User talk:Extraordinary Machine/Archive 5

Looking at Kelly Clarkson

Because of our collaboration on We Belong Together, I have been curious to ask something. Since she is listed under your contributions in your profile, what do you think of the current state of the Kelly Clarkson article? It is tedious and by looking at the history, has been the central point of edit warring for quite some time. I was hoping to get around to clean it up but I have limited faith in the article's future. Are there any suggestions you could offer me to help enhance Kelly Clarkson? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I did not request for you to help me promote the article to a standard of any type, you did save me valuable typing-time. Thank you! Speaking of Image:Kelly Clarkson in September 2002.jpg, how is it that an image becomes public domain? I am not going to be removing it from the article because it is specially classified, but under what circumstances and copyright laws does one become public domain? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some clean-up at my sandbox and was wondering if you could do me a favour. Since I'm new to referencing sources and citations in APA format (or whatever it is called — I've already forgotten!), and because I found your work on KaDee Strickland simply spectacular, I'd appreciate if if you could properly format my references. I'm not too far off of properly structuring them, but I'm still a tad bit confused. Your help would be useful! Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for correcting the citations. Do you have any suggestions on how to properly format references? I think I'm beginning to understand some more but am not quite there yet. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thank you very much! —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does EVERYTIME I try to edit Mariah Carey's page you delete my additional information and send me a message of "you're wrong blah blah blah"? What's the problem with my editions!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gihad (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 February 2006

New Message for EM Please stop sending me messages as I am just going to ignore them. And mentioning an artist's amount of Grammy wins is not a violation of point of view, it is a fact-there is no point of view. Do not email me again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldiggity (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 February 2006

NO

What do you call /Archive01: May 22, 2005 – September 30, 2005?????!!!!!!!!! Plus, I think you need to stop talking to me! You are just annoying! Tell somebody else to talk to me. I get so mad talking to you!!! UHHHHH! Tcatron565 8:17pm c 2/10/06

Okay, what I'm going to do you will like, but it's going to take a couple of days, so please be patient with me. But it seems like everytime I make a wrong move, you're all up in my face! It's like you're watching my back. Please, when I do something wrong, wait for 4 days, then tell me. Okay. Please! Tcatron565 8:34pm c 2/10/06

World Sales and Certifications for Mariah Carey

Hi Extraordinary Machine! How are you? You have just add the World Sales and Certifications for Mariah Carey to the clean-up list. I've been working so hard in it, searching information in the internet, and i haven't finished it yet! I would like to know why you pretend to delete the article.

ps:I'm a novice wikipedian... so i have a lot to learn!! ;) Sensatez 05:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singers perfoming live,Whitney,Dion,Streisand,Mariah etc

I agree with "Signed of love" regarding Mariahs lack of quality singing live on stage.She is not what I expected. As a fan of Barbara Straisand and Whotney Houston I have allways enjoyed stunning vocals in concert.With Mariah,who never tours by the way,it´s not the same thing. She lacks what the others have.That is all one needs to say.

Have anyone heard the liveduet during the Oscars 1999 when the song "When you belive" was performed with Whitney Houston?It is a difference of class between Whitneys voice and Mariahs. She is simply outclassed by Whitney.I like both singers but I am disapointed at Mariah.Why is she not able to perform well live! Whitney is a killer live vocally but Carey has since her debut failed to give Whitney a run for her money.Im sure Mariah would have the same status worldwide as Whitney if she could performe as well live as in studio.Signed Fan of love

Surley I must agree with "Fan of love" I as a fan of Streisand listen to a lot of music - brought to the public live.I allways judge performers based on how well they perfom live. - Whitney and Celine send thrills down my spine when rendering classic material live on stage.Mariah is not to be taken seriously.She is a great women.A powerful caracter but - how can she expect to be taken seriously when she has never toured of when she fails - as aboved mentioned singing live? - A live in Northen Europe and both Celine And Whitney toured Sweden a few times,Mariah - has never toured as an artist sounding so nice in studio should! - While Whiney and Celine are famous all over the globe Mariah tends to shine brightly - in the US.Why?

Well I am surprised that the Mariah article dosn´t take into account Mariahs lack of credibility on stage.Miming,never touring,outclassed by others while singing live, are you sure we are talking about the same singer....it´s a piece of cake sounding nice in studio but a piece of hell performing as well live....just ask Milli Vanilli or Mariah.....

This is a joke....are you serious about this article! It can only be some hardcorefans living out thier fantasy here....the women can´t sing live,and when she performes sounds terrible. Have you even deared to compare her voice with other great singers... I suspect not... well try and listen to some other voices in concert and then maybe you should evaluate your article again.Mariah will ever obtain the status of a great singer worldwide... and you know why.

