User talk:Extraordinary Machine

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski // talk 15:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I have actually been contributing to Wikipedia for several weeks (under my IP address), but anyway, thanks! I know I'm certainly not the best or most frequent contributor, but I try to help out where and when I can. Extraordinary Machine 15:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, I had to revert your changes you made to the Hilary Duff article today. Firstly, you made a statement - "obviously enhanced (e.g. her climactic solo has her voice electronicly layered) vocals" - without citing a source or reference. It is important for Wikipedia to be able to verify their information, and because of this, you must always cite your sources, especially with "hot" topics such as whether Duff's vocals are enhanced by computers or not. I added a quote from a film critic and a link to the review from said critic, but I can't keep track of everything, so you must get in the habit of adding references as well, even if that means just a URL in square brackets at the end of the sentence, like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page], which would appear in the article as this: [1]. Secondly, you marked your edit as "minor". Edits should only be marked as "minor" when they are correcting spelling, or making small alterations to formatting, or rearranging (but not adding, deleting or changing) portions of text. See Editing:Minor edits for more information on this. Once again, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 22:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing out that I did not source the text regarding Hilary Duff's voice-enhancement. I went back and added three more references, as I should have done in the beginning. Now I know how to do footnotes correctly! Thank you for taking the time to let me know. RJSampson 23:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...and thanks for helping me clean up the notations. Much better now! btw - I like HD too! RJSampson 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for writing the I Dream article. I meant to do it myself, but I thought there wasn't enough info for a seperate article. Maybe you could add a section for the cast too (or copy the table from S Club 8? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't really like I Dream (and have never been mad on S Club 8), so that's why I didn't write too much on it. But, by all means, feel free to improve it yourself if you want to (a lot of the article was originally written by you, after all!). You can find episode guides at TV.com, although the main cast list on that site is inaccurate: as you probably know, the members of S Club 8 weren't playing themselves. For that, I'd suggest consulting the IMDb entry, which I am working to improve (but ignore the "lead writer" writing credit for Paul Dornan, he only received episode-specific credits). Extraordinary Machine 17:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Not a fan and you still take the time to split off the article. Wikipedia needs more people like that. :) Mgm|^(talk) 20:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

About KaDee Strickland article. Thanks!

Thank you very much for writing the KaDee Strickland article. By the way, you did a really great article. Congratulations! -- Carioca 15:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about my work on the KaDee Strickland article! It's nice to know that somebody out there has read it, no matter how "unknown" she is as an actress. Once again, thanks! Extraordinary Machine 21:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article KaDee Strickland, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

J-Horror

I transferred the J-Horror link you included on the Ringu article to the "See also" section, as it means people won't have to go to another page just to see what "J-Horror" is. Extraordinary Machine 18:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I did think a link like that right at the beginning of the article could confuse some people. Better this way, I think. Thanks for informing. By the way, if you have any interesting contributions to add to the J-Horror article, that would be nice. It's still just a stub.

See you.--Kaonashi 20:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apologies & New System

Please stop removing the inline citations I inserted on the Mariah Carey article! As you know, the factual accuracy of the article is in dispute, and references are needed to make sure that the article is correct. You may think I went overboard, but what I did obeys the guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite_sources. Please stop! Extraordinary Machine 9 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to completely ruin it, just wasn't really paying attention while doing a re-write. Can I ask you to not add references to all sections and just wait until one section is fully complete before you begin the next. Currently only the early life and family section has references, so please find references for that and just add them until you move on. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 9 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining! I won't revert the changes, and I'll sleuth sources to add to the article before inserting more inline citations. Extraordinary Machine 20:03, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

what?

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 01:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

And what, may I ask, did I vandalise? Journalist 01:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You removed the entire reference section on the Mariah Carey article, and deleted all inline citations within the article. Additionally, while NPOV violation does not count as vandalism, you added POV words such as "expansive" and "impeccable". Extraordinary Machine 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. Extraordinary Machine 01:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that. The only reason why I did that was because I believed that we had all come to the consensus that so much references were not needed. (see the talk page). If I did anything wrong, that was not my intention. Furthurmore, how is 'expansive" POV? I only wrote it because:

• It true;
• That was how her voice was described in the 'diva' article.

Journalist 01:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It was concluded that citations at the end of each sentence weren't needed; however, that doesn't mean that all citations should be removed. Additionally, you removed a reference which wasn't an inline citation. And just because something is said on one article does not mean it can be said on others; the Diva article is POV-ridden, and should not be referred to in this case. A five-octave range is, by definition, "expansive", so instead of adding "expansive" to the section, you could simply provide a few references in the references section verifying claims that Mariah has a five-octave range. And, to reiterate, "impeccable" is a POV word. Extraordinary Machine 01:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Carey

Hello, Extraordinary Machine. I have left a note on Journalist's page and would also like to ask that you acted a little more calmly on this matter. I do not mean that you are wrong, but perhaps you should use a little more patience in your approach. I am sure that both you and him share interest for the article's subject, but it benefits no one if this becomes an edit war. Thank you for your attention. --Sn0wflake 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your note on my talk page. I'm sure you'll agree that sometimes it can get hot in here, but believe me, I try to keep my cool whenever possible. It's just hard to do this when somebody says things like "Why don't you fools stop getting your panties in a bunch over nothing and let the article be!" (in reference to the Mariah Carey article). Extraordinary Machine 23:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Trust me, that's a feeling most of us share, but you know how things work around here. We try to be as neutral as possible for a long as possible. I do hope you all can reach a consensus regarding information on the article, since it has potential to actually become featured some day. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 00:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ago gratias!

