Talk:Mad Love (Mabel song)/Archive 1

Archive 1

DIY article

@MaranoFan: Please see the "Mad Love" press release, the press release description "Mad Love’ is an anthem for women to call the shots and talk about exactly what (and who) they want." is recycled in the DIY article and therefore should be removed as per WP:PRSOURCE. CoolMarc 06:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I guess you’re right then. Should have included a link to the press release (and the guideline) in the edit summary when you were removing it though. Someone, like me, who hasn’t read the press release had no way of knowing that.—NØ 08:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Major content additions with offtopic and fancrufty details

Dear Coolmarc, please read WP:BRD. You are supposed to start a talk page discussion after your hefty content addition was reverted. Do not continue unless you want to be warned for edit warring. Now discuss the contentious additions one by one instead of doing a huge revamp of the article in one edit. You’re the one who needs to discuss changes you make, NOT the people who are trying to remove the fancruft.—NØ 06:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Fancruft my ass. You are clearly trying to WP:OWN the article and I have taken it up with an admin. There is nothing controversial about my expansion for it to be entirely undone by you nitpicking one or two things. My expansion was a massive improvement. There is nothing to be discussed and you have been harassing me ever since I started editing your precious article. I have been on Wikipedia for many many years and know how things work around here, and if anything it is you who needs to calm down and stop edit warring. CoolMarc 06:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Haha, very civil. Maybe you should demonstrate your experience through your conduct instead of the WP:BRD violations and WP:UNCIVIL language. I’m not owning anything, YOU are, as you’re forcing your content into it for the third time even though others have taken issue with it. As I stated in my very first message on your talk page, you’re making the article harder to read. And with the latest additions you’ve even added fancrufty brags about how many views the video has received, lengthy quotations from a Genius interview without paraphrasing them properly, and also promotion of her merch. So no, your additions are not perfect and you should stop enforcing them once someone has taken issue with them. Kindly revert yourself unless you want to be taken to the edit warring noticeboard, the latest revision is a violation of WP:BRD. And take that sass somewhere else. This is Wikipedia, not a fan forum.NØ 06:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

What a joke. You are the only editor who has an issue with my expansion and for a reason you made very clear with your meltdown on my talk page about wanting to nominate it for GA on your WP:OWN. CoolMarc 06:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No. My concerns with your additions were clearly pointed out in my edit summary. And I did not remove everything you added. Compare that to the fact that you are forcing in (through edit warring) the content you added without any explanation or a response to my edit summary. YOU are the one who thinks you WP:OWN the page, since everything Mr. Coolmarc has added to the page should stay, even if he has no explanation for restoring it. Save it. I'll reiterate my warning to you about reverting yourself. You're violating WP:BRD, WP:OWN as well as policies on edit warring. This will not end well for you.--NØ 06:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes you literally did revert nearly my entire expansion with for one or two petty reasons. The diffs are there to tell the story. I don't need to explain decently expanding an article that was a messy stub. CoolMarc 06:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Lol, this is not what a stub looks like. Your "expansion" contained adding merch promotion, paraphrasing issues and other sorts of irrelevant details. Every article does not need to be 100 kBs long if there's not that much relevant content. But sure, as the Mabel fan boy that you are, you thought that a song which is barely a hit in two countries needs a huge expansion of largely irrelevant content. And yeah, the diffs are there to tell the story of how you're an edit warrior who clearly overrates their own contributions and refuses to see the problem with them even when it is pointed out. And last but not the least, the civility issues with using wording like "my ass". Stop digging your hole deeper.--NØ 06:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment on the content not the editor. How is the merchandise release fancrufty when it is a form of promotion like a lyric of vertical video used to promote the single. What exactly are the paraphrasing issues and irrelevant details? CoolMarc 07:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment on the content not the editor, you should have done that when you reverted all of my content here with that personal attack excuse of an edit summary. And let me begin asking the questions, since those horrid content additions are still sitting in the article. Why did you remove the mention of other musical markets the song is successful in from the lead, and only keep UK? How come you merged the commercial performance section into "Reception", but reverted me when I merged Live performances into "promotion", even though the latter section is smaller than the former? Why did you revert my change of MTV to MTV News when [mtv.com/news] is the website for MTV News, not just MTV? Hmm. Questions, questions, so many questions. One shall wonder if the reason you reverted those changes is because you didn't make them. WP:OWN--NØ 07:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You still aren't able to explain what the paraphrasing issues, irrelevant details are or what is "hard to read" or "horrid" about my expansion? I removed Scotland and Hungary from the lead because they are download-only charts irrelevant in the streaming era and thus not relevant to a description intended to accurately summarize the song's success. The song has only really peaked in the UK and is still climbing the charts in other countries. So the chart performance and lead summary can be updated at a later stage when it has peaked everywhere. The live performances section is likely to still grow too. The single is barely 2 months old and it's not like Mabel is going to stop performing the song. I didn't change or revert anything about the MTV News source, all I added was the writer's review of the video. I thought and MTV and MTV News are the same source. You kept saying the song is about "demanding good loving" without attributing it to the MTV writer and when Mabel has said the song is simply about mutual attraction, not "demanding some good loving". CoolMarc 07:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh god. Do you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL? We treat content as it exists in its current state. Mabel could also pull an "Old Town Road" and end up releasing 10 music videos for it, but that's the thing, no one can predict that. And just mentioning UK in the lead section does not summarize the song's overall success. A lead is a summary and should include other markets. And again, I did not revert everything you added. There was a reason for the specific content that got removed. And my last comment also answers your question about how you made the article harder to read. Since there's now

• inconsistency in the italicization of sources where are they?
• two different names being used for the same website (MTV/MTV News) apart from that, where are the others? And why didn't you just change it instead of reverting my entire expansion?
• the Background section alternates between present and past tense again why remove the content instead of fixing the issue you have with it? I can nominate the article at the WP:GOCE to help regarding this
• the Composition section reiterates the "women empowerment" theme which is expressed in the section before it too it does not reiterate it, the composition section explains how the theme relates to the lyrics
• the paraphrasing problems are you taking Mabel's quote (for the Genius interview) and not changing the words enough can you give examples of this so I can paraphrase it better?
• There are thousands of good articles of songs, yet none of them mention and link to merch This does not matter it is a form of promotion her label has used to promote the song. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
• "you could imagine any one of pop's reigning female front-people being very grateful to have bagged 'Mad Love' from a bidding round: Dua, Rita, Ariana." - This is not relevant to this article as there is no critical description of the song ITSELF It is definitely a critical opinion in it is saying the song lacks identity and could be recorded by anyone. Read the review again.
• You removed the well detailed commercial performance section which actually depicted the song's chart run and made it boring Your week by week chart movement description was a form of WP:CHARTTRAJ
• "a silhouette lit in Parisian blue" -- This is not how we paraphrase, a description like that is too specific to not be attributed MOS:PLOT "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary."
• Then there's the completely unnecessary mention of it's underwhelming YouTube view count. I don't see how this is unnecessary when it explains how well (or how poorly) it has been received on YouTube
• What the heck does her cover of "Find U Again" have to do with this song? She performed "Find U Again" along with "Mad Love" that's why it's relevant.

So congratulations on making a big mess of this article which was just fine (actually better according to me) before. But at least it's your's now, right? :) :)--NØ 07:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I've responded to your concerns in green above. Hardly the "big mess" you claim it to be. The song is still climbing charts and increasing on Spotify in Europe and the charts you included in the lead are irrelevant download-only charts, facts and nothing to do with WP:CRYSTALBALL. It boils down to fixing these minor issues instead of reverting the entire expansion. I am more than willing to work together with you to better the article and hope you will be too. CoolMarc 08:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I am all for working collaboratively. But honestly, you have seemingly chosen this article as the only project you log in to work on, and have accused me of "harrassing" you just because I didn't get scared and step aside when you did so. You took the whole thing to your sandbox and re-wrote and re-arranged it completely, which threw out all of the work I (and some others) had been doing on it since the day of its creation. Given these facts, I have no choice but to believe that your offer to "work together" is really just a cop-out. None of the behaviour you have shown on the article, this discussion, or by asking me not to post on your TP, leads me to believe that offer is sincere. And tbh you also deserve to be warned for the edit warring. I'm done here until you at least clarify the situation to Ad Orientem and suggest that we will work collaboratively and that no admin intervention is needed.--NØ 08:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You have literally reverted and undermined me as an editor since my first edit on this article a while back and have gone about "collaborating" the complete wrong way from the get-go. There was barely anything of substance on the article before my expansion. I told you to stop posting on my talk page because you use it to attack my editing and have a go at me and I don't have time for editors like that. If you are here to edit in bad faith and constantly comment on the editor on a user−talk page and not the content on an article talk page, then there is no point in me even bothering with you. I had patience with your meltdowns and reverts and have been civil for a long time until you went about slyly reverting my entire expansion for reasons you still cannot legitimately explain. CoolMarc 08:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I have posted a GA review-sized explanation of everything that I had reverted, even though there was no compulsion for me to do that. A whole bunch of your initial edits just moved stuff around, and didn't even constitute an "expansion". And are you seriously gonna talk about "meltowns and reverts" when like the last 3 pages of your contribs have been about this article/song? That's an obsession, and an WP:OWN-complex if I've ever seen one. You clearly don't understand that everyone can edit Wikipedia. We can make changes to stuff you add, it's actually a very normal thing! This is a copyright-free article which we should all be encouraged to contribute to. It's not a comment on you as an editor when someone changes the content you wrote, this isn't your blog. You have no valid reason to be going to talk pages of admins and crying about harrassment when the whole jist of your argument can be equated to - "I want to edit this article exclusively but MaranoFan keeps coming to it and editing too. That makes me sad".

Now I am going to go off and do something in real life, which I luckily happen to have. So I won't be posting more responses. I'll do some real life fun activities and the thought that "Let's go and unnecessarily restructure and bloat the Mad Love article on Wikipedia" is not gonna cross my mind. Enjoy exerting your dominance over a Wikipedia article!--NØ 09:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll just leave the WP:OWN rant you left on my talk page here: this meltdown "Just making it clear that if this article is GA nominated, I shall be added as a co-nominator. If you’re trying to WP:GAME the authorship system by rearranging content that I have originally written, just so you can nominate it alone, I’m gonna involve an admin. Regards..... Nevermind, just had a better read of the article and you did add some new content. But keep in mind about the GA co-nomination thing, I have the talk page watchlisted. Moving content, other people added to the Reception section, to Composition, does not mean you added it in the first place. It might game the algorithm but it won't fool people." 26kb is hardly the 100kb bloated article you claim it to be. Your rant speaks for itself regarding your made up and petty concerns you have with the expansion you can't even legitimately explain. If you have call that a GA-size review then you have never properly had one in your time on here. Me having to run my expansion through a review by you first manifests everything. I'm so sorry for editing your stub you wanted to nominate for GA on your own, and triggering your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. CoolMarc 09:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)