User talk:Manboobies/Archive001

Welcome!

{{mergeto /Michael Jackson}} Hello Manboobies/Archive001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

By the way, your username made me laugh out loud. It also made me think about getting back to the gym on a regular basis... android 79 01:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate username

Your username has been blocked for one week because it is either inappropriate or too similar to an existing username (see our blocking policy for more information). You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a constructive manner. See Wikipedia:Username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. If you would like to discuss the block, you may edit your talk page or email the administrator who blocked you.

Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism, we will remove that block as soon as possible—if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation (see the list of administrators).

If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new one, leave a note on Wikipedia:Changing username. This can only be done before you create the new one.

If you wish to create a new username, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for information.

EdwinHJ | Talk 10:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this block, as there's been absolutely no discussion about this particular username. Wikipedia:Username makes no allowances for unilateral blocking except in cases where the username is obviously inappropriate. The proper place to discuss whether or not this username should be allowed is WP:RFC/NAME. android 79 12:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted for allowing the name. I've heard worse. Author782 07:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think your name is pretty funny. :) – Clockwork Soul 02:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Michael Jackson

Sorry; I didn't see the comment you made until recently. As far as improving the article, I think this edit is a good starting point. I used to take this whole article into Microsoft Word, and chop away; this is one of those edits. It could actually stand to be choppped down even more (it needs to lose about one-third of its weight, mostly when it goes into detail about the performance of each album and into detail about NEverland Ranch; there are articles for those items), and I still prefer that the music and "controversies" be covered in seperate sections (in the same article, of course, but seperate sections for the sake of giving the article a flow).

Also, this article needs true, good references. Getting access to scholarly resources (Michael Jakcson's many biographies, his autobiography, magazine interviews, Living with Michael Jackson, the VH1 special, etc) will greatly help.

I hate to say it, but I don't think Street walker is going to get anywhere with what he's doing; he's just too much of a Michael Jackson fan. Granted, I love MJ too, but I also know that in order to write an encyclopedia article about him, I have to maintain a neutral point of view (and that includes all uses of formatting, page-splitting, referencing, etc). I just wish there was a way to make him understsnd. --FuriousFreddy 03:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MJ

I didn't merge any of the bullshit about his religion, if that's what you're referring to. Johnleemk | Talk 09:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Nicknames

Hi Manboobies. Please review the discussion at Talk:Michael_Jackson#Nicknames. It appears android79 was in agreement with removing both nicknames from the opening paragraph and including them later in the article. I think this is a good compromise. Monkeyman^(talk) 18:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, I am, but provided only that we can find source information for "King of Pop". Leaving both nicknames in the first sentence is preferable to leaving them out entirely until such a source is found. android 79 18:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to speak on your behalf. I just wanted to make sure Manboobies had read through the talk page. I may have some info on the origin of the name ... will post on the Jackson talk page shortly.

Monkeyman^(talk) 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having serious trouble keeping up. All I know was I read it and rv'd the silly changes made to the intro. A better solution is fine, but one without the other as it was earlier is worse. I think. I'm just plain confused now. haha. I personally also like the "pejoratively" thing, and i don't think it's POV, that gets rv'd when I add it, so i'll leave it. Can we have a mediation page on this between everyone involved and get a real consensus about this with a vote? At the least, can we get that dude/dudette to sign their comments? I've no idea who they are and it's frustrating.--Manboobies 18:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way it used to be in the intro long ago was much better, IMO. There was a brief description of both nicknames (without sources, unfortunately) that covered everything pretty well. I'll look for a diff later. android 79 19:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Michael Jackson as a heavily modified individual

I wanted to respond to your comments on Street Walker's page. In the article on body modification there is a section which lists several individuals with extensive body modifications as examples. Several of these are self described professional "freaks", others are enthusiasts and some others, like Michael Jackson, are there because they are well known individuals who are well known for their body modifications. There are numerous lists on Wikipedia that track the body modifications of individuals, mostly celebrities or political figures - like most "list articles" those tend to be poorly written and without any proper citation. The article which contains mention of Michael Jackson as a heavily modified individual (while the exact number and nature of his modifications is debateable, the dramatic change in his appearance as a result of them is not, and it is one of the things that he is most well known for, outside of his music) is a well cited, article on Wikipedia that branches out or connects together dozens, if not hundreds of related articles covering all aspects of body modification, from the rare and underground to the everyday. Body modificiation is one of the oldest, if not the oldest human practices and to suggest deletion of the article would be on the same level as deleting articles on other key human behaviors or inventsions, such as music or currency. Glowimperial 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Genetics

Hi Manboobies. One good text is Introduction to Genetic Analysis by Griffiths et al., especially chapter 4, but it doesn't look at humans specifically very much. If you're looking for fun examples like tongue rolling, PTC tasting, hairy finger joints, or attached earlobes, try looking at textbooks or teaching manuals written for the high school (or college non-major) level. If you're looking for examples of human conditions like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Huntington's chorea, polydactyly, albinism, achondroplasia, or hemophilia, then browse the genetics section of the library at your nearest medical school. Hope that helps. I will look for a source on human skin color specifically. Lisa 21:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money Note

No problem, glad to help. Some guy 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking

Anyone can propose a merge. The relevant templates are {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}}. Johnleemk | Talk 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pitch/note detecting software