I, Extraordinary Machine, hereby present The Featured Article Medal to PedanticallySpeaking, for his/her outstanding contributions to Featured Articles. Your work is of the highest quality and you are a model Wikipedian. This is long overdue! Extraordinary Machine 13:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Salve, Extraordinary!
I am delighted by your commendation. I've promoted several articles as FACs. I've won a few (e.g. Julia Stiles, Warren County Canal, Dawson's Creek), lost a few (e.g. Mark Felt, Katie Holmes). It's been my frustrations with FAC's that led to by irritated post on my home page ("Nihil nisi malum"). Your remarks lessen my stress, if just a little.
From your home page, I see you too work on pop culture topics. If I can help in your areas or you want me to look over an article, let me know. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 14:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Images

In reference to Image:Cry.jpg, Image:Sing.jpg and Image:MariahCarey4-05 300x298.jpg, please do not upload images to Wikipedia without providing information on their source or copyright status. I'm glad that you want the Mariah Carey article to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible, but I must stress that according to Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Fair use, all images uploaded to and used in Wikipedia must be fair use, and have sufficient information on their source and copyright status. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 23:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. With reference to the pics, I have found the source. I forget to write the info at times.

• Image:Cry.jpg, was found at [2]. Its a German site, but if you scroll down you will find it.

• Image:Sing.jpg found at [3]. It is a screenshot of the single 'through the rain'
• Image:MariahCarey4-05 300x298.jpg, -the link is present on the page. The pic is under fair use as it is the photo on the album. Its practically the same pic as the one that currently heads her bio.

Journalist 03:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked

Sorry about the collateral damage. You're released (unlike the real Extraordinary Machine). Heh. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

GNAA FAC

Yes, I have answered the copyright questions about the image you were refering to. I first released it as GFDL, which was a no-no, because I used Internet Explorer to make a screen shot. Another user cropped the IE stuff out, but I was told it could not be GFDL, because a press release is copyrighted. So, I put the copyright information on the image page and the person who objected to the image status retracted his claim. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User:RoyBoy/Sandbox#Documentaries

Working on a new section for Blade Runner. Wanted to know what you think... I was also going to include the Online Fanbase section, but I don't think its terribly notable/useful considering the external links... which I plan to reorganize and elaborate on just a touch anyway. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it reads fine, and I'm sure it will make a great addition to the Blade Runner article. Additionally, it's great that you are keeping those who commented on the recent peer review up to date on the article's development. Once again, keep up the good work! Extraordinary Machine 16:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply

I noticed that you have created filmographies on several articles for actors and actresses, such as Taryn Manning and Terrence Dashon Howard. However, many of the wikilinks you inserted lead to disambiguation pages, or in some cases the wrong articles completely. Please check where the links you inserted lead to, disambiguate them if they lead to the wrong place (for example, Dandelion instead of Dandelion, which leads to the flower), and check if the film isn't already listed under a different name. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links for more information. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 19:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, often times I'm so busy trying to get in the filmography I don't stop and check the links, I defiently will for future times. I see you also have an interest in pop culture, very cool :) Well, take care. Courtkittie 21:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Southland Tales

I'm sorry, but was the casting comment POV?

A number of Richard Kelly fans at the linked forum and previous Donnie Darko fans (at a non-kelly-centered site) expressed surprise at the casting choices... And the point wasn't to suggest that somehow these weren't as credible as the other crew and staff (pardon if the "mainstream" word suggested otherwise) but that the nature of their work and success differed from that of others involved, which had surprised some (Kelly fans in particular) as to their inclusion.

Is this point completely invalid? I admit that it might be better placed somewhere else in the text, more carefully phrased, but I dunno, maybe I'm blind as to this, but again, is it really POV?Zeppocity 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Feel free to insert the comment back into the article, as long as you provide external links to the forums you inserted straight after the sentence. I'm just wary about statements including weasel words such as "some fans" when there is no source backed up. For example, it used to say on Mad World (song) that "Gary Jules is considered to be a One-hit wonder, with this song, and it's doubtful that he will ever have another hit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extraordinary Machine (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You know what? I've checked around a bit and screw it, it WAS POV, in that I'm starting to think that I felt that what I took for the general impression as to the casting was the existing impression, and I'm finding no solid back-up for that, besides a passing comment on the board as to it having some teen-movie stars or somesuch, and on another board something about the movie sounding utter wank due to the cast and etc. Neither of which are noteworthy. So I'll admit that it was most likely a matter of me retroactively reading things the way I expected them to be read by others, or somesuch idiotic process. Really sorry about that; it's fine as it is and it's as it should be. Zeppocity 18:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert Clark (actor)

I'm curious as to why you changed one of the categories on the article Robert Clark (actor) from "People of Ontario" to "Toronto people". As the article states, Clark was born in Oakville, Ontario (which is in the Greater Toronto Area, but is not in Toronto itself), and then moved to Florida, and then back up to Ontario (but not to Toronto). I could find no evidence to suggest that he ever lived in the city of Toronto. Although I backed up my contributions to that article with references, I'm wondering if I got it wrong, and hope that you can clear this up for me. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 14:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, i ve been categorising people in the Greater Toronto area as Toronto people. would you say i should not? People i ve met from Mississauga or Scarborough have introduced themselves as being from Toronto - i supposed people from anywhere in Greater To. considered themselved Torontonians. maybe people from outside Toronto city but within Greater To. should be put in both catergories? appreciate the input, -Mayumashu 13:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't live anywhere near Toronto, and I'm not familiar with the geography of the area, so if you think the category should be changed back, then I won't object. Thanks for the information! Extraordinary Machine 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

okay. yeah, it would be best to get the opinion of some wiki user from the area - like you, i m not from the area. in the meantime, i ll see that Clark's page has both cats on it. good talking to you, -Mayumashu 05:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Journalist awards the aptly named Extraordinary Machine for his exceptional contributions to Wikipedia (especially to the Mariah Carey article). Keep up the good work.

