User talk:Extraordinary Machine/Archive 9

Did it ever occur to you

that going to someone's talk page and leaving links to Wikipedia:Civility and the like is in itself quite uncivil, especially when you haven't bothered to trace out the reasons for the comments you found so offensive? The words I used (banshee, etc.,.) to describe this editor were several levels more civil than his own language on another page you apparently did not visit. Please stay away from my Talk page. I don't need guidance from someone like you. JDG 22:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Hi I don't know you but you are going about deleting things I have contributed to this site and it has really bugged me! The reason why I put a list of singles on albums was so people knew which songs were singles since some singles don't chart! It's really pathetic that you must go about deleting other people's work! Hildufffan4ever

Fascinating...

Upon checking over my edits, this was one of two reverts that seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with my intentions. Is this a glitch you've come across, or am I losing it? :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upset

I wish that you had notified me when you nominated the article Catch Me When I Fall (song) for deletion a new months ago. I just now released it's gone. That song is not a single but it's increasingly common for songs to receive articles without being singles, especially if they have some other particular notability attached to them. In this case, "Catch Me When I Fall" got a lot of attention for a non-single, because it was a response to SNL and because she performed it when she went back to SNL. Could you consider nominating it for undeletion—not necessarily because you agree, but to give it a better hearing? The deletion debate that actually occurred seems to have passed under the radar screen and attracted little attention. Everyking 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Out of Eden

Hey, thanks for trying to help. But We think that your rename of the article not quite right. The book really does have the word "Out" capitalized. Fred Hsu 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Up

Thanks for the message, it looks like I have an battle on my hands then, but I'm determined to succeed!! As a Madonna fan, that article is just a plain embarrassment. It reads like a shoe gazing fan page. I'll let you know how I go..... :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul7 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 August 2006.

MySugestion

Well, I suggest you should stop talking to me. Also, I just don't care about the deletion of the Cheyenne Kimball or Tropical Storm Tammy photos. Also, I didn't know about the stupid music video thing. Although many other songs have links to lyrics, music videos, and clips! Also I don't talk to people because 1) I havent'e looked at my messages yet, 2) I get the point and do need to tell them that I've got the point, or 3) I just don't want to fight with that person at the moment. In fact, I really didn't want to talk to right now so, there you go. So if you want to write back and say how rude I am, well be my guest. I have been at my state's fair for a whole 2 days and I wanted to get back on Wikipedia and the first thing I have to do is tak to you?!!! Ugh! :( Also, what's up with the Beat of My Heart section. Where is the picture I added! If it's because of a dumb source, well here it is http://www.musicsquare.net/charts/song/7312 Tcatron565 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan

Hi Extraordinary Machine, On 18 August, I reverted some of your edit, & explained my reasons on Dylan Talk page. It just occurred to me I should have posted them on your Talk page. I haven’t done this kind of dialogue before, so forgive me if I have not fully understood Wikipedia protocol. I wanted to explain I had thought about my edit for some time and had some reasons. I wrote:

I’ve reverted the lines about Dylan’s song The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll to their previous formulation because I don’t think your version is quite right. A lot of critics have written about the racial aspect of the song and how it is implicit in the narrative. The point has been made by Gray, Heylin and Marqusee to name just 3 of the critics cited in references and further reading. People have commented on it before Christopher Ricks’s book and after Christopher Ricks’s book. I think it’s valid to suggest that the song works in this way and then give a concrete citation to Ricks because his discussion of the racial angle of Hattie Carroll is particularly good. But to attribute the idea to Ricks alone – as you do in your version – distorts this point. I could also give citations for 5 critics who have called Hattie Carroll a highlight of Dylan’s song-writing career, so I think it is valid to call it a highlight of the album.

I also wanted to revert Hard-working to Elder Statesman, but I thought I better explain why, otherwise I might find myself in the midst of an edit war amidst mutual incomprehension. It seems to me that ‘Hard-working’ is a more objective term than ‘Elder Statesman’. After all, Dylan isn’t literally a statesman; he doesn’t speak at the UN Security Council or negotiate peace in the Middle East. Elder Statesman is a metaphor for a man of experience and gravitas. But ‘Hard-working’ is objectively true since Dylan has performed more than 100 shows a year since the mid 1980s – as well as writing a feature film ‘Masked & Anonymous’, publishing the first volume of his autobiography, collaborating with the Scorsese documentary ‘No Direction Home’, embarking on a series of 1 hour radio shows, and recording 2 new albums – all in the last 5 years.

None of Dylan’s contemporaries from the 1960s, the Stones, McCartney, Neil Young, Eric Clapton, have performed even a quarter of the number of shows Dylan has done. So why do you believe Hard-working is POV? I think it’s objectively true. After all, I think the only NPOV description of Dylan after 1980 would be:

Singer and guitar player aged over 40

But I think we can agree that would not make a very good sub-heading. So I believe Hard-working elder statesman is factually accurate. Best wishes Mick gold 08:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too Hot

On 21 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Too Hot, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Alanis was a year ahead of me in high school in Ottawa (but a different school; she went to Glebe High School I believe). Saw her at a couple of parties. She'll always be the girl who dissed Joey in the Walk Away video. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRL

You don't need to source TRL! If you would like to then follow my instructions. If you don't then your gonna be lost. 1) Go to Total Request Live 2) Hit the Page history button 3) Find (cur) (last) 15:33, August 16, 2006 Kraft. (Talk | contribs) m 4) Scroll down to U.S. Recent Top 10 Countdown 5) You'll find Duff's Play with Fire debut 6) Go back to the Page history spot and click on later dates 7) You'll find the full charts trajectory of Duff's Play with Fire including her peak, debut, and current spot. Thanks for reading this! Tcatron565 20:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europ Top 200

Look on the right side of the page. There should be EURO 200 Archives about halfway throguh the page. The Archive page 1, 2, 3, and 4 have list of artists and their peaks. For example click on Archive page 2 and it will have artists Eamon-Kyo. In between Hilary Duff's will be there. I would source that, but the whole website says http://www.apcchart.com/ . That's a problem I know. I will put the Archive # on the sources. Sorry! Tcatron565 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

72.199.153.225

he's relentlessly reverting his edit to the Christina Aguilera article, so I was wondering if it's possible to block him or at least protect the article from anonymous editing. Omernos 12:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Hey, it's me, 200.138.194.254. Now I got an actual account. Well, I hope to be helpful for Wikipedia, and don't worry, I won't cause commotions any more (at least I'll try!). Funk Junkie 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE

It appears as if you are not familiar enough with the situation. I have not undone anyone's edits without first thoroughly explaining my reasoning. Please assume good faith in the future (WP:AGF) as we all have the same goal here in making the WWE page as complete as possible.JB196 02:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that I did not revert the page six times and that most of the edits also consisted of grammatical changes, and that therefore I did not violate WP:3RR. If you still contend that I reverted the page six times then please link me to those six pages.

I was not aware of the rule that one cannot remove posts from their own talk pages; that is news to me.

Thank you in advance. ;;JB196 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:REVERT: To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past.

There is only ONE pages I see which fall under this category: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71102074&oldid=71097572

I therefore would think that these edits would not fall under 3RR as there are only two reverts. In all of the other edits (five in this case) I made other grammatical changes. The page was therefore not reverted to "a certain time in the past" more than one time, as I see it.

Facts:

Never has the article looked exactly like it did at 21:25 except after my edit here at 21:02: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71102074&oldid=71097572

Never has the article looked exactly like it did at 21:25 except after my edit here at 21:25: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71104919&oldid=71102774

Never has the article looked exactly like it did at 21:54 except after my edit here at 21:54: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71108172&oldid=71106853

Never has the article looked exactly like it did at 7:16 except after my edit here at 7:16: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71172175&oldid=71108757

Never has the article looked exactly like it did at 9:54 except after my edit here at 9:54: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71198122&oldid=71197248

So what this indicates to me is that you are right that "he diff links there indicate that you reinserted the same "See also" links into the article more than three times in 24 hours" but they also indicate that I inserted many other edits into the article while RE-insterting those same "See also" links.

So as I see it I did not undo all changes; I undid SOME changes. So how exactly do 3 or more of my edits fall under the category of "undo all changes made after a certain time in the past?" If I change another part of the article in addition to readding See Also topics that does not meet the criteria given in WP:REVERT. Furthermore, I more than thoroughly (and in my opinion adequately) explained all of the changes in the edit summaries. Furthermore, as my record shows, the edits were all made in good faith WP:AGF.

Thank you very much for your assistance.;;JB196 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newport, Florida

I'll tackle the Newport, Florida article today. From what I've seen, 3 seperate articles can come from this. Noles1984 12:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii

I am only editing it because that person continues to remove titles without any real evidence, which counts as vandalism. Last time I checked the 3RR rule doen't apply to removing vandalism. TJ Spyke 01:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop In The Name Of Love

Gwernol clearly stated that the title of the article did not have to match the proper capitalization. An album is a work of art, and can be capitalized a certain way, such as Janet Jackson's album "janet.". There are no naming conventions that refer to the title within the article, and so you have no reason to revert it.

Does it really matter to you anyway? It matters to me, so just humor me and let me have it the proper way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhythmnation2004 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 August 2006.

Reversion to Lindsay Lohan

Since it appears on its face that I reverted you, I thought I'd pop in with a note. I'm guessing you agree with me as far as the content goes, but I tend to think that including something simply because someone is going to occasionally recreate a non-notable article against WP:MUSIC and/or WP:SONG sets a bad precedent, as if we were giving in to someone's persistence for its own sake. Thoughts? :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, and don't worry about the time. I'll check some of those items you listed; if WP:N isn't met, the redirects that should be there will be restored. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop In The Name Of Love

If you can't understand Gwernol's statement, than you have no right to interpret your way. For all you know, La Toya Jackson may have purposely intended for that specific capitalization, just like Janet Jackson did with her janet. album. If you still disagree, I suggest we go to a third-party administrator to resolve the conflict.

In regards to the "I Can't Help Myself" single page, that policy is ridiculous and I would like you to show me proof that it is indeed a policy. Now, someone trying to go through La Toya's full singles chronology will be interrupted by being redirected to a Four Tops' single page, which can make it difficult to get back into the La Toya Jackson singles.

I have reverted all your edits and will continue to do so until a third party, who you do NOT KNOW AT ALL and has no affiliation with this matter, has been contacted in regards to this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhythmnation2004 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 August 2006.

Sorry for the goof

re: Kylie Minogue's What Do I Have to Do? single - I was vaguely aware of a standard policy but I was unsure, esp once I saw how many pages it linked to. Thanks for the info, and good luck fading into haze like an indian warrior if that's your intent. Gavin.s 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Up cleaned up

Hey, well I finally cleaned up the "Hung Up' article, hopefully it is a little better now than it used to be, although it still seems a little long.... Just waiting now for all the crazy's to start reverting my edit and calling me names..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul75 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 August 2006.

Sources for Music charts

Hello, you seem to be very picky about sources for chart trajectories! What is the best way of writing up these sources for the chart tables? What websites should I use (for US, Canada, Australia, UK, etc, etc)? I have made an attempt of citing sources to a couple of articles already, though I'm not sure. RaNdOm26 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said you discourage including chart trajectories. I noticed once you deleted a few tables from an article because they had no source, but you purposely kept a few of them. If you discourage chart trajectories, why don't you delete all the chart trajectories you can find in Wikipedia? RaNdOm26 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (song)

Please see Talk:Cool (song)#Some changes#Questions for EM. 64.231.70.87 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban has expired per 22:34 September 6 (I'm 99% positive that was the time). It is now September 8 and well after 22:34. (It's later where you are.) 64.231.115.150 22:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will now take the discussion to Talk:Cool (song) and attempt to resolve all the remaining issues. Luckily, I think there are few left, which is a good thing. At least this argument has done an okay job of trying to enhance the quality further. But because it's a featured article, and shortly after we finish our debate, I think I'm going to step down from editing it on a regular basis. I'll limit it to the beginning or end of each month. The content is pretty balanced now, and there's little left to change. Let's successfully finish this, all right? 64.231.118.84 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if you're allowed to since you were involved with the "edit war", but I think a reasonable amount of time has passed since the page was protected (one week); are you permitted to unprotect it? 64.231.153.209 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Space Cakes EP cover.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Space Cakes EP cover.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

w00t!

Thanks very much for the Barnstar. It's appreciated! -- eo 18:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charts or no charts......

Do you know of other users who support the issue of deleting chart trajectories? I don't see a guideline or something that says Wikipedia is not a "marketing report/scorecard overview of a song's performance", so you speak. And by the way, you should archive this user talk page. RaNdOm26 18:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's Most Requested

I would love to help edit that page. Could you please tell me what the notify thing is all about. Tcatron565 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About sources

I notice you have a tendency to revert people when they add info if that info is uncited. I'm as strong a believer in citations as anyone, but I believe article development is better faciliated by allowing the information in, requesting a cite (without automatically reverting), and failing that look for a citation yourself; only once you've tried that should you revert the content, in my opinion. Obviously there is an exception to be made here for controversial or questionable content, which in the absence of a cite can be reasonably reverted right away, but the diffs I looked at appeared to be fairly bland information. Everyking 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable roles

Hi, I've stumbled upon a comment you made at Template talk:Infobox actor#Notable roles and I've replied. There are several examples where huge infoboxes have been added to bio pages. Could you please have another look when you have time. I have reverted only one article until I realized there a quite a few. I'd be interested to know what you think. Thanks Rossrs 10:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chart tables

Okay, I will use "wikitable" instead of "tablabonita" for charts from now on. By the way, how can I divide this table into two? Funk Junkie 18:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't manage to! I've already tried before and it also looked weird... I don't know what's wrong. Yeah, that's a good song! Corinne's a really great artist. What did your mama think of her album? ;) Funk Junkie 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What2do

I was going to ask you to block that account immediately after I made the third edit, but you got there first, so that's fine. I was accessing it only because Cool (song) is semi-blocked and I have to wait another day before editing it. Anyway, that's fine. I can't remember who created What2do, but I started editing from it occasionally in either June or July or something. Thanks for removing it altogether though! Velten 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and my head explodes. "I was only violating the ArbCom remedy because it was slightly inconveniencing me, and I was just about done violating it and about to ask you to block the account." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much. But I was going to ask him to block it. Velten 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this slightly modified lead? If you think it's too flowery, I don't mind reverting it. Velten 21:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi. Thank you for the disambiguation on my user page. :) Cheers, Redux 16:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Days of our Lives

I figured I'd come over here and give you a tip. We have already had a consensus decision to keep the name of the article at Days of our Lives, since this is what the program is referred to in its title card and by NBC/Sony Pictures Television, the distributors. I have since moved it back, but I would appreciate it if you could change all uses of "Our" back to "our." If you feel consensus is outdated or incorrect, please request for it to be moved, because I read the conventions and I didn't see anything that would indicate that "Our" would be preferred, especially with the evidence seen. Do remember that those are conventions, not rules. ;) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Nicks

I got your message regarding the picture of Stevie Nicks I placed on her biography. I cannot recall where I found it...But if necessary I can get permission from her Assistant to use it; would that be sufficient? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LiamMcConville (talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 September 2006.

Promiscuous

whats the problem with having a lot of extra chart listings? the article is not gettin any bigger so i dont see the problem you want sources ill give u sources... 66.30.14.0 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hey, thanks for the comment, I actually have a question on citing sources, and that is how to cite interview videos or quotes from events or maybe even talk shows, anyways hope to see you reply soon.--Bakahito 11:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The Worker's Barnstar is a great honour, many thanks, much appreciated. I'm afraid I've no idea how the Barnstar works. Can anyone designated an administrator give one? Are there limits to an administrator's generosity? Is there anything to stop you awarding a dozen Barnstars today? Is there some mechanism of control or consensus among senior wiki people? I must confess I regret the change of Dylan sub-heading from Elder Statesman to Later Career. Elder Statesman does convey a certain gravitas, the fact that Dylan has been a major figure in the world of music & popular culture over 5 decades. Later Career just seems so colourless. Do I dare to revert it?Do I dare to eat a peach? (Prufrock) I liked the photo on your User Page. best wishes Mick gold 07:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Harassment

You are forbidden from posting on my talk page (unless strictly necessary). You've pretty much exhausted my patience and are using the ArbCom ruling as an excuse to allowing your way. Velten 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be responding on the RFAR page now. Velten 16:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've started removing chart trajectories from singles articles since they take up too much room and are irritating to reference. I guess I sort of agree with what you say, in their overuse in singles articles, so if you need any help, I'm here. However, I think they're notable in albums articles since that's the entire package. Now I'll go. Velten 18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You have mail. Frutti di Mare 18:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, Extraordinary Machine 22:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I certainly didn't mean to. There's certainly no malicious intent, I have just been spending some spare time trying to improve the Buffy article to featured status. I apologise, I thought it was normal practice to strike through the tasks once they were completed, I haven't got involved in votes to make articles featured before but read through some, and just assumed that the striking of the tasks completed was done by the editors who made the improvements. Shall take this into account, and in future not strike through / repair grammar.. Peace -- Buffyverse 23:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maneater

ok look im going to add all sources i can find and after that dont remove anything i dont think there is any rule for having too many chart peaks Rsf7589 02:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a Gun

Hello, a while back you moved the article "Son of a Gun (I Betcha Think This Song Is About You)" to "Son of a Gun (I Betcha Think This Song Is about You)" but as you know About should be capitalized (see:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)) and since I'm not an admin I can't do the move myself, so I'm asking you to. Thanks --Thankyoubaby 03:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_%28Mariah_Carey_song%29 Here is my source under chart performance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.236.165 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 September 2006.

Britney Spears discography

An anonymous user is vandalising the Britney Spears discography page. He/she claims TIME Magazine said Britney sold 88 million albums and 55 million singles when Time claimed she sold 76 million records[1] (Britney is 19/22 and 20/22). He/she also gives wrong sources. For instance, he says Britney's official site claimed her debut sold 28 mill when it sold 25 mill. The site is undergoing reconstruction.Please put a protection lock that disables anonymous users on it. Thank you. 5 octaves

Thanks!

I can't wait for the article to hit the main page. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]