User talk:Extraordinary Machine/Archive 8

Hi / Shameless request for help

Hi there! I've been working on the Alison Krauss article recently (it's up for FAC, but appears to be rightfully failing for not being comprehensive enough). I have been using the fantastic Mariah Carey article you listed at FAC (I can't figure out who the major contributors were, but I'm guessing you were a part) and I was wondering if you might help out/give some helpful tips. I'm currently trying to work up "Voice" and "Themes" subsections for the new Artistry section as per Carey. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast response! I absolutely agree that there's no reason to rush the fixes, but the FAC has provided a pretty clear picture (all three opposers noted the need for more comprehensiveness) which is actually more info than was garnered from the PR so I wanted to get working. Thanks for the notes and sorry I forgot about the Minogue which is quite good as well. I remember work being done on Impossible Princess but somehow the main article flew by me. I'll get to work on your suggestions ASAP (currently writing up a decent sized addition of a "Performances" section) and please make whatever changes you see fit or let me know if you notice anything big. Thanks again! Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your notes. I believe I've implemented the things you've mentioned so far as much as they can be (some of the "some critics" style statements were purposeful as they quote multiple reviewers in one sentence) and any details you think of whenever you have the time would continue to be appreciated. Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I voted a clear support on your RFA (it was just by luck I came upon it, I'm surprised you didn't hit me up for a vote. Heh). I've also added a pretty large amount of content to the Krauss article and any continued advice would be appreciated. On that note, the Carey article uses two sources that look quite nice (though they're large enough I wouldn't want to buy them just for this one article), "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Music" and "The Faber Companion to 20th Century Popular Music: Fully Revised Third Edition." Do you have access to those sources still, and if so do you have access to a scanner, and if so would you be willing to do me a massive favor? If you can and will, thank you so much, whatever content they have on Krauss will likely be a huge help. If not, I completely understand as it's kind of a crazy thing to ask out of the blue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: Might it be worthwhile for you to include (somewhere) a note on Carey's physical notability? I ask only because I'm always surprised by Wikipedia's detailed magazine lists, and Carey has appeared on FHM lists in 1996, '97, '98, 2000, '01, '05, and some of the US lists as well. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Hi, Extra. I think your civility warning to Everyking on his page was richly deserved, but I would advise against letting yourself be drawn into arguing any further on your RFA page. James' extremism in these matters is well known, and his comments about you don't need any rebuttal; they look foolish enough just sitting there. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Butterfly (Mariah Carey song)

Here is the website I got #15 from Butterfly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmed36 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 28 June 2006

Congratulations

You're an admin now, so use the new tools for good, not evil :) Be conservative with the admin tools, especially at first, and re-read the relevant policy before acting. Then dig in and help out with the backlogs of admin tasks and have fun. Again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 23:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Jkelly 23:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)/archive1. Why don't you return the favour? Jkelly 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Now that you've got the mop of the admin, you might want to read the code of conduct. Its basically the admin policy in a nutshell. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey!

Mopster extraordinaire! :-) Bishonen | talk 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Congrats!!!!

Congratulations on your sysopping! :) — getcrunk what?! 23:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONGRATS! Sorry that Everyking turned the RfA into "Tools to promote my philosophy by voting oppose for this candidate", but it's all good, I'm sure nobody has any hard feelings against him. Again, congrats! — Deckill e r 02:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I don't know what to do, I am being personally targeted (my user page and several pages that I edit) and I even know who the person is in real life, but I don't really know how to proceed. Jdcooper 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

A landslide vote on your RFA. Everyone likes you. Just like Sally Field. PedanticallySpeaking 17:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Mariah Carey article you cited. Good work on that. Let me know if it comes up for a FA vote. Now, I have a peer review for you to look at, a really, really long article, the Bricker Amendment. The PR is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 29 June 2006 Taxman set rights for "User:Extraordinary Machine" (+sysop) Congrats! 20:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Well-earned!