You might want to move this to your user-page:)

Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

Wow, I wasn't expecting that...thank you so much! Coincidentially enough, I was listening to "Vision of Love" when I read your message. Once again, thank you! Extraordinary Machine 18:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

I, Extraordinary Machine, hereby present The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar to Hall Monitor, for his/her honourable dedication to catching and revert article vandalism within minutes (and sometimes even less). You have gone to great lengths to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, and you should be applauded for your efforts. Extraordinary Machine 23:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the barnstar. I now need to reconfigure my user page a bit.  :) Hall Monitor 21:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Here are some reasons why using template infoboxes is more helpful than using raw syntax directly into the article (click here and here for more information). I already explained some of these at Talk:We Belong Together, but I thought I should go into more detail:

1. To reduce article size.
2. To increase the ease of editing pages. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia article than anyone can edit. Using raw syntax in articles keeps that from happening. The infobox is much easier to use for those not overly familiar with how to use the syntax.
3. To keep a consistent appearance of single articles throughout Wikipedia. If somebody decides to do something different with the syntax in a new article, it would then not match up with any other article that uses that syntax. With infoboxes, you can edit the syntax in one place, and the changes are reflected across Wikipedia.
4. Closely related to the above, to make sure articles obey the WikiProject Music and Song guidelines (as well as Wikipedia's manual of style, which the version you prefer to use (and keep reverting to) does not. The album's title should be on a yellow background with the single's title, "Director" should give a clue as to what the word means, chart positions should be in their own section and be in order of the single's position, and song years in the chronology at the bottom should be in parentheses. Extraordinary Machine 11:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The syntax is not confusing at all, since its been adopted by most single articles. Personally, that infobox looks like a mess and is more confusing. I think your point in point 3 gives exactly the reason why we don't want to use a template. Not every article wants to have every section mentioned. How is that template I'm using not following MoS? The music guidelines never said anything about chart positions having their own spot until some random person edited it in a week ago! How, does the action of one person become official policy? OmegaWikipedia 12:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The syntax is confusing: just because you are accustomed to editing it, it doesn't mean that anybody else wants to (compare). And it's better to be able to edit it from one place than go through every single article and make sure they are correct. I have already explained this to you. The specific order of single positions is to prevent edit wars arising from which country should be listed first (I see you've had disagreements with other editors in the recent past about this issue, looking at your edit history). It's a useful policy, whether it was added a week ago or a year ago. Extraordinary Machine 12:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The syntax is not confusing, your box is. And many people have used this template, so it cant be that confusing at all. And I have already explained how that would only be problematic. Looking at my edits? So you're going to stalk me now? I don't agree with this policy. I could just go that page and change it. Just because one person changed it, doesnt suddenly make if official policy. The USA positions should generally be listed first. That person who disagreed with me, even agreed that. In any case, you've presented an extremely weak argument that has no basis or logic or any official policy on why your template should stay. The articles need to go back to the way they were. OmegaWikipedia 12:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply #2

{{Single infobox2 |
| Name = Shake It Off
| Cover = Mariahcareysingle_sio.jpg
| Artist = [[Mariah Carey]]
| from Album = [[The Emancipation of Mimi]]
| Released = [[2005]]
| Format = [[Digital download]]
| Recorded = ???
| Genre = [[Pop music|Pop]]/[[R&B]]
| Length = 3:52
| Label = [[Island Def Jam Records|Island/Def Jam]]
| Writer = Mariah Carey <br>[[Jermaine Dupri]] <br>[[Bryan Michael Cox]] <br>[[Johnta Austin]]
| Producer = Mariah Carey <br>Jermaine Dupri <br>Bryan Michael Cox
| Video director = [[Jake Nava]]
| Certification = N/A
| Chart position = <ul><li>'''#2''' ([[United States|USA]])</li></ul> <ul><li>TBA ([[United Kingdom|UK]])</li></ul>
| Reviews = 
* ???
| Last single = "[[We Belong Together]]" <br />([[2005]])
| This single = "Shake It Off" <br />([[2005]])
| Next single = "[[Get Your Number]]" <br />([[2005]])
}}

{| id="toc" style="width:20em; margin:0 0 0.5em 1em; float:right;"
!align="center" bgcolor="yellow" colspan="3"|"Shake It Off"
|-
|align="center" colspan="3"|[[Image:Mariahcareysingle_sio.jpg]]
|-
!align="center" bgcolor="yellow" colspan="3"|Single by [[Mariah Carey]]
|-
!align="center" colspan="3"|From the album ''[[The Emancipation of Mimi]]''
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|Released
|colspan="2" valign="top"|[[2005]]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|Format
|colspan="2" valign="top"|[[Digital download]]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|[[Musical genre|Genre]]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|[[Pop Music|Pop]]/[[R&B]]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|Length
|colspan="2" valign="top"|3:52
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|[[Record label|Label]]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|[[Island Def Jam Records|Island/Def Jam]]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|[[Songwriters|Writers]]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|Mariah Carey<br>[[Jermaine Dupri]]<br>[[Bryan Michael Cox]]<br>[[Johnta Austin]]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|[[Record producer|Producers]]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|Mariah Carey<br>Jermaine Dupri<br>Bryan Michael Cox<br>
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|[[Music-video director|Director]]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|[[Jake Nava]]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|[[Single certification|Certification]]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|n/a
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|[[Top 40|Chart positions]]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|#2 (USA)<br>tba (UK)
|-
!align="center" bgcolor="yellow" colspan="3"|Mariah Carey singles chronology
|-align="center"
|valign="top"|<small>"[[We Belong Together]]"<br />[[2005]]</small>
|valign="top"|<small>"Shake It Off"<br />[[2005]]</small>
|valign="top"|<small>"[[Get Your Number]]"<br />[[2005]]</small>
|}