WELL , AS MENTIONED BY OTHER WIKIPEDS YOU HAVE A TENDENCY TO BE A LITTLE SUBJECTIVE WITH SOME ARTISTS,STOP WITH THAT OR YOU WILL FACE THE SAME MEDICINE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uyt (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 February 2006

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mijaser (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 February 2006

Image:Nick Lachey Jessica Simpson USO 210405.jpg

Are you certain that this image is public domain? It was originally uploaded as such, and then changed to a fair use, then you changed it back to PD. The version on the commons was deleted, which may have been in error, since the only copyright notice on the source is "This Image has been cleared for release"

On an unrelated note, I'd also like to propose a possible collaboration. I noticed you have Diane Keaton under one of your favorite actors, and I've been planning to rewrite her article to get it to Good or featured status. --Fallout boy 06:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the PD tag. Please check the image description for reasons. --Rob 23:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Image:Nick Lachey Jessica Simpson USO 210405.jpg [1]: This image is no longer in Commons. It was deleted (see log) because it is copyrighted material. ABC holds the copyright. It was a "Courtesy photo". It's important to note that the photo was submitted by " 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing", but "submitted by" is different than "photo by". Its common for the two to be different. "Photo by" is who took the photo (which effects copyright). "Submitted by" is the employee who uploaded the image (e.g. its equivilent to an uploader in Wikipedia, who might not be the copyright holder). --Rob 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together

Although I'm not one-hundred percent aware of what the criteria is, I don't believe the users who worked on an article together are allowed to vote at the FAC. However, as noted, I'm not entirely sure of this. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just letting you know that the information that you requestion have been sourced. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not edited the article since its last nomination, I believe it is appropriate if you chose to support the nomination once again. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.E, I should let you know that it is rather frwoned upon to pursue support votes, even if E.M voted at the last one. He has seen the page — let him decide for himself. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not attempting to persuade him since he supported last time. I did not know about the "frowning" part of the method, however, and will therefore refrain from posting any further concerns about voting at the FAC on your talk page, EM. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey

Unfortunately, I can't find a better source from where I am right now. An internet search just turned up websites that are even less reliable than IMDB. --M @r ē ino 21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been warned of this and asked to discuss the issue at Talk:Mariah Carey. Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to discuss it with you but you just would not listen-what is the point? I thought I told you to stop sending me messages! You are obviously not going to listen to me so I am not going to listen to you. I am making it my life's work to change that article to include her Grammy mention. Do not contact me again! I will do it once or twice every day and therefore, will not be in violation of whatever that rule says. I will do it from different computers if I have to. This can be hard or this can be easy-your choice. Stop reverting my edits. You're not welcome! I am no longer going to read any messages sent to my discussion page. All messages sent there will be ignored. This time tomorrow, I will revert it.

you are obviously not going to listen to me so I am not going to listen to you either-this is my last post here-you can write whatever the hell you want-you want to start an arbitration proceeding over the mention of "she has won 5 grammy awards"-i have already explained why it notable to mention her grammy wins above-if you had listened to me we would not be having this petty conversation-you are not worth having a discussion with-i am through discussing it-bring it on-waste of time and money-i am going to change it come hell or high water-goodbye forever "When I have something to say, I'll f------' well say it."-Fiona Apple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.238.252 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 February 2006

as soon as the protection comes off, i am going to change her grammy mentions again-you ara all biased, anyway-there is no such thing as a completely neutral point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.171.60 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 February 2006

Emma Watson image: Fair-use question

I'd like your opinion: At miss-watson.org (which has a huge image gallery, virtually none of which could be used on Wikipedia), six scans were made from the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Movie Poster Book, including this image. There is no question that the poster book was released to promote HPatGoF; however, the poster book was released for sale. Does the image (or, perhaps, a lower-res copy thereof) constitute fair use as a promotional image? Please reply on my talk page. Radio Kirk talk to me 17:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I think that use of the poster can qualify as fair use if it is of lower resolution than the original image, as well as if there are other good reasons for using that image on Emma Watson. Warner Bros. probably might appreciate one of their promotional images receiving extra circulation anyway.

Sounds good, thanks :)

On an unrelated note, I think my standards at the Lindsay Lohan FAC were a little too high, so sorry about that :). Maybe it's because I adored Freaky Friday and Mean Girls?

Not a problem, don't worry about it. The experience was a good one, hard work notwithstanding ;) No doubt you've seen the thanks and credits? :D

Well anyway, if you need any help with anything (or would like to collaborate on an article) then please let me know! Extraordinary Machine 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! :D Radio Kirk talk to me 18:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the image is uploaded here. Please feel free to comment on my rationale for Fair Use. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 19:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The image features the subject in her best known acting role, yet is simultaneously illustrative of the subject in real life" - sweetness :). Sorry, but I just feel that sentence hit the nail on the head with a hammer factory!

