User talk:Lil-unique1

mixer credits

You wrote: "You made the comment "If remixers are named, the original mixer should also be named. If original mixer is not named, the remixers' names should be taken off also." This is not wikipedia policy so please do not try and pass it off as policy. Also it is not sourced nor is it relevant in the same context. The people doing the remixers are producers not track engineers. If you've bought the single you'd see that it says "Acapella (Dave Aude Remix)" but the original song itself doesn't say "Acapella (mixed by Dylan Dresdow)". The given names in the single are the names of those versions not necessarily the remixer. Lil-unique1"

You know, I'm not trying to pass my comments off as policy. You're clearly a much more experienced Wikipedia editor than I am, so I won't try to argue with you on that front. However, I have more than 20 years of experience of working in the music industry, and how credits (and with that politics) are handled, and it is simply very very VERY bad form not to mention the original mixer of a song, especially in a context where remixers are mentioned (not to talk about make-up artists and god knows what). For an understanding of the role and importance of the original mixer, have a look at my article series at Sound on Sound magazine: www.soundonsound.com, and search for my name: "Paul Tingen". Do some further reading, and you'll also find out that the role and importance of the original mixer has increased dramatically over the last decades. He or she used to be just a balance engineer, but now mixers can act like arrangers and producers, which is why I was commissioned to write this series.

I hope that you agree after informing yourself that, where possible, and certainly with songs mixed during the 90s and 00s, it is important to credit the original mixer somewhere in each wikipedia entry for a song. My suggestion would be to put the original mixer credit at the box on the top right, where the producer is credited, but I've tried that and it seems impossible to change the format of that box. Alternatively, the original mixer can be mentioned in the top 1-2 paragraphs, where the producer and other major participants are mentioned. But I have to admit that I totally don't see why the original mixer can't be mentioned in the list of different versions for each song. In fact, that seems the obvious place.

Paul Tingen.

Btw. you also write that "remixers are producers." This is not exactly correct. Remixers give their own slant to songs, sometimes changing them dramatically, which is different from what a producer does, which usually is to try to bring the best out of the artist and the song. Granted, producers also often make arrangements, like remixers do, but this is not always the case. Sometimes a producer will use an arranger, sometimes the band or artist will make the arrangement. Original mixers will also sometimes change the arrangement and/or do things that can be called production. The difference between what they do and what remixers do is not always big, making crediting remixers (who often run off their remixes in half a day), but not the original mixer (who may spend 1-2 days on each mix) such bad form.

Later entry (05/05/10): Lil-unique: you're only 19 years old and you already sound like the world's worst bureaucrat and control freak! Lighten up! It seems like you have already forgotten that rules, agreements, and what you call "standard practice" are there for a reason: to get desired results. And sometimes rules, regulations and/or "standard practice suck and one has to be a little flexible and apply some common sense to come to a result that obviously is fairer, or more correct, or whatever. Why you dig yourself in like this, when all I'm trying to do is make sure that one key person in the making of records is properly credited in wikipedia song entries, escapes me. You could also say: 'fair enough: you have the experience in the music industry, I've done some reading up, it seems like the original mixer is indeed very important, leave it with me and I'll try to find a way organise the Wiki song entry format in such a way that the original mixer is routinely credited.'

Instead you seem to make it an issue of personal pride to kick someone who has 20 years of experience in the music industry, at the highest level, and who is trying to give credit where credit is due, in the shins. Bizarre and it gives wikipedia a bad name. I mentioned to a few high level folk in Los Angeles (ie, men who make #1 hit records) what you're doing and they're shaking their heads in dismay. As per your suggestion to take it up with the Wiki songs community, I'll try, but you know, I have kids, a job, in general a life, and don't see why I should go to such much trouble to get something very simple and obviously reasonable done... Btw, if you want to verify the Dylan Dresdow mix credit, go to his web site: http://www.papervustudio.com/contact.html, and ask him. Don't forget to also ask Dylan for his feedback on your stance re crediting original mixers at Wikipedia... You know, one day you'll hopefully learn: sometimes information is found in real life and not in print, and sometimes you have to do a little first-hand research and believe your own ears and eyes and not only 2nd hand knowledge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingen (talk • contribs) 07:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Lil-unique, I accept that I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia common practice and all the ins and outs of commenting and discussing; by contrast, you repeatedly claim to be an expert, so why don't you assume good faith on my part, etc? I've actually given my real name and put my professional reputation on the line. Yet instead of honouring that, you keep slamming down the rule book on me. Trawling around on Wikipedia a bit, I found this suggestion:

"I will always assume good faith on the part of my fellow editors and will be civil at all times, even to those who are not civil to me. I will NOT attack my fellow editors or disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If involved in a content dispute, I will NOT engage in edit warring and will instead discuss contested edits and/or seek dispute resolution."