Now tell me: which of the above is shorter? Which is sleeker? Which would be easier to edit if it was to be copied and pasted into another article? I'm not stalking you; edit histories are there for the world to see, so don't complain. Putting USA positions first would be introducing systematic bias in favour of the United States: this is an English language encyclopedia, and is not restricted to the U.S. I've already justified my edits: you're just not listening to my explanations. Extraordinary Machine 12:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The 2nd one is easier and much flexible to navigate. Taking the shortcuts in life only bring you down later and gives no freedom. And no, dont give me that nonsense about systematic bias. The USA charts are considered the most relevent charts. Same with the Billboard charts, they are listed by hierachy. If we to do it another way, it would look like a hot mess. And um, no, I've heard your reasons and examined them: they have no merit. You on the other apparently havent' been listening to mine. Besides, if that single template is the offiical template, yours is actually the second template and far from official policy. Then any random who wants to can suddenly create anything! OmegaWikipedia 12:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply #3

It seems to me that you are preferring to make your edits based on what you think is correct, rather than what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state (e.g. systemic bias, NPOV, citing sources, and many more). Be aware: there are rules here, and you must abide to them. Don't just keep reverting people's edits willy-nilly because you don't agree with them. I've explained and justified my edits as much as possible, and am about to file a request for a third opinion on this matter, but I'm not going to debate much longer with somebody who refuses to adhere to even the most basic WP:MoS guidelines such as enclosing years of songs in parentheses. We're going in circles here. Extraordinary Machine 15:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? I found your response quite hypocritical and ironic, since you aren't following the own rule you campaign so furiously for. Who said I had a probelm with with parentheses in years? Ummmm, I never had an issue with that. Please stop making up information, just because you have a weak case. OmegaWikipedia 15:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC) Maybe we could talk about this calmly and stop going around in circles, if you could stop being so hostile and talk in a mature normal fashion. Do you want to try? OmegaWikipedia 15:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply #4

I was pleasantly surprised by your last comment, and was about to agree to start talking more maturely, but I just noticed your edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. It's unacceptable to do that, especially when you are in the middle of a dispute. You can't edit Wikipedia's guidelines to conform to what you think is correct. Extraordinary Machine 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

EM, thanks for responding maturely, but that's exactly my point. The Wikiproject songs never had any policy stating that chart positions needed their own box. If you look at the history, one week ago Moochocoogle decides to change things. There wasnt even a discussion on the matter. He/She just changed it! I hope one person does not make that policy suddenly official. Just like you don't like how I changed the policy, I don't see how one person who change the policy suddenly made it OK to get rid of single boxes that have been in use for months. OmegaWikipedia 16:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Your reply to Mel

EM, I don't think it was fair for you to contact Mel Etitis in this edit war. You said you read my edits, so you know we've been in our own debate over something, and if you want to get someone else as a third opinion, you should get a 3rd party who doesn't have anything against me.

I contacted Mel Etitis because he edits a lot of music-related articles. I didn't have any alterior motives in approaching him specifically, I assure you. Extraordinary Machine 23:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see. If we do get a 3rd party, I hope we could get someone else besides him though. Recently, another person who I was in a disagreement with contacted Mel, knowing that Mel had power and a bias against me.

And I'm glad we're talking this over more calmly now, but I'm just wondering if you could could answer this question, which you haven't really addressed in your replies. (Or if you have it must have been indirect cause I don't see anything about it, except a slight reference). One person changed the WikiSongs standards. How did that suddenly become official policy? You saw how you reacted when I "changed" the policy (to show you an example). Not suprisingly, imagine how I would feel when I see somebody changed it. If there had been some type of discussion or vote or anything on the policy, that would be reasonable, but it was just one random poster who edited it. OmegaWikipedia 00:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia replies

EM, one last thing about Mel, he is in a debate over another article similar to the problem you have with the live performance section, so I think his reaction, or I know his reaction will be biased. And I've made some edits to compromise on some things. Please see the talk pages for details, but please dont revert, otherwises we will have a revert war, and I think for the sake of fairness, I've tried to accomodate to both our needs, and if you have an issue, please talk it over it on the talk page....but no edit wars please, they're retarded and then we both lose. OmegaWikipedia 01:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Courteney Cox in November.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Courteney Cox in November.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thuresson 03:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the barnstar

Means a lot :). Unfortunately we didn't get either of the Ashlee Simpson articles through :(. Oh well.... maybe it'll be easier next month :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Shake It Off image

Please do not remove image copyright tags from image description pages. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 17:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to do that. I had wanted to restore the image to the original one uploaded by Journalist to include the one with the black bars. I didn't know that would only remove the copyright tag, and not revert the image to its original state with the bars OmegaWikipedia 03:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hero

Stop undoing my edits. If you continue, a request for comment will be filed against you. Wikipedia is not your personal playground; you cannot revert other editors into submission. You've been blocked for this type of behaviour in the past, so I'd strongly suggest that you stop guarding these articles as if they were yours to do as you please. Extraordinary Machine 21:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

How am I reverting you into submission? You made an edit that I disagree with, so I restored it. Am I not allowed to do that? And isn't there a thing against threatening people on Wikipedia? Maybe I'll file one against you too. I've read those pages, so stop acting so snide. We've been over this time and again, but you still don't get it about your singlebox. A week before you started editing these articles, Moochoogle decided to edit the article. He didn't consult anyone, and there was no discussion before he did it. You suddenly decided that his edit suddenly became official Wikipedia policy. I asked you how this worked? Without you answering, I figured that anyone could edit it, so I did, which you reverted because suddenly it didn't work out for you anymore. Even Mel agreed with me when he said there should be a dicussion about this policy. OmegaWikipedia 21:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny how you pick apart my point about the Songs WikiProject, and dismiss every other argument I have made justifying the use of the new single infobox. See above for my four points. As WikiProject Songs states, "This project is not yet fully defined. Feel free to add stuff to make things clearer.", which Moochoogle did. You're not supposed to change the guidelines after somebody has created one, at least not without a discussion first. No other objections have been raised by any other users about Moochoogle edits, and it's pure common sense to deduct that the guideline he introduced is likely to reduce the likelihood of both edit wars and U.S.-centric systemic bias. But, I forgot, you called it "nonsense". Extraordinary Machine 21:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's hard to talk to you, when you constantly get rude and snide. I saw your four points, but I disagree with them too.

