Talk:Ashlee Simpson/Archive 1

Misc conversation
is this fair use? The photo on currently is a press photo for Jay Leno, but this looks like its by 17 Magazine or something. -- user:zanimum


 * I don't know what the status is, I didn't add it. It's from her album photoshoot, but since it isn't the album cover I don't know if it could be argued as fair use. Everyking 16:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Bwahahah. I was watching SNL tonight and Ashlee Simpson came on for her first song and I was like "This girl cannot sing. This is going to suck." Then she sounded so perfect and I said "I'm telling you now, she's lip synching." And my friend said I was just hatin' on her. And then she comes out for the second number and fucks it all up! Fan-TASTIC! Loved it. Pacian 14:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, isn't that special. Everyking 15:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Dear teacup, here's your storm of the day. zzzzz Graham

This article is one-sided. How should I fix it? Adding another viewpoint didn't solve it. Am I suppose to just remove the unsupported statements and adjectives? Well, what? Do I need to actually make the removals to get anyone's help on this? Well, if nobody answers in 15 minutes, I'll make the edits and see if anyone has any help on this issue.


 * Tell me what isn't neutral, then. If I write that Ashlee is wonderful and you write in the next sentence that she's terrible, we certainly don't have NPOV then, do we? Your edit was nothing but extremely hostile POV. Furthermore, I don't really know what more should be said about the SNL incident. I think what I've written covers it pretty well. Everyking 02:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It states: "although these are not uncommon techniques and have reportedly been used on SNL in the past.". There are no references or sources cited to back this up. It makes the incident misleading, giving the impression that other performers have attempted this, yet no evidence has been cited.


 * I could cite common knowledge, I suppose, but here, an AP story about the incident which mentions that. Everyking 02:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Please cite it then. Not everyone who reads the article knows about musical guests on a particular show. Seems suspicious though, an anonymous "insider".
 * Fine, then, I cited it. Eventually Yahoo will take the article down, though, so it's only a temporary solution. And you can have all the suspicions you want; it's common knowledge that most singers use a guide vocal or lip sync on occasion, if not more frequently than that. Graham's point below is well taken, but it is being treated as notable so I suppose it deserves a reasonable level of detail. Everyking 02:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * If you watched the 60 minutes show, the producer clearly said that he has never seen anyone lip syncing in SNL. The statement: "although these are not uncommon techniques and have reportedly been used on SNL in the past." is unsupported and biased. The SNL incident should be written as it is. If it is a common knowledge that backing vocal tape is being used then there's no point of having it mentioned in the article at all isn't it?
 * Thank you for registering your opinion. Everything in the article pertaining to the incident is just fine, however. Everyking 06:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was a clip of Eminem on VH1 a week later on SNL who did the exact same thing on a much smaller scale. He could be heard singing when his lips weren't moving and his mic was down by his waist. There's your proof, there's your example. It's not hearsay or from an unknown source. It's something you can see firsthand, although the press didn't make a big deal out of it since Eminem is less outspoken about his image. Chiharu

Furthermore, I don't really know what more should be said about the SNL incident Nothing MORE should be said about it. A lot LESS could be said about it. Christ, what a total storm in a teacup. Anyon ewould think this had some importance, or something. Why not just cut the whole section down to about one line? It's all it needs. Graham 02:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It says her age is 20, but I recall reading an AP story that cited her as 19, and in an SNL skit last night, they called her "not quite twenty". So, what's her age? Mike H 01:40, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * She definitely turned 20 on October 3. I'm right, they're wrong. What's the AP worth when you've got Wikipedia? Everyking 02:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Awards and Music sections
The music section is awfully large and, at the rate of your prodigious editing, only going to grow further. I'd keep Awards separate. (Also, she could concievably get a nomination or award for her reality show or acting, or some sort of Razzie-type award for the SNL incident, or some Most Beautiful Person nod from a major publication, or so on...) Samaritan 14:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orange Bowl
Hey, this might be something to add. http://www.local10.com/entertainment/4048912/detail.html