Also, it' sbeen more than a week at talk:Ashlee Simpson without any alternative to your straw poll proposal. I don't think you'd be at all out of line to put something up to find out where the consensus really sits. Skyraider 14:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Krauss II: First Blood

Heh, anyways, congrats on the RFA! I'm glad I noticed it, although my vote was just a grain of sand amongst your many supporters. :D Now, onto Ms. Krauss. I know I've been hassling you, and I really do apologize. Three questions: First, as always, do you see anything worth fixing/adding/adding onto? I ask because I've done just about everything I can think of to dig up worthy information for the article (tommorow I'm going to watch the interviews on the Live DVD I just got, exhausting the last real source I can think of). Second: Unlike your gorgeous Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey I have no free image to use, even for the lead infobox. I have, per Miles Davis, continued using the fair use album cover that was there before I started editing. Should I upload another fair use image that is just a standard promo shot (there are a few Rounder uses quite a bit) or stick with the album cover (this came up in the FAC). Finally, on the topic of the FAC, any chance of getting you to vote? I realize it's currently 2/3/0, but I've repeatedly asked those 3 oppositions to give me some update given the changes to the article and I've heard nothing back. It may be fruitless, but it would be nice to show that post-changes the article has garnered support. Thanks for everything and congrats again! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for even looking at the library and no worries on the voting (whatever your policy is is your perogative). As for asking the company, it's funny you should say that as I am literally half-way through writing an email to Rounder Records. Worst case there are some VERY widely distributed promos I can use. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the free image!! Question: Are all images on Flickr under the Creative Commons? If so, there are some exellent free images to replace some fair use stuff on there now... Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but one can search Flickr using CC-BY as a criteria, or CC-BY-SA as a criteria (always do both searches). I've used the Flickr message system to ask people to relicense unfree images with some success, as well. Jkelly 20:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as JKelly was replying that I discovered it myself. I'm going to upload a slightly clearer Krauss photo for the use in the lead and I already have a request out for some Flickr shots to be reliscensed free. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on?

I need assistance. There's an edit war between two people who demand differing logos at WVTM-TV. One image is one of the logos available at http://www.nbc13.com/nbc13logo/index.html; the other combines two of those images, clearly paintshopped to include "WVTM/DT". The user with the paintshopped version insists that this is the way the logo is currently presented in broadcast; the website, however, does not reflect this change at all (that I can find). I would be tempted to tell this user that the altered logo would be fine if he can provide a photograph or screenshot of the broadcast logo, but I'm frankly not sure if that's accurate. Input is welcome. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bricker Amendment

Thanks for your comments on the peer review and for giving it a copy edit. I am grateful and now need to go through it carefully myself to weed out any other typographical gremlins. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoS violations

I swear I didn't know about the "links to years and month-years" rule, forgive me.
As for the R&B charts, they write Songs instead of Singles & Tracks on the Billboard official website.
200.138.194.254 22:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But won't it ever change to "Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs" on Wikipedia?

Well, that user has already been warned, but don't worry, I'll report him/her if (s)he persists after the fourth warning.

200.138.194.254 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But

I know, but "single" is not appropriate, and some other artist may have a song called "Chemicals React". Or at least an album. Tcatron565 22:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been an admin for, what, a few days now, EM? And already throwing your weight around, threatening to block good users? Everyking 09:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're right about policy violations (and considering what I've seen you say about policy in the past, I'm not sure of your judgment on that), is a block warning really appropriate for this user? Think for a minute. This is obviously a constructive, good faith user with enthusiasm about the project. Everyking 10:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harassing a new admin now, Everyking?[1] Extraordinary Machine is obviously a careful, ambitious admin with enthusiasm about the project. Why are you determined to make the place distasteful to him with your ill-considered barbs? Think for a minute. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Did you miss "other than on the administrator's talk page"? Everyking 18:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, sorry. Did you miss the rest of my comment? Bishonen | talk 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Congratulations

I just noticed that your resoundingly successful RfA included one oppose vote, from someone whose vindictive oppose votes for people he doesn't like know no bounds of pettiness, blindness and utter stupidity. I got one too - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Worldtraveller - so I thought I'd say very well done, keep up the excellent work in the arena which provokes our mutual friend, and enjoy using your admin tools. Worldtraveller 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Single formatting

I understand you'd know about this better than most, but when was the decision made to remove bold formatting from the middle item in the chronology? I'm fine with it, I just have no idea when this happened (and thus have been using bold the whole time). –Unint 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody has been explicitly undoing my bold formatting on one particular article. I thought there might have been a widespread consensus to the effect that I didn't know about. –Unint 23:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

This user is removing the genres of some Spice Girls' and All Saints' albums and adding nonsense like "salsa". Shouldn't he be warned about what he's doing? 200.138.194.254 00:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Do You Believe in Magic