"You're not supposed to change the guidelines after somebody has created one, at least not :without a discussion first."

The guideline was there before Moochoogle edited it in. Even if no one has complained, that doesnt justify his edit as the bottom line. If I had edited the article a day before Moochoogle, would you accept my edit? Again, what's up with the personal attacks? Isn't that against Wikipedia policy too? You shouldn't accusse me of this so called "U.S.-centric systhemic bias" all the time without evidence, and who are you to say who or what is "common sense"? You're probably the first person who had a major problem with it. I've been speaking to other Non US people, and they agree with it, and I even agree with them on articles concering Canadian singers and UK singers. The Spice Girls' chart positions should have the UK come first and I believe they do.

As WikiProject Songs states, "This project is not yet fully defined. Feel free to add stuff to make things clearer." Which at the end of the day means, your singlebox carries no weight. What this comes down to is a dispute over content. So please stop accusing me of all these false accusations. Like you accused me of violating Wikipedia's caption change, when I made a mistake and apoligized. It seems like you're looking for reasons to get me in trouble on flimsy reasons, because you want to get rid of me, and edit the article like you own it. That isnt what Wikipedia is. Its about people coming together and trying to work together (instead of you who seems to think you own the article) OmegaWikipedia 21:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

As I already said on Talk:Shake It Off, you are in violation of, among others, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AWT, WP:CITE, WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Captions and Wikipedia:Fancruft (have you read any of these yet?). Of all those, you could only have sufficient ground to accuse me of violating the ownership of articles policy, and your argument probably wouldn't hold much water, since you're the one you started this edit war in the first place. I'd present evidence to you backing up my claims, but I know you'd dismiss my accusations without looking at it. Fortunately, WP:RFC patrollers are more open-minded than that. Extraordinary Machine 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Explainations please

How am I violating those policies? I even told you in my last reply to you that I made a mistake about the caption! I think it's a little pathethic for you to try to bring me down, when I acknowledged my mistake on the matter. About NPOV, AWT, CITE, and NOR, if you look at the history of "Shake It Off", Mel was able to edit the article in a fashion that I agreed with his second to last edit and I agreed with it. That's all I was asking for - Thankfully, Mel was a better editor than you were and he was able to express the gist of what I was going for to make it seem more NPOV to you. So I'm happy with the way the Shake It Off chart performance section reads now, so I wont revert that. See, EM, thats all you have to do. Reach somewhere in the middle. Compromise with people. Dont get all angry and irrational and accus people of false things.

When did I do WP:Point? If you're talking about the Wikiproject songs thing, then Moochoogle is just as guilty, and I guess you'd get in troubel too. And the thing about Fancruft talks about fiction with Star Trek and Japanese robots. It doesnt mention anything about live performances.

The only thing you could possibly accusse me of is Ownership, which you have also violated. And how did I start the edit war? If you look at our discussions, you made an edit, I disagreed, and asked to talk about it, but then you blew up and refused to discuss. I'd think the Rfc people would look down at you more, as I actually tried to talk about it calmly while you blew up like a volcano.

Now, can we talk about this matter civily, please? OmegaWikipedia 22:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You're the only one slandering me. I've said time and again, that many of those edits were in mistake, such as the one with the captions, so I'm not sure why you keep accusing me of that OmegaWikipedia 23:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine/temp

May I request a speedy delete of Talk:Extraordinary Machine/temp and its associated redirect? I believe it has fulfilled its usefulness. --maclean25 01:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

OSD and IKWYW

Ok, Ive added a source to the OSD image to make you happy. I dont mind using your IKWYW image, but could you please crop it to avoid the extra space to focus and Mariah and Busta RhymeS? OmegaWikipedia 15:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:OmegaWikipedia

OmegaWikipedia complained to me that his image Image:WMAWBTMariahCarey.jpg was deleted before 7 days had passed in Category:Images with unknown source. He's right, and furthermore, images shouldn't be speedied if there is a claimed source, however disputed and unlikely it may be. Those can go through WP:IFD. I'm letting you know because though you didn't speedy it, you tagged it {{no source}}. Superm401 | Talk 17:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Peace

I really dont know what to say. Thank you very much. I also said somethings that I shouldn't have, and for that I also apologise. When I came here, I was all about Mariah Carey, and I had not read and understood the NPOV guidelines etc, but now, all that has changed; I have better grasp of Wiki policies, and my demeanor has changed. Im really not like that, and any comments made by my IP address were made before I opened the Journalist account. I think its great that we can leave all disagreements in the past. To tell the truth, I also wanted to apologise, but I had no idea what to say.

Anyway, take care and peace.

PS:Im currently running for RFA. If you would like, you can vote. Dont worry, you can vote Oppose or neutral if you think Im not ready for it, no hard feelings what-so-ever. Journalist | huh?

Copyright Violations

Hi, EM. This is just to let you know that you have to remove all pictures from your user page as they are copyright violations and they don't count as fair use. OmegaWikipedia 20:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

barnstar for ya

I, RN, hereby award Extraordinary Machine a minor barnstar for work done on Ashlee Simpson-related articles during the relavant FACs. Its minor one since you state "I have only made small edits", however, if you ask me your edits were just as helpful as my own were :)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Commercial Website?