My dear Everyking, as abusive edit summaries are one of the lengthy charges listed against you in the current RfC, I would avoid making even more of them. Also, over 15,000 signatures in a mere 10 days is not "nonnotable", and certainly does something to balance out the "rah rah Ashlee" attitude that pervades this article. →Reene✎ 08:41, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * My comment was referring to something as garbage. It was directed at the petition, not at the person who added it. And I submit that the petition is indeed nonnotable. It's the internet. It's probably 100 losers who have signed it again and again. I voted to delete the article on the "Gay Nigger Association of America", too. Trolling is almost always nonnotable, aside from a few general articles on the phenomenon. Everyking 08:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Something is not trolling simply because you disagree with it. Your comment, however, was abusive: "you've got some nerve, removing the quote while adding that nonnotable garbage." It is not the first time you have called an edit you did not like "garbage" or "nonsense" or what-have-you. And if you do indeed have proof that most or even half of those 15,000 signatures are made by the same person or group of people, please present it. →Reene✎ 08:58, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I don't have proof, Reene. It looks like you've caught me. Everyking 09:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If you had looked at the petition, each signature usually includes a quote or reason for signing. Duplicate signatures happen, but since a unique email address is required for each one and most people bothered to type out their unique reason for signing, I don't see how this petition could possibly have been signed by under 15,000 people (there are currently over 20,000 signatures). silsor 19:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Early career information
Everyking, please explain this to me: how is the fact that Ashlee Simpson got her mouth washed out with soap and her Alanis album taken away at all encyclopedic, notable, or even interesting? This is not important. Neither is the fact that Ashlee Simpson jumped up on a bed and talked on a phone in a commercial -- aren't we talking about her career now, not her career as a spokesgirl for Kohl's?

I'm really at a loss here. Is all of the information in this article equally valuable? Madame Sosostris 22:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, no, it's a biographical article, we're talking about her life in general. If you want an article just about the present period in her life, feel free to create one. Everyking 22:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The details of most public figures' childhoods are non-notable (with exceptions -- Michael Jackson, for instance, or perhaps Leopold von Sacher-Masoch). This is a biographical article, but the notable part of Ashlee's life is her career, not her upbringing. Most biographers spend far less time on their subjects' early lives, simply because most children do little that can be considered memorable. Just as an example, I've got Lord Blake's biography of Disraeli here, which clocks in at over seven hundred pages, and barely fifteen of those are spent on the years from birth until age seventeen. Even if she is a notable person, not every part of her life is important enough for inclusion in a general encyclopedia. Were we creating a fansite for teen idols, then these things would be more relevant. Madame Sosostris 22:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The Alanis/soap story is notable because she frequently tells it in interviews, and because it reflects on her early musical interests and influences. The Kohl's thing is notable because it was her first TV commercial. Both will be restored at the earliest available opportunity if they are removed. Everyking 23:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Everyking on keeping those two pieces somewhere. The ad does help answer the question "how did she get onto TV anyway?"  The Alanis thing should get a mention too.  If it doesn't fit well into this article, it at least belongs in the influences section of the Autobiography album because stories like that are supposed to be the premise. iMeowbot~Mw