Hey, thanks for the kind words. I was a bit surprised when I read that article and it was so lacking in information about the Lovin' Spoonful version. I certainly respect editors' attempts to fill in singles for artists they like, but I really wish they wouldn't ignore other equally or more notable versions in the process. It makes the stub look too much like fancruft. GassyGuy 20:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Metal music pages

Not sure, looks like a sockfest going on. You have to ask User:Circeus. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hole High

I see that you did a revert on Strange Days at Blake Holsey High, but did you notice that there's now a protected Black Hole High page that mirrors the main article? I'm new enough around here that I have no idea what is supposed to be done about something like that, but I wanted to make sure that someone who works with the main article (more than I have) is aware of it. Thanks! Karen 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson Survey

I'm aware of the history of conflict on the Ashlee Simpson articles, and I agree 100% that extra care is warranted in crafting a survey. IMO, you're likelier than I to create something suitable, so I'll defer. Good luck! Skyraider 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Images

I am having problems uploading images. When I upload the it appears, but when I add it to the article the image doesn't show. The file name shows in red. Charmed 12 July 2006 7:28

Worthy use of your new admin powers

Congratulations on your recent granting of admin powers. I would like to draw your attention to a worthy use of those powers - the closing of copyvio reports listed on WP:CP. As you'll see there are many tens of such reports that need dealing with each day, and the backlog is barely being kept under control despite a couple of us spending lots of time working on them. The process is pretty easy and sorting a few only takes a little time and with a group of people helping, we can keep the backlog under control easily - just review the article & the source to ensure it is a copy, and then delete. Any help would certainly be appreciated - any questions, ask away. Kcordina ^Talk 09:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hi. I emailed http://www.mariahdaily.com about the images on the site, and I asked if one could be used in the Wikipedia article. One of the site administrators gave me permission to use any photo (I'm gonna forward the e-mail to you, but first, I need you to e-mail me so that I have your e-mail.). I wanted to notify you before I made any changes (since you are the expert on images). If you have any concerns, please contact me. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking request for clarification

You may wish to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Everyking and voice your opinion. Raul654 22:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some information for you

I looked up some Canadian chart positions for Alanis Morissette. I have looked at your sandbox and the ones you had already located; here are some of the positions you do not yet have:

"You Learn": #1
"All I Really Want": #2
"Ironic": #2
"That I Would Be Good": #25
"Joining You": #30

Sources: Here and the Canadian Recording Book. I don't think any other positions exist for Morissette's singles, except for "Hand in My Pocket" (which I can't find). I will update you (hopefully). Additionally, please check your MSN. 64.231.71.206 21:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have edited Cool (song) again. This time, do not be disruptive and attempt to compromise my edits instead of throwing them out based on "discussions" or whatnot. 64.231.77.2 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fine edit (really), but I'm just curious to know how "the lyrics of" sounds more "cripsy" than "the lyrical content of"? Does this have to do with the "one word is better than four" rule? If so, then that's okay. 64.231.75.193 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? You are now writing misleading edit summaries. Most of what I did in the previous edit did not involve what you removed in this edit. 64.231.76.145 20:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a response to why you are so consistent on removing the article's content. Everything is becoming shorter and shorter when it is unnecssary! 64.231.76.145 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my new edits have not strongly affected yours at all. Please take a look so that we do not argue about it. 64.231.76.145 20:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather odd. I never even conducted half the edit; is Wikipedia acting rather strange on your computer or is it just me? Currently whenever I make an edit it seems as though writing is being reinserted that I never removed in the first place. This edit proves something strange is happening. Because of this, I ask that you remove your now-famous "misleading edit summaries" from Talk:Cool (song); I'm not sure, but I don't think you meant to do this, especially since what you write in your edit summary is very misleading. 64.231.76.145 21:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please tell me either here or on the talk page what other aspects of the article you think require editing. 64.231.76.145 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

Hi, I'm having a dispute with Rhythmnation2004 regarding naming conventions, and I was hoping you could help because you seem to know a lot about that. He is continually moving La Toya Jackson's single articles to incorrect titles that do not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions. Almost every one was named incorrectly, and when I moved them to correct titles, he moved most back. I left him a message with a link to the naming conventions, and he attacked me, "You need to get a life and stop obsessing over things that you're wrong about". Some of his moves include "If You Feel the Funk" to "If You Feel The Funk", "I Don't Want You to Go" to "I Don't Want You To Go", "Hot Potato (song)" to "Hot Potato (single)", "He's a Pretender" to "He's A Pretender", "Heart Don't Lie (song)" to "Heart Don't Lie (single)", "Stay the Night (La Toya Jackson song)" to "Stay the Night (1981 single)", etc. Thanks. --musicpvm 17:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Krauss

Hey Extraordinary, I just wanted to say thanks for the help both through advice and example you gave on this article. It was just promoted to FA status! Thanks a million! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Piano pop -> Piano rock

I did not know that but thanks for telling me. I will avoid doing that in future. --Thorpe | talk 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tired

I'm getting really tired of talking to you, so I'll make this quick. I made the clean-up because the box looked really sad. So I cleaned it up a little bit. Plus Aly & AJ, Hilary Duff, and many other artists have it to where it says === Albums === and === Singles ===. Also, the rule is that if no one else has made an article that has the same title as a single. Then it becomes "Song" (song) or if there are many songs with that title, it would become "Song" (Artist name song) Tcatron565 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, just do what you want.Tcatron565 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan and Category:Motown performers

I might have missed something, but what has Ms. Lohan done that qualifies as "Motown"? Thanks :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thank you very much for your comment and the ice cream. It's appreciated. :) --musicpvm 07:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songs with multiple articles

Hi there. I've recently started a list of the songs which currently have multiple articles written about them. I thought you might be interested, since you seem to be attempting to fix these. It is located here: User:GassyGuy/Multiversions. I'm sure there are more. I've recently worked to merge some cases, but looks like there are still quite a few out there.

Unrelated note: I saw on your talk page above an old request for comment about capitalization when songs have parentheses. I think it'd be a good idea to reach consensus there, because I have always viewed the parenthetical portion to be a subtitle, which would imply that the first letter of the first word is always capitalized, analogous to the book format This Is the Title: And This Is a Subtitle of the Book.

Cheers! GassyGuy 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bricker Amendment

You were kind enough to comment on my peer review request for my article on the Bricker Amendment. I have now proposed it as a featured article and would appreciate your vote here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mana.ustad

You said: "I asked you this above after you blocked Lesliephung (talk · contribs), but you didn't reply. At WP:BP#Expiry_times_and_application "For static IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, and should increase gradually upon resumption of vandalism; eventually repeat violators may be blocked indefinitely, but such blocks should be issued with discretion. Logged-in users that repeatedly vandalise may also be blocked for the same time periods." I think it's rather excessive to jump from 24 hours to a week, particularly as uploading images without the necessary copyright info isn't blatant vandalism in most cases. Enforcing longer blocks straight away increases the possibility of the editor not returning than if the second block had been for 48 hours. Would you mind if I changed the block on Mana.ustad (talk · contribs) to 48 hours? (Or you can do it yourself, if you'd prefer.)"

I found the user had been uploading images stating that they were licensed under the GFDL. This was after numerous warnings. It seems that the user decided that the best approach was to falsely license the images rather than just leave the information blank. However, it could have been a mistake. I have shortened the block to 48 hours. Thank you for calling me on this. I don't always respond to your comments on my discussion page but I always take them into serious consideration. --Yamla 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(When You Gonna) Give It Up To Me

The Naming Conventions only apply to the NAMING of articles. The article name was left the way you wanted it: "(When You Gonna) Give It up to Me". Therefore, I am not violating any Wikipedia guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhythmnation2004 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 August 2006.

Whether it looks professional or not is not for you to decide. I am following the Wikipedia guidelines. I belive you were the one (maybe it was Gwenol) who told me that the actual title of the article did NOT have to match the subject. A song title is a proper work of art and is capitalized by the artist in a particular way. There are no guidelines stating naming conventions within articles. If you still disagree, I think we should have a third party administrator address the issue, because I am definetely not breaking any Wikipedia rules. Rhythmnation2004 00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Capitalisation in song and album titles

Yes, I realised that single infoboxes are better than HTML ones, I'm glad you liked. But okay, I'll (try) to follow the naming conventions rule, even though I don't really agree with it. As for Beyoncé, her official website must have mentioned "popular music" generally, because her songs are quite different from the ones by real pop R&B singers like Mariah Carey, Jennifer Lopez, Ashanti, Mýa etc.
200.138.194.254 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]