You wrote me threatening to block my IP? For adding commercial links? I thought that my links to lyricstemple were perfectly valid and useful for the topic. (Which I assumed was Mariah Carey). Why did you delete my links and threated me? My site is not commercial. I have a few ads, mostly an XML feed from Amazon which is relevent to the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkjazz (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, why would you choose to delete my links and leave the links for Rare-Lyrics and All Music Center? I anticipate that you will say that you already have your favorite lyrics sites listed, so why list another? The answer being that LyricsTemple has 32 Mariah Carey music videos which are applicable to the subject matter and holds interest for the visitors. Would you feel better if I pointed my link to my videos page insted of my lyrics page?

Is it your intent to hunt down all my links and remove them or are you just protecting your Mariah Carey turf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkjazz (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Reply

Re: Commercial Website?

I sent you those messages because, on half of the articles you edited, there are already external links to web pages about the artists' lyrics. And watch where you're putting them: for example, Olivia is a disambiguation page. Extraordinary Machine 14:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My intent is to prevent people from using Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle. And please sign your comments with four tildes (Jkjazz 14:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)) so people know who wrote your messages.

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a commercial link you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Extraordinary Machine 14:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

End Your Reply

Please reply to the points in my comment. I think that I have some valuable points. Wow how many of my entries have you removed? Again, I feel that the presence of Music Videos on my site adds value to my links. Does it bother you that my links say @ LyricsTemple.com? Why do you call my site commercial anyway? I'm not selling anything.Jkjazz 14:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Reply If you stop inserting links to your website on articles that already have links to lyric web pages, then I won't stand in your way any more. And yes, it does bother me that your links say @ LyricsTemple.com, so I think you should stop writing that as well. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 14:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC) End Your Reply

So put back my links that you took down! You deleted my links. Are you the CEO or something? Why do I have to please you? How many of my links did you remove?

So according to you, If there is already a link to a lyrics site, I cannot post my link? What about Music Videos? Should I just sumbit a list of artists I'd like to add my link to and you can let me know which meet your approval?65.26.38.74 15:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE send me a list of pages that you deleted my link from? I will edit my entries to meet your requirements.65.26.38.74 16:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome to User talk:216.126.246.78. I forgot that after about 5 minutes of inactivity I get logged out of Wikipedia. I'm actually CambridgeBayWeather 17:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Carey comments

Please do not insert weasel terms such as "was met with mixed reviews from music critics" without backing it up with an actual source.

Well, I am sorry but the truth of the matter is that the album has received mixed reviews. Just do a Google search for "mixed reviews" and "emancipation of mimi" and I think my statement will be justified. I find it humourous that you remove any negative remark about this overrated woman and if you can't justify removing a derogatory statement, you simply delete the entire paragraph!

Singles Table

Hi, have you seen the current singles table for Mariah Carey? It's a mess. It's missing the R&B Singles Chart, which is the most important chart for R&B artists. If you're going to remove a single from my table, at least put its information in the other crappy one. No sense in removing important information.

Also, tables are excluded from the page size, according to the Size guidelines page. Xinger 16:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• You're right about that. I apologize for only doing the four. When I get the patience I'll do them all. Thanks Xinger 16:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Courtney Love photo

If you wish to list the uploaded photo of Courtney Love, Image:CourtneyLoveWithFrancesBean.jpg at WP:IFD, please do so. I understand your rationale and agree with you wholeheartedly. Sorry for the inconvienance.

Image

Just to let you know, Ive reuploaded image:Miss Carey.jpg without the text, and Ive removed the imd tag. →Journalist >>talk<< 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Not watching

EM, I'm not watching you, but I have been replying to Freddy's page and I saw your comment. What exactly are the grounds for your RFC? 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. 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. OmegaWikipedia 17:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not making much sense here. An RFC is about a conflict which hasnt been resolved. Considering that the Shake It Off edits have been resolved, what is the basis for Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Fancruft. Those were the problems at Shake It Off. They have been resolved. If I continued to edit those articles in that fashion violating those policies, yes, then there would be valid grounds for an RFC. But I havent and the issue was resolved. That is the point of an RFC - to resolve an issue. How can you resolve an issue that has been resolved?

And if those articles are on my watchlist, how am I still harrassing you? And we've explained to you on Talk:The Trouble with Love Is also why they should be seperated. We also dont think its POV. That is a debatable matter, but at the moment its not clearly in either fashion. OmegaWikipedia 18:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

EM, if you made specific examples, I'll be glad to comment on them, but don't just say I'm a brick wall. If you dont' want to respond, that's your preorogative. But if you're talking about the edits on the charts, several people are weighing in on both sides - Some like you, Mel, and Hoary want to unify them. Some like me, Boa, USWF, Winnermario, Triggy, etc want to keep them seperated. I definitely dont own the articles nor have I claimed to. But the amount of people who are weighing in who disagree with the chart changes is not just singular. OmegaWikipedia 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Tcatron 565

DON'T CORRECT EVERY THING I DO WRONG!!!!!! IT GETS ON MY NERVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fine I'll put everything from the CD page to the other page. And what is different from the two different album things? Wikipedia is supposed to be fun! But it's not! It has so many rules!!! 9876 to be exact!I never want to talk to u again. Just mail me a letter if I ask you a question! OKAY! BY ! User:Tcatron565

re: OmegaWikipedia and Mariah Carey

I've actually had an RfC for him sitting on my desktop for at least a month. I did not file it because I had hoped I could resolve it in another way before then. I don't want to file it now, because if I do it, he'll for sure think I have some sort of personal vendetta against him. I'll just provide you with some more information to aid the RfC, and I will be the first to co-sign (User:Mel Etitis will be second, and User:Volatile will be third). --FuriousFreddy 22:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

/OW RfC evidence

image:josh.jpg

The use of this image in the article(s) Josh Hartnett was reviewed by Kelly Martin on 21 September 2005 and deemed likely to qualify as fair use, as it is believed to meet all criteria as described in Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. This image's use on other pages or in different contexts may require additional review.--DrBat 02:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Muhahaha

hello EM. you will be pleased to see my contributions to Emancipation of Mimi and It's Like That (Mariah Carey song).nothing like winding up a load of carey fans with a load of (hip hop) truth. IT'S LIKE THAT Y'ALL! TreveX^talk 02:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"Single" vs. "Song"

Actually, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs (which is more or less based off of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums) is a general set of guidelines, not a hard set of rules. As suggested "this is only a guide and you should feel free to personalize an article as you see fit, though others may change it to fit our standards." Users basically have a lot of flexibility to work within and around the rules if they improve the overall quality of the articles.