 * I think you could cite Morrisette as an influence on the album, but I don't see why the whole story (with the soap and all) needs to be in there. A 'brief' mention of the commercial -- like, five words or so -- would be fine as well. Every word counts in these situations, and I think things ought to be as streamlined as possible, since these articles are already pretty damn big. Madame Sosostris 07:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. I moved Alanis (sans soap) into Autobiography, and put in a reference to the YM article. I see that the ad is still mentioned in the current rev of this article. iMeowbot~Mw 07:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discography
I've been checking out this article and the link to her album and I noticed that there are also articles linked from that page about her singles. I was curious if putting up some sort of Discography section on this page would not be helpful. Just a thought, but I worked out a preliminary one below so feel free to build on it or put it up, or let me know if I can! Thanks Talk page PlasticBeat 21:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * ==Discography==
 * Pieces of Me, single, June 29 2004
 * Autobiography, LP, July 20 2004
 * Shadow, single, November 8 2004 (Australia), December 20 2004 (Europe)
 * La La, single, January 24 2005 (tentative)
 * Yes, that's entirely consistent with the direction these article need to move. The occasional editor erroneously pushes for brevity at all costs, but the substantive issue is making sure that the articles are readable and genuinely informative. This is substance, not fluff, and matches what is done with other music articles, so I'll move it over. Thanks! iMeowbot~Mw 23:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I no longer wish to edit this article or be actively involved in it. I may make occasional edits or updates, but I am withdrawing from active participation and removing it from my watchlist. Everyking 05:20, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to update some information on her tour, but apparently information on the tour is no longer available on anywhere on Wikipedia. I am baffled. Even User:Ambi told me I should add more info on her concerts, and you have removed it entirely? Everyking 02:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of Autobiography promotion and publicity notes the projected tour dates -- that's where I figured it belonged (since it falls under the heading of promotion). There wasn't much more information than that to begin with, as I recall. Madame Sosostris 07:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And that article will soon be deleted. Please change the start date to 2/16 from 2/18, as I am voluntarily barred from editing it per my agreement with Zen. Everyking 07:36, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * IMO, some info about tour(s) (as well as seriously notable specific shows) should go on Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album), whereas a very short synopsis of the tour(s) should go on Ashlee Simpson and/or any other related articles as a bullet list or something similar. I personally have no objection to something like this being added; I can't speak for other editors though. →Reene✎ 02:45, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course there's no information about the tour yet, because the tour is in the future. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, nor is it a place to speculate on future events.  For marketing and ticket sales, see http:;//ashleesimpsonmusic.com . iMeowbot~Mw 03:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I see events that have yet to happen being included in articles all the time. I myself have done so. I think there's something in the manual of style about it. Is there a problem with simply listing the start and finish date of the tour for now? →Reene✎ 03:18, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * If it stays extremely basic - country, opening date, closing month -- that would be reasonable. A list of anticipated venues would be crossing the line, though.  Not only does that come across as ticket marketing, but those dates aren't all even final yet.  Some venues are still subject to change depending on advance sales results, the length of the tour is still elastic, and acts and billing are still being negotiated.  One interesting tidbit is about who is not running this tour.  If this works out and anyone speaks on the record about why, that would be notable as part of a sea change. iMeowbot~Mw 03:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you've got me curious, what do you mean? Everyking 06:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just adding a bit in general here, that note about "on the record" is the reason why the Ashlee Simpson articles have seemed bloaty, and other music articles tend to be short. Pop performers' interviews are so heavily coached, and details like biographical information so heavily filtered through press offices, that they give wildly distorted versions of reality.  The official history of some of those songs is hilarious, for example, given that some were shopped as demos well before Ashlee wrote them.  The previous aborted album projects are also conspicuously missing. Simply put, official information isn't reliable. iMeowbot~Mw 05:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Tv jay leno guest ashley simpson.jpg
No fair use justification is given for this image, and it's not a screen shot. I'm going to make an actual screen grab from Leno to replace this. This photo can always go back later if an adequate justification can be made. iMeowbot~Mw 22:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh well, couldn't get a decent frame from the Leno broadcast (cameras only zoomed in when the mic was covering her face) but found a reasonable pose from the beginning of the Shadow video. We have a consistent policy for screen caps, so this should be okay. iMeowbot~Mw 01:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quotes
If you're looking for more quotes to add to the article, here's a good one from today's paper:
 * In a column in the Spokesman-Review on ghost hunting, Doug Clark ponders the popularity of Ashlee among the deceased: "Is Ashlee Simpson as annoying and talent-impared to the dead as she is to the living?"