LOL thank you! :) That does constitute, as you put it, the "other good reasons for using that image on Emma Watson." ;)

The rationale looks great to me; however, user:Carnildo is much more knowledgeable about image copyrights and fair use than I am. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use.

I did in fact read Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, but it still left unanswered questions. I'll check with Carnildo, thanks! Radio Kirk talk to me 21:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Please see the talk page for We Belong Together. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Equinox (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 February 2006

Sorry Dude

Sorry about deleting that picture, no offense to you or anything, but I just HATE looking at that picture, it's so UGLY. Lol. But I'll deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallville 101 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 February 2006

Titles

The words that shouldn't be capitalised are articles, prepositions (some manuals of style specify prepositions under five letters; I don't think that Wikipedia has decided on that, unless things have changed since I last looked), and conjunctions. The exceptions are first and last words in the title. So:

The Last Days of Pompei
"Ode on Intimations of Immortality"
Journal of a Disappointed Man
Not Only, but Also
"Going Up"
With the Beatles, etc.

Some manuals also make exceptions for prepositions that form part of phrasal verbs. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"After" is a preposition there, and would normally be left uncapitalised (again, unless it started the title, as in After Henry). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holmes

Thank you very much for your help with this article. I've nominated it as a FAC and would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology on Mariah Carey singles articles

Hmm...technically, "promotional singles" are singles nonetheless, and removing them would only revive the argument of whether they're singles or not. But I could understand if you would want to remove them if they just lead to redirecting pages and what not (Fly Like A Bird, maybe?!?). Its just that with singles like "Sweetheart" and "Never Too Far", which were promo-only singles in the U.S., you can't really justify removing them from the chronology simply because they were airplay-only cuts. Likewise, the same doesn't apply to songs like "Whenever You Call", which didn't even have a promotional release, or "Underneath the Stars" and "The One", which are retracted singles. Are their any singles in particular that you want to remove? In the end, I'd just remove or fix links that are problematic. Hope this helps.

On a similar note, I'm finding it difficult to condense the "Boy (I Need You" article, because I know its possible to extract a lot of the fan cruft and unreferenced info. I noticed you did a really great job doing that with the "Butterfly" article, so I would appreciate if you could help me with this one. Also, do you think its possible to merge the information on "The One" (and maybe even "Irresistable" and "You Got Me") to the "Boy (I Need You)" article? Their articles are comprised of mostly redundant information that could found be found elsewhere or simply point out the obvious. Just wondering, sorry for dawdling on... --Grey Pursuit February 21, 2005 (UTC)

Dont do this

here-Ste|vertigo 18:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Punk'd "irrelevant"?

I'm in the middle of a dispute with backburner001 over the Punk'd reference at Lindsay Lohan. This user says it's irrelevant. I laid out the case for its relevance—with a rewrite for clarity—and he deleted it again. His response: "I did my part – I removed content I felt was not significant and I made suggestions for improvement when I was asked for them. If you are interested in working together to fix this problem, do your part and improve the Punk’d reference or give me a legitimate reason for keeping the reference that was in there before." (Essentially, "You think it should stay? Prove it to me and me alone," which sounds awfully close to self-appointed WikiGodhood, but I've been called dramatic already. More on point, "working together" to this editor means he deletes it, but someone else has to "fix" it.) This user's page includes as a goal, "[r]emove irrelevant/trivial content", but a quick look at his edit history is telling: on 30 January, he removed from WP:MOS a "reference to naming conventions for Mormonism"; on 19 February, he deleted "2 paragraphs" from Hiram College "to keep concise". Since then, every deletion of material has been a Punk'd reference, from Lindsay Lohan, Avril Lavigne, Jena Malone, Beyoncé Knowles, Mandy Moore, Chris Klein (actor) and Proof (rapper). After we blasted each other's antagonism (real or imagined), I threatened him with a WP:3RR war and mutual blocking, and backburner001 then agreed to stop removing the reference pending the discussion that results from my Request for Comment. No matter the outcome, your input would be very much appreciated. Radio Kirk talk to me 21:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of info on Chart table

It's been a nuisance on editing and now I'm in a dilemma. How would you order the chart information on a single's Chart table, seeing that you can't be put in order of "importance" (with the exception of the U.S. charts which has the precedent practice of beign put first)? At first, I decided to model off the "We Belong Together" article, which is a featured and well-edited article, with having the chart info listed in order of peak position from highest to lowest. But when I reached the "Don't Forget About Us" article, I realized that by doing so, would mean leaving a unappealing gap on the "No. of chart topper" column. Therefore, do you think I should continue to model off the "We Belong Together" article or put it in alphabetical order, except for the U.S. charts of course? Thanx and sorry for dawdling on a trivial matter! Grey Pursuit 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

...Is it just me, or is Wikipedia steadily getting worse? It seems as though I spend nearly all of my time going behind other users and doing cleanup to articles that have been crufted beyond recognition or are otherwise in bad shape. I think it's almost time for another Wikibreak. --FuriousFreddy 16:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?