The example album infobox on the Wikiproject Albums page doesn't include album ordinals, but many album articles such as OK Computer or Heathen Chemistry include them.

Likewise, note that the Wikiproject Songs indicates that "This project is not yet fully defined. Feel free to add stuff to make things clearer." In terms of the naming policy, many editors have given more specific names to song articles, to reflect the types of songs indicated by the infobox, such as "single", "album track", "b-side", etc. For example:

• Rammstein - "Engel (single)"
• Coldplay - "Talk (single)"
• Garbage - "Bleed Like Me (single)"
• Embrace - "Ashes (single)"
• Ash - "Orpheus (2004 single)"
• Foo Fighters - "Low (single)"

It's a subtle difference between say "F.E.A.R. (song)" and "F.E.A.R. (single)", but I believe the article title itself should be as clear and specific as possible. We're trying to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible, non?  :-) --Madchester 17:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that the naming conventions indicate that "When a track is not strictly a song (in other words a composition without lyrics, or an instrumental that is not a cover of a song), disambiguation should be done using (composition) or (instrumental)." Likewise, we're dealing with (specifically) a single here, so the further disambiguation of (single) is fine; it's a fairly open-ended description. Note that it also states that "When necessary, disambiguation should be done using (band), (album), or (song)." It's "should", not "must", so editors can use their own discretion to make the titles more specific, if necessary. Remember, "It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone". I'm an administrator, an I personally give leeway to editors in these situations if they're generally following the guidelines set out in Wikipedia's various policies.

--Madchester 18:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Template issue

I'm having a problem with your music single information box. Since it is a template, I am unable to remove any unnecessary information. "Recorded" comes up numerous times in this issue. Since albums can be recorded in several places around the world, it is difficult to determine where a specific track was recorded. I was just wondering if you could remove it from the template? --Winnermario 21:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Winnermario 19:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain Teasers:

Hi, just sending out a friendly notice stating that I have now got brain teasers on my user page. Will post new questions one day after the older ones have been answered. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! BTW did you ever manage to get any more helpful comments on your album article for its FAC? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Image:Mjstudio.jpg

The image I uploaded several days ago, Image:Mjstudio.jpg, I found on Michael Jackson's official website, www.mjjsource.com. If you go to this website and in the breaking news section click on, MICHAEL JACKSON'S VISIT TO LONDON - Photos Monday, October 10th, 2005, you will see this photo along with other photos of Michael Jackson in the studio and out and about in London. Down the bottom of this page, MJJ Source has stated: "This material is rights free and unrestricted use until December 10, 2005. Photo Credits: 2Seas Records, Inc., Copyright, 2005". So this must mean the photo is free to use until this date, right? Street walker 10:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow

If you want to complain about using American and Japanese as disambiguations for albums, I suggest you clarify WP:NC. It gives an example of country based disambiguation of bands in the same section it discusses album titles, but doesn't say not to do that for albums. Even if non-standard, "American" and "Japanese" certainly were sufficiently descriptive to distinguish the two in this case. Incidentally, I was the one who moved American album -> Mariah Carey album when someone else asked.

As for turning Rainbow (album) into a disambig, I'll admit, I probably should have cleaned that up, but I didn't have the patience for it. Dragons flight 14:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC: Pop music issues

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

Barnstar!

For helping to cut through the overgrown problem that was The Emancipation of Mimi, I, FuriousFreddy, hereby award you with this Editor's Barnstar for dedicated efforts in cleanup, reduction, and copyediting.

This is very well deserved. Congratulations. --FuriousFreddy 19:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

re: Thanks.

That's exactly my point; I feel the same as the editor who gave that quote. I don't own any Mariah Carey albums, but I respect her talents and I do enjoy at least a dozen of her songs. All I want is encyclopedic coverage here (which includes, but is not limited to, factuallness, brevity, and knowing where the line between general trivia and Careycruft is drawn). On a related not, I've been looking at a few of the Beatles articles, and they don't seem to read as well as they did to me when I first read them a year or so ago. One of these days, I'm going to have to take a longer look through them. --FuriousFreddy 16:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Cool" information

THANK YOU?! O_O

I honestly don't know what to say. I thought you loathed me. Why are you helping the article with its FA? --Winnermario 00:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you. And I'm sorry about our recent disputes. But it looks like I'm going to have to renominate it, since it's going to end up failing in the end. But thanks! Maybe you'll support it. Meh. Thanks. --Winnermario 00:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If we can remedy them (you appear to be helping), I am in your debt. Thank you. --Winnermario 00:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you reference Gwen Stefani's quote paragraph of "Cool"? I did the exact same thing you did with the other quotes, but not surprisingly, it's failing for me. Thanks. --Winnermario 01:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting the charts. I don't care if people are complaining about them, unified charts are POV, and I'm restoring the images, as two of them play an important role in telling the story. (The fourth one does not so much.) --Winnermario 01:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There. I like it. Please leave those two images. And you know that I will continue to revert those charts. --Winnermario 01:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you care to answer my questions on the "Cool" talk page? --Winnermario 21:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on that "chart trajectory" image. I have a strong preferance for it over the endless HTML tables that have started showing up everywhere. Jkelly 16:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not consult the objections made by User:Jgm at the "Cool" nomination, as his requests are a bit more than "perplexing". He also doesn't appear to realize that "...by Gwen Stefani" means that she sings the song over the fact that she co-penned the lyrics.

So please do not worry about his objections. In addition, with twelve supports and two objections (User:Hoary will never agree with something that I edited), I'm sure the article is not facing much competition. --Winnermario 00:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't follow the latter part of your message. --Winnermario 00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not like I'm editing "Cool" to be famous for helping it achieve FA status. But thanks anyways. --Winnermario 00:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am editing "Cool" because I think it's a noteworthy song. If it were for other reasons, the presumed "I want to be known for editing a FA article", that would be the most conceited thing somebody would have ever done. --Winnermario 00:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Question. When the chart positions are updated, is it possible for you to remove "0" from the trajectory and replace it with a "1", as it is impossible to reach "number zero" on the charts? --Winnermario 00:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My thanks! :) --Winnermario 00:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Minor" edits

Yeah, if you just search yourself at the RIAA.com database, you'll see for yourself that the certifications for Hilary Duff's albums that currently are in the article are simply megafan crap; Metamorphosis is only 3x platinum, not 4x platinum, Hilary Duff is only platinum, not 2x platinum, and those sales for Most Wanted were simply made up. Though I donnot have an official source for the sales I posted, if you go to the UKMIX forums, they give weekly album sale breakdowns. Triggy 22:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Board

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Cool" FA status

Cool (song) is a featured article. Your contribution to the article is greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Winnermario 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The chart trajectory extends into week seventeen for "Cool": number fifty in the U.S. and number six in Canada. And remember to remove that zero. Thanks! :) --Winnermario 20:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. So would it be okay to extend this trajectory for three more weeks to reach week twenty? --Winnermario 16:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much. I'll see what I can do. :) --Winnermario 16:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Giuseppe Verdi

Would you care to elaborate on Talk:Giuseppe Verdi why you added the NPOV tag? It might help other editors to improve the article. Just slapping the template on is generally considered poor style. Thank you. Lupo 09:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tcatron565

I see that you have warned Tcatron565 for repeated copyright violations. As this user has been violating copyright for many many weeks now and has been continually warned, I have requested comment on that user at RFC Tcatron565. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct for the full list. You may wish to contribute some thoughts there. --Yamla 14:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Peer review?

I've noticed that your contributions have helped turn several music-related articles into Featured Articles. Would you care to add to a peer review on Marilyn Manson? The band might not be quite to your taste, but I'd like to get your feedback on the article. Thanks! --keepsleeping say what 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Issues with User:Mel Etitis once again

It appears at Hollaback Girl, Mel Etitis went ahead and removed the entire critical response section and the notes sourcing the information. Since you and him appear to be good friends, I would much appreciate it if you explained to him that these sections are certainly relevant to a song article, especially when one wants it to achieve FA status; he (so far) fails to process this. Thanks much. --Winnermario 00:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The so-called "critical response" section seemed (and still seems) to me to consist largely of long-winded and very badly-written introductions to people who say little more than "this sounds like the people who produced it", "it's good", or "its bad". There was nothing that needed saying that couldn't have been said in the article, with one or two of the references in the External links section. (I was astonished, incidentally, at just how many spelling and grammatical mistakes, not to mention fan-speak, had been crammed in to a fairly small set of additions.) I've left the section in, but corrected the errors; I still think it doesn't belong in an encyclopædia article, though.

In fact that might be at the heart of the problem. I have, and never have had, any interest in Featured articles; my interest is in improving Wikipedia. The small bunch of editors whose joy is to revert all my changes have a peculiar attitude to FA, as though it's the point of the whole enterprise. This means that, at the same time as in many articles they're splitting tables that I've unified and reverting my attempts to remove unnecessary columns (while ignoring attempts to discuss the issue at, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts*), they're happy to have tables unified in Hollaback Girl, the article that they're pushing for FA status, and are cutting even more columns than I've been doing.

(* Actually Winnermario has left a foot-stamping, confrontational message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts, but I can't make complete sense of it, and it didn't exactly help with an attempt to find consensus. It boiled down to: "I'll never change my mind; if I don't get my way I'll leave Wikipedia, and I think that Mel Etitis and Hoary just want to get their own way and shouldn't be allowed to edit.") --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy Saturday, Extraordinary Machine. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. The Canadian "Cool" position drops to #16, while the U.S. position is now #57. Have a great day. --Winnermario 14:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best way for us to be acquainted, but whatever the situation, there are several issues that must be addressed. First and foremost, User:Winnermario has delcared her departure from Wikipedia, which she blames on the number of users who exhibit rotten and crude behaviour. Please note that it was her who wrote that, not me. In wake of this sudden turn of events, she requested me to ask you of one last favour in addition to her post from earlier today, concerning the "Cool" chart trajectory. She would much appreciate it if you constructed a chart trajectory for Hollaback Girl, which was her current project. I sereve as her—you could say—successor, as I am fulfilling the role of upgrading the state of song articles here on Wikipedia (with the participation in some film projects).

Canadian Singles Chart trajectory: 12 - 12 - 12 - 5 - 5 - 3 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 5 - 5 - 7 - 12 - 9 - 12 - 12 - 16 - 25 - 20 - 22 - 29 - 26 - 34

U.S. Singles Chart trajectory: 82 - 57 - 37 - 10 - 3 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 6 - 6 - 9 - 11 - 18 - 22 - 22

I apologize for the current circumstances. If this discussion (and its cofounding users) are truly as terrible as she has stated, then I have no reason to reject the situation. I'll be participating in the ongoing debate until a conclusion is met with, and will offer as much money ("two-cents", if you will) as I possibly can. So, again, I'm sorry for how everything is running at this time, but I hope that we get the opportunity to converse again in the future. Mariah says "thanks for being there".

--Hollow Wilerding 23:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Oh, I'm not refusing to comment. But I will look at it ASAP. OmegaWikipedia 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)