Sounds good. Was my repeatedly adding Dresdow's name "edit warring," and if it was/is, is it worthy of threatening to report me? And if so, aren't/weren't you doing the same thing? My addition of Dresdow's name doesn't harm the article, it enhances it, and given what I've revealed about my background, you could at least have accepted the accuracy of my entry, even as you're welcome to point out it's not 'common practice.' So? Aren't you just trying to "make a point" here? Seems like that to me. As you're so experienced in common practice, why don't you give me a good example of how Wikipedians resolve disputes like this? Tingen (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Charts

A ok but sorry, a chart like that is really annoying to read..׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 16:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

okok--׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You Belong with ME

O.K. But that's for single chart, which is not being used in "You Belong with Me". So maybe you could bring that up in the discussion because as of now it should stay how it is. Once they find a method for it, I'd be more than happy to change it :) -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

O.K. But the entire article is already based on the original format and it's definately more difficult changing everything relating to charts than just two charts listed. So, I think this would be the exception to the rule. Afterall, it says "should", not "must". Plus yes it is according to the article: "Ultratip is a chart that shows the top 50 songs that didn't enter the main chart. For Flanders positions are equivalent to (51-100) and for Wallonia (40-90). Ultratip measures airplay and sales where the main chart just measures sales. The chart is similar to the U.S. Bubbling Under Hot 100." So please do not bother the article, please. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way but what I meant was for you not to continue making that same edit since I don't want to start an edit war. Also, what's the compromise? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

YES!! Thank you. Or maybe Belgian Ultratip Singles Chart (Wallonia) or same as before but linking Ultratip? I like the way it is now though if these two don't please you. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

YAY! *high five back* -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ride

I understand what u meant about my edits. Thanks I will try not to do that again, I try my best to edit my aritcles a good way. Your right I do love Ciara, but ur right i shouldnt edit the article like a fan. Thanks :)

Each Tear

Hey! "Each Tear" has been released in the UK today. The UK iTunes cover features that promo cover of Mary without the 'featuring Jay Sean' part as previously posted. I think it might be best to use that one. [1] P.S. here's the Rea Garvey cover too [2]. TopopMAC1 (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic Instinct

Hi, I saw that you put no recorded tracks section for the page. However, Rap-up has announced two more songs that could be on the album ("Run it" and "Blauw") should a recorded tracks section be made or should they just be talked about in the article.--Urban music fan (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, do you need sources or can you find them.--Urban music fan (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the one for "Run it" : http://www.rap-up.com/2010/05/06/new-music-ciara-run-it/ It was also mentioned by Ciara in her uStream, with her calling it one of her favorites, but I can't source it. I didn't put the one for "Blauw", as it says they are unsure if it is from Fantasy Ride or Basic Instinct.--Urban music fan (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

TrEeMaNsHoE yet again. He's just so obvious. — ξ^xplicit 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

New

Hello. I know for a fact that my edits toward the Basic Instinct album, as well as anything that has to do with Ciara, are correct. I am confident that i know more about what goes on with Ciara's projects than most people. Although the citations may not be accurate, you should at least note that Ciara has worked in the studio with Bangladesh. If the citation doesn't match, then find one instead of just deleting it because the additions that i add to the page are correct. I wouldn't do anything to purposely mislead anyone about this page, because I am a Ciara fan myself. All i ask is that you at least take my additions into consideration.

I can definitely respect that. But the same place where the info about Ciara working in Milk Studios is the same place where you'll find exactly who she worked with there. Naming one studio out of the millions that she's been in is just as pointless as naming a producer without a citation. In fact, Milk studios is the studio that she met up with producer Bangladesh at in the first place. It was posted by an engineer at Milk Studios on twitter, and was posted and confirmed on a page from Sincerely Ciara.com. If you could find that, then great. I just want it to be known that Ciara is working with more producers than just Tricky Stewart & The-Dream only because some people aren't even giving the project a chance because they haven't been in favor of what they've heard from previous "Trick & Dream ONLY" produced albums. I know that the team is a pretty good team and i like what im hearing from the Tricky/Dream/Ciara team, but we both know other flopped albums they've exclusively worked on (Mariah, Electrik Red, etc.) left a bad taste in fans' mouthes. And i've been seeing comments like "Oh God, another Tricky & Dream only album!" and "Its gonna flop like their other projects did". We know that the 3 work well together, its just that biased listeners don't. From one fan to another, i'm just looking out on all aspects that's all, lol.

I understand...i just don't want to get deleted or gate any warnings or be labeled as a disruptive editor for just stating facts. So the next time i add something could you just look into it further for validity instead of me getting in trouble? Cause 9.5 times out of 10, my additions are correct, i just may not have the correct citation for it. And i noticed that additions have been made to the site based on rumors, like the rumor that a "world tour" would take place in support of Fantasy Ride, which obviously didn't materialize. So with that being said, could i post something to that effect about her working with Bangladesh if i make it clear that it hasn't been confirmed yet? Cause i've done that before and there was never a problem. Let me know, thanks.

-ldt88_07 (^^ p.s. is this what you mean by a signature??)

Orphaned non-free image File:MJB - Each Tear (international).jpg

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: User:RyanG222

Hello, Lil-unique1. You have new messages at Jonny's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

i think we have a sock... User talk:Sllewellyn7, they're making very similar edits to the same articles Mister sparky (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:

I am not edit warring. You, in fact, are edit warring. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

thatgrapejuice.net

Hi, before I upload the same image, may I ask something, is "thatgrapejuice.net" a blog? In their web page, it is revealed the same picture that I've uploaded is the official cover. Whether I can upload it or not, please inform me. : )Syfuel (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear, I've redirected the source. Please let me know if it is okay. : )Syfuel (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pulse (Toni Braxton album)

Hi.

I added a couple of categories and did a little work on the personnel section i´ll rate it a B, but the personnel section still needs work. --Zidane tribal (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Colonial Cousins (album)

Hello Lil-unique1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Colonial Cousins (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang

Hello Lil-unique1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Paigham (album)

Hello Lil-unique1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Paigham (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Way We Do It

Hello Lil-unique1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Way We Do It, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Paul Detwiler

Hello Lil-unique1. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Paul Detwiler to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

webcite

Thanks for telling me about the WebCite tool, since it has be a very useful archiving tool for the articles I have since edited. But its website is undergoing maintenance or something, so Im asking if u know of another tool/site that carries a similar function for archiving? Dan56 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)