--Carnildo 03:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * We have a whole encyclopedia here to work on. I'm sure you can find something better to do than taking jabs at me. Everyking 03:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think an insult to Ashlee Simpson constitutes a direct insult to you. Besides, there has been a higher incidence of anti-Ashlee quotes in the media of late; just yesterday I saw one (I think it was in the USA Today) that was even nastier than this. There may have to be a Backlash section before too long. Madame Sosostris 06:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, you really need to step back from this. If you think that somebody reporting an anti-Ashlee quote is an insult to you, then it's clear that you've invested too much in her. RickK 06:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on. It was obviously intended to irritate me. Everyking 10:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The recently added image is not the cover of her album (perhaps in another country? I doubt it, but maybe). It's a picture from her album photo shoot, but it's not actually used in the album artwork. I don't know how we should label it, but currently it's not accurate. Everyking 11:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Image:Ashlee.jpg is a home-made picture. The text isn't properly anti-aliased, and it's Courier rather than the standard dot matrix logo. iMeowbot~Mw 12:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone remove the petition from Ext. links. It's already in the text. Linking it twice is spamming. Everyking 15:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ha
Everyking, with this edit you appear to be removing facts and information. Your edit summary says 'trim some cruft'. Isn't this contrary to everything you've been arguing for? Or does your position only apply to things that you think make Simpson look better? Worldtraveller 19:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's consistent. My position has always been that there are some things that are too trivial or irrelevant for inclusion, and I think that level of detail about a trollish internet petition is excessive, at least for a biographical article on Ashlee Simpson. The fact of the petition is still recorded, but I placed it into better context. Everyking 20:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's quite unfair to revert someone who's banned from reverting himself, Alkivar. It's not an even playing field. Everyking 01:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SNL photo
I don't how long that SNL photo has said it was during a "rehearsal," but is there any proof of that? It seems unlikely to me. Why would she be so upset over a rehearsal? Would they have a boom microphone in a position like that for a rehearsal? Would they all be dressed the same way as they were during the show? What about the two guitar players - they look (to me) to be standing in the same positions they were during the actual performance, when they were on the main camera after she had walked away. Adam Bishop 01:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * She was wearing red during the actual performance, so logically it must be from the rehearsal. Everyking 01:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm...you're right. Nuts. Adam Bishop 03:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification: SNL dress rehearsals are produced as if they were the real show, so that the material can be substituted in rebroadcasts if the live show has problems. If the dress rehearsal performance had been completed, it probably would have been shown in the western US and in reruns instead of the mess seen live on the east coast.
 * Before the show first aired, and SNL staffer did relate that the dress rehearsal went wrong. Marci was all set to get a substitute music act, but Joe insisted on doing the show, and the rest is... well. iMeowbot~Mw 04:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alkivar, the image should be right-aligned; that's standard and flows better with the text. Only left align in special cases. Everyking 04:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is not notoriety! Reaction could be positive, in the form of sympathy, as easily as it could be negative. Please change it back, and cut out the redundant link again. Everyking 13:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would I change it back? I made the edit because I think it improves the article.  Worldtraveller 13:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, but now you're supposed to see that you were wrong and change your mind about it. Everyking 16:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see that I was wrong. I don't see any evidence that the reaction to her lip-synching was anything other than overwhelmingly negative. Worldtraveller 17:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Then obviously you don't know what her fans think. Your version is highly POV and must be changed. Everyking 18:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge of Ashlee Simpson on SNL
The result of the VfD on Ashlee Simpson on SNL was that it should be merged. The incident appears to me to already be thoroughly covered in the article, so I haven't added anything from Ashlee Simpson on SNL. dbenbenn | talk 00:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. The idea behind having that article was to enable more detail to be written. Now we're stuck with what we've got. Everyking 00:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Backing tape" in the SNL incident
The references to a 'backing tape' in all of these articles need to be changed. Simpson's camp claims it was a backing tape she was going to sing along with; others claim it was a full-volume vocal track that she was going to lip-sync to (and that she was visibly miming during her first number). Calling it a 'backing tape' means supporting the former view (which seems to be the minority view among media commentators). 68.118.61.219 05:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Have it your way, then. You would know about neutrality better than me, after all: "Dpbsmith should put his findings on the Ashlee Simpson page in a paragraph on her declining reputation." Everyking 05:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair, considering that is exactly what Dpbsmith's findings showed. -- Chuq 07:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This has all been analyzed to death. She did (try to) sing in the first song segment.  There were two distinct copies of the lead vocal audible for the first several seconds, recorded and live. After that, the live vocal is cut off and it's only the recorded vocal (straight from the album). One of the channels had to go, because the two sounded bizarre, and the recording won. iMeowbot~Mw 08:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think including the petition figure is ridiculous. It's like me counting up all the posts on an Ashlee message board or something. The only point of having it is so people can point at it and say: Oh, look how many people don't like Ashlee! But it's deceptive, because it's