What was wrong with the meaning of the songs on Most Wanted (Hilary Duff album)? Tcatron565

Mirroring of Wikipedia

Do you know anything about all the mirror sites that copy wikipedia's content, and where WP stands on that? It's very weird to see everybody's comments from talk pages showing up on other sites like algebra.com and yourart.com. Schizombie 06:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's the mirroring of talk pages I find particularly odd. Schizombie 21:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Keaton

I have the first draft of my major rewrite completed. Feel free to imput! --Fallout boy 07:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They Might Be Giants

I've tried to address your concerns. Are you willing to put it back on the Good Articles list? —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, and the nomination was removed by somebody else. But the main reason I asked was because because I wanted to get a guided sense of if I'd done it right. —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need ...

... to repeatedly lecture me on Wikipedia policy, especially on such a minor affair. Thanks anyway, and next time just go ahead and remove the links again if it makes you happy. All the best, <K F> 22:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I'll Be There

I've already taken the time to read both guidelines and don't recognize my error anywhere in the text. However, you have been a Wikipedian for a much longer significant amount of time than I have, so I'll refrain from editing the image for now. I would like it if fair use rationale was applied for all of the articles it appears in though; this would make Wikipedia look like it is in order of its priorities. Perhaps when the Mariah Carey article reaches featured article status, we could fix up the rationale for both articles. Until then, I understand your concern. Thanks! Take care! —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eternal Equinox/Sandbox

Hello again Extraordinary Machine. I was just wondering if you could take a look at my sandbox and comment and/or critique the work I've done for the Kelly Clarkson article. I've been trying my hardest to ensure that the everlasting fan-gush is executed upon notice. I would appreciate it! —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fix up a handful of the errors you've noted, and yes, I should have been able to catch these, but it can be a bit irritating once you begin reading the same words day after day. However, I will answer a few questions:

I'm not sure about the Indonesian singles market. It's not very important, from what I've heard, but it is being included because of all the number-ones Clarkson garnered from Breakaway. Is that special enough? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Canada is a major music market. The only reason an album needs to ship 100,000 copies to be certified platinum is because of the population: 33 million, which differs greatly from the U.S. population of 275 million. Australia has a population of 20 million and needs to ship a mere 75 000 copies to be certified platinum and is considered a major music market. It's unusual how the system works.
"Low" reaching the top forty instead of the top fifty? I disagree with you, however, in the end you are correct. I'll change it.

—Eternal Equinox | talk 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

right|150px By the way, although I know that you've changed your sandbox layout, I went ahead and created the CD single cover image for A Thousand Miles. Since no article exists for the single, and because we obviously do not want the image to be deleted, I'm going to leave it here with you for now, unless, of course, you do not want it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right about the Mariah Carey article. It is impressive. Anyway, on the topic of Clarkson, most of her singles reached fairly high positions in Canada. Also, from what I've heard, an American musician's releases normally perform strongest in Canada because of how close the nations are. The same situation occurred with Carey, correct? Her singles performed strongest in Canada for the first decade of her career. They were never successful in the UK for a significant amount of time; this also happened to Clarkson. All in all, I'm going to attempt to promote the article to a standard similar to Carey's. However, there are major image issues occurring right now — it may be sometime before consensus is met. However, time will tell, and thanks for your help! Good luck with both articles. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replacing the public domain image. It hasn't been an easy task communicating with the IPs and HeyNow10029 who insists that the images he/she do not have copyright issues. It is unusual that they decided to remove the PD image though... thanks, again! —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lindsay Lohan Punk'd Reference]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backburner001 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 March 2006

WikiProject Psychology

Hi! I noticed you categorized yourself as interested in psychology. Maybe you would like to join the Psychology WikiProject? /skagedal^... 15:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A BEST -> A Best

I just wanted to know why you made this move? The Japanese page uses A BEST and A Best is not an English translation of this... thanks. gren グレン 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Johnson

Greetings, Extraordinary!
You were kind enough to support the FAC candidacy of my article on Katie Holmes, for which I am grateful. I've put forward another nomination, Ohio's lieutenant goveror Bruce Johnson, and I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson. PedanticallySpeaking 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]