User talk:Extraordinary Machine/Archive 2

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgros841 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 1 October 2005

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC: Pop music issues

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

Barnstar!

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for the welcoming package (where there to be red ribbons included? :P), and don't worry. You don't have to format the chart trajectory for Hollaback Girl anytime soon, but her final request was for you to construct it whenever time was available to you, okay? So thank you muchly, and I wish to see you soon. --Hollow Wilerding 23:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

re: merges.

Ruh-oh. And just when I'd resigned myself to the idea that Wikipedia was headed for the fancruft toilet. Let's see how this goes. --FuriousFreddy 02:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To)" goes, the edit I'd made (wit hthe one paragraph on the covers) was as much merging as really needed to go one there. It could possibly be slightly expanded, but not by much. The Mariah Carey article covers a single that wasn't given a proper release, and holds no substantial notability, except to Mariah Carey completists (if we want to get really crazy, one would ask "how come the Jennifer Lopez version, which has to be by default just as important as the Mariah Carey version, wasn't given it's own article," but the answer is obvious). It doesn't even require a second (or even a combined) infobox. --FuriousFreddy 02:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hollow Wilerding

I may be wrong, but judging by the inability to write without violent language (as with the last part of this) and edit summaries like this, Hollow Wilerding seems to me to be Winnermario (who, though claiming to be a University-age female was clearly an adolescent male; he explained his e-mail address by saying that he shared it with a younger cousin...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip is not appreciated. For one, you accusing me of being User:Winnermario with two individual edits that don't live up to the standards of Mariah are vile — she did tell me to avoid you, and that I've been attempting to accomplish. And two, your comment about Mariah pretending to be in University is interestingly amusing. Do you honestly believe that she's an adolescent male because she happens to share her PC with her younger cousin? It's preposterous. And those edits are not violent; they are merely my questioning evolving into minor fury. --Hollow Wilerding 02:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct

Hi. I am operating under two assumptions. The first is that you are not an admin, and the second is that you would make a good one. Can you let me know if I am incorrect on either of these two points? Jkelly 21:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... now I think that you're mistaken. At least from what I've seen, you have better mediation skills than many. Jkelly 02:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the tip. And per above comments:I think you would make a good admin. You know a considerable amount of Wiki-policies — and really, who reads every policy? In any case I think you are even more familiar with policies than I am :) Anytime you want to be nominated, just let me know. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be pushy

I do not wish to sound pushy, so if I am, I heavily apologize. As per one of User:Winnermario's final wishes, I plan on nominating Hollaback Girl for featured article status on November 13, 2005. Would it be possible for you to complete the chart trajectory by that date? --Hollow Wilerding 00:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for adding the chart trajectory! :) I was also wondering, would it be possible to format it the way that "Cool" has it layed out? --Hollow Wilerding 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I am aware that I am becoming a nusiance, but pushing the FA status for Hollaback Girl is something I want to accomplish because of User:Winnermario. The "Cool" position of the week in Canada is #12, however, since I have been unable to locate the U.S. position, could you hold off updating its trajectory? Thank you, and I was just wondering: does the program you use create an unlimited line graph (I know, it stops somewhere, but you know what I mean)? --Hollow Wilerding 13:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could I request another favour from you? I have a friend in Australia who happened to stumble upon the Australian chart trajectory for "Hollaback Girl". If you have the time (you don't need to add it anytime soon), could you please add it to the trajectory in the article? Much appreciated.

1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 8 - 17 - 21 - 31 - 41 - 50 - 72 - 79 - 91 - 83 - 93 - 99.

--Hollow Wilerding 19:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for helping with Hollaback Girl. If you ever require any help on an article, just ask me, okay? It has been good working with you. --Hollow Wilerding 01:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you, concerning this edit made by User:Mel Etitis. According to him, charts should not have the year repeated, yet he reverted my chart edits and kept "2005" there. Also, because of Hollaback Girl and Cool's stats, they are supposed to show an example for future Wikipedia song articles. Is it there a reason he moved "Chart performance" to the bottom with the charts, and reverted the header "Writing process" back to "Song information" when it was him who said "Song information" has no meaning? His intentions are becoming very questionable. This is also exhibited on my talk page, where he wrote this. I am beginning to wonder if he is here only to hassle its users. --Hollow Wilerding 20:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna commons picture

Hi, an anon ip changed the description of this Image:Madonna0605.jpg on commons at 18:56 from Source: courtesy of the magazine publisher, Meredith Corporation to uploaded by a fan. User:Red-Blue-White then removed the image from Madonna (entertainer) at 19:04 claiming the image is not PD. I don't think we have to be from mensa to work that out :-) Arniep 19:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

they reverted it back stating The picture is uploaded by an unknown not announced person. :-( Arniep 20:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FA

Hi EM. Ive seen all the great work that you have done on the MC. article, so I was wondering you would mind taking a look at Celine Dion. Its far from finished (it may have a few subtle language errors), but ive been working on it and would like to submit it for FA status by the end of this month. At the moment, images are my main concern. Also, I know the sources are not cited properly, but Im gonna fix that friday (my only free day). I have a test that I really need to go study for. Anyway, please take a look and get back to me if its not a bother. Thanks in advance.

PS Ive made a change to your userpage. See if you can spot the dif. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]