Hello there, Manboobies! I was wondering what program(s) do you use to detect vocal pitch Metaleer 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audiotune--Manboobies 18:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Michael Jackson research

Okay, no problems. I'll see what I can find next week. Is there specific information you're after? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll see what I can find for you. Re the edit warring, a Request for Comment is often used before requesting Arbitration. You can go straight to Arbitration but as I said on the talk page, I really don't think they would accept it at this stage. It might be worth trying mediation, but Siddhartha, in particular, does not seem to be open to it. He seems to be on a mission and just won't give up. The fact that he isn't editing any other pages says a lot about his motives, I think. I know what you mean about it putting you off. It's getting really tedious and is just wasting time that people could be using to improve the actual article. *sigh*. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wacko Jacko Voting

A merry band of sockpuppets - most likely of DenisRS - have completely defaced the voting section! Their only edits are to the vote and some also include Denis' catchphase "Double standards aren't allowed at Wiki". I've reverted the vandalism and suspected sockpuppet votes, but if you think I'm being too hasty put them back if you like (though i think the sockpuppetry is pretty obvious).--Count Chocula 12:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the large family of socks was so blatantly obvious it was ludicrous. :) LOL. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal analysis

The reason that Wikipedia discourages original research is because, even if it's true, the original research cannot be conclusively proven. For example, your analysis of Cobain and Staley's ranges could be entirely false. It doesn't mean that it is, but personally analyzing a studio recording precludes verification. For example, you could take Van Halen's song "Me Wise Magic", hear David Lee Roth hit the highest notes, then claim that said note was in his range. Problem: the analysis would ignore the fact that they used pitch-shifting in the studio to help Roth hit the high notes. (That in no way implies that Staley or Cobain used pitch-shifting, but the studio recording on its own cannot clearly provide that information.) Studio recordings are regularly manipulated to make each note perfect. A person might be able to hit a note once in a studio that they would not otherwise be able to hit; they may not actually have that note in their range.

But the statment about Cobain "maybe" borrowing the end of "Teen Spirit" from Staley is gross and insulting. There's no proof that Cobain ever listened to anything by Alice in Chains prior to recording "Teen Spirit". Statements like these have to be provided by other verifiable sources for them to be included. That's very clearly stated in Wikipedia:No original research, no matter how true they seem to any one editor.

And the problem with the line about Staley's voice being "much copied by others in the Grunge scene" is that not only is it original research, it's patently false. Name another grunge band whose singer sounded like Staley. One might argue Weiland (though more people accuse his early STP work as sounding like Eddie Vedder), but a number of people don't even count STP as a grunge band. There are certainly bands that have borrowed from Staley's style, but the ones most accused are those in the late 90s/early 00s nu-metal scene. But, again, drawing these conclusions on our own, no matter how true they are, explicitly violates WP:OR. Conclusions must be made by external and verifiable sources to be included in Wikipedia. -- ChrisB 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We die young predates autotune. "Problem: the analysis would ignore the fact that they used pitch-shifting in the studio to help Roth hit the high notes." Analysing range based on studio records is standard practice on wikipedia and there are numerous articles that do it. Because you continually complained about this issue however I have sourced the first part of the paragraph.--Manboobies 22:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about autotune. Have you ever used a real studio-level tape machine? They have a pitch knob, which can manually adjust the speed of the recorder. If there's a pitch you can't hit, you just slow the tape down enough to where you can hit the note, record it, then reset the machine to normal speed. And, again, a tab book doesn't prove that the note was actually in his range. You need a source THAT ACTUALLY SAYS HE COULD HIT THE NOTE IN EXPLICIT TERMS. That's the original research part of the sentence, and the real problem.

And it still doesn't cover the absolutely absurd (and unproven) last sentence (addressed previously) about Cobain possibly stealing Staley's style for "Teen Spirit". -- ChrisB 06:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoidance

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind, and do not make personal attacks.

You have continually breached wiki policy with me, and your rude condescending behaviour and troll like mannerisms have indeed gotten the behaviour you expected out of me. The next time you wholesale rv anything I write which is AGAINST wiki policy as per above you will be reported to a moderator, or 6 of them. Then, after I've reported you to 6 different moderators I will report you for dispute, at which point i will point out your distasteful and vulgar language and behaviour which you have shown all over wikipedia. --Manboobies 07:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so the best way to avoid a dispute is to leave false information in an article?

You'll notice that I've explained every change I've made at length, which you apparently haven't bothered to read. I have breached exactly ZERO policies. It appears you don't understand the rules you're accusing me of breaching.

Furthermore, you've accused me of blind reversion, but what the hell have you been doing? You added unreliable and unacceptable sources to support your assertions (including bootleg tab sites) and didn't bother to change ANY of the content to address my concerns.

So, you know what? REPORT ME. Report me to as many administrators as you feel the need to. And I mean that without a single ounce of sarcasm. You have flagrantly refused to acknowledge any of my concerns about the content and simply reverted it to your original version. If you report it, I'll have the open opportunity to explain why your content is completely and totally unacceptable as it's written. I do not fear judgement in this regard, and will gladly adhere to their opinion in this matter.

The rules go both ways, and it's high time for you to figure that out. -- ChrisB 08:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]