nor insulted you. I have come very close, but I always he;d back and found another way to say what I was going to say. You directly and purposefully insulted my intelligence...and now you accuse me of doing the same to you? I do not present myself in a hostile manner., I have been trying to reason with you for the entire year, and I've been essentially typing the same exact things over and over again, but they don't seem to be seeping in. Are you saying that I'm being hostile because I'm just not going to fall back and let you do whatever you want to do? I'm sorry, but no one's ever solved a problem by ignoring it. And I'm not going to ignore this one. --FuriousFreddy 08:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If I've told you the same thing for over half a year...

...then I would definitely say it doesn't appear to be seeping in. I didn't call you stupid, dumb, or slow: I simply said that you just don't get it. That's not an attack on your intelligence; that's an anlysis of your behavior. You actually called me ignorant, and preceeded to act as if I knew nothing about the music industry. Did I ever do that to you? And I have been nice to you many, many times since then. However, I'm not going to keep saying "that's all right" if you keep messing up. I am not being hostile right now. I am being very restrained and trying to get you to understand what is going on here. I am saying waht I need to say in a firm voice, because that is how it needs to be said. You need to understand. --FuriousFreddy 08:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC: Pop music issues

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues. --FuriousFreddy 05:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred wrote the same thing to me. I've just seen it for the first time, and have just now skim-read what both of you said.

Clearly you and Fred are very unhappy with each other's conduct. I'm aware that you've recently spoken rather heatedly to and about each other. From what I've seen, neither of you is at all rude to the other on this RfC page. I've no complaints about that. ..... But hang on, this page already looks quite a bit like any of several talk pages: interminable, almost unreadable.

By contrast, look at our recent favorite RfC/Mel Etitis. Whether or not we agree with what they say, at least it's pretty easy to see what BMIComp and Phroziac are saying. Mel utterly disagrees, but allows them to finish and then, without interrupting them, posts his "Response".

OW, before others add their own comments to this new RfC page and complicate matters further, I strongly suggest that you remove all your comments. (No, this isn't attempted censorship! Keep reading.) Fred (you're probably reading this): if OW is kind enough to do this, you might then quickly go through what you've written and streamline it slightly. OW, if this does happen, then do write a response, but under, and not interpolated within, what Fred has written.

My thanks to both of you (and/or anybody else) for at least considering this. -- Hoary 09:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you vandalising the RfC? Have you such contempt for your fellow editors? Guettarda 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

OWP, I have been bold and just now removed your interpolations in this RfC. You are most welcome to re-add them, but not within anybody else's text. Again, see the organization of RfC/ME for how this should be done. -- Hoary 02:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

...

When did I ever say I had an "issue" with or did not like Mariah Carey?

You know full-well that the reason I disputed your edits to that R&B page is beacuse they were unverifiable and non-factual, points driven home when you failed to provide credible references. I didn't revert anything on "crunk & b"; I only moved it from being a subgenre becasue, as discussed on the article's talk page, it is only used to describe the sound of a certain producer (Lil' Jon) and a few imitators. Maybe if it survives to this time next year it might actually be more than just a sound or a trend.

And if you read an article about a genre of music, which makes a point of briefly mentioning major artists in order to focus on discussing the genre, and then add an entire paragraph that describes the career of one or two singers, do you not see the problem with that? That is not neutral point-of-view.

And this issue is, for the third of fourth time, not just about single article formatting, it goes far beyond that. --FuriousFreddy 22:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Temporary revert"

One and a half hours or so have now elapsed since your "temporary revert" of the RfC page, and during this you've found time to edit one article about a single. If this revert really is supposed to be temporary, an "unreversion" is overdue. I hope you'll perform it. Thanks. -- Hoary 10:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You say: ... I don't think I (nor anyone else in this matter) can revert until the other users know whats going on and that theres a clear consensus on what to do on the talk page (since Winnermario seems to disagree too.) Like Annittas had his comments moved, and no one got his permission . And then WScott seems to (IIRC) have had all his/her comments removed for some reason. It seems like Guettarda made an oversight, but Guettarda also left a message on this user's talk page, so Im not sure whats going on with that. I also find the discussion to be a bit awkard, and Im not sure how I feel about it, but I think the other matters should be addressed too.

This is remarkably obscure. First, if comments were removed from the long discussion thread, then by all means reinsert/readd them. It's just as easy to reinsert them in, or readd them to, a long discussion thread in the talk page. Go ahead and do it.

Secondly, the agreement of others has nothing to do with my removal of, and your reinsertion of, interpolations within what another person wrote. My guess is that you want them there because you're so sure that what he says is outrageously wrong, irrelevant, exaggerated, or whatever. That's no reason to keep them. If somebody starts an RfC against me accusing me of misusing WP to spam kiddyporn and multimillion dollar Nigerian legacies, I don't interrupt him: I write a rebuttal below what he writes. I don't want to get into a revert war over this, and it seems that Guettarda may no longer be tending to the page; but if your interpolations are still there 90 minutes or so from now, I shall certainly ask some other administrator to remove them. Hoary 11:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

User:OmegaWikipediaA

Ao are you saying that this is not your account? If so, then as per policy, I will perma-block him as an impersonator. Guettarda 11:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I must have mis-read the discussion at the RFC. Thanks. Guettarda 11:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Three personal attacks in one day?

That's a new record. Congratulations. Funny, that comment made me realize a lot of things about you and about this conflict.

You're the second person who's told me I have issues. The first was an gentelman whom I caught in an attempt to lie to me and extort me out of my due fees for professional design services rendered, who called me all kinds of names (out of nowhere!) when I gave him a refund, told him I wasn't doing his project, and let him out of my car (he didn't even have one). Trust me, he's not a good person to be compared to.

Now, everybody' crazy in their own specia way, but far be it from me to call anyone I've never met crazy. You, however, don't feel the same. This is either the fifth or sixtth time I've said it, but I'll say it again: I explained my edits in detail and their purpose on the 20th on the RfC talk page. I'm not required to unless asked (which I did), and I'm certainly not required to repeat them endlessly.

The problem wit this entire problem is this: you want your way. You want "your" articles to be the way "you" envisioned them. You don't want your work mercilessly edited. It's either your way, or it's the highway. I'll tell you straight up: tain't gonna happen. It doesn't mater if I log off and never edit another Wikipedia article for the rest of my life. As long as "you doin' whut you doin'", somebody's going to call you on it. Oh, they might not be as steadfast as I, but they'll definitely do it.

Now, I've already told you what's wrong endlessly, so I'm telling you (in the most polite and warm-hug generous tone possible): I am going to refrain from repeating myself. You and the other (newer) editors don't see anything wrong, but severl of the other (older) editors can see the problems involved.

I'm certainly not getting my way. I've got at least three projects I should be working on right now and not typing this, but they can wait until tomorrow. I was only doing this on behalf of the Wikipedia, and because someone needed to do it. However, it's nly so long that you can keep talking to a brick wall until you're blue in the face. The very fact that you feel like telling me that I have "personal issues" and I "lack reasoning" is nothing short of hilarious to me (seriously; I've been laughing the entire time I've been writing this).

But, anyways, I am going to buy a pizza. When I come back, I expect apoligies for your comments on my talk page. Failing that, I won't be able to help not thinking very highly of you. And that's really about it. I'll keep pushing for cleanups, you'll keep reverting and resisting, you'll say I didn't tell you what was wrong and yelled at you when my long, draw-out response is in plain view of anyone who wants to read it, blah, blah, blah, et cetera, et cetera, so on. Now, no reasonable person (heh) wants that, so I think an alternative solution needs to be thunk up.

PS. If you planned to make me mad or angry, undermine me, or to try to hurt my feelings by saying what you said, again, you should know that you've done the exact opposite. You should do it more often (or maye not; you might get banned or something).

--FuriousFreddy 03:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

As you may or may not know, a request for mediation has been filed. For an introduction to mediation, see WP:M. You may then go to WP:RFM and either accept mediation, or reject it. Redwolf24 (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

For you

User:Winnermario has worked hard. Yes. On "Cool". Vote for it when its nomination begins on November 3, 2005.

Yours truly, DrippingInk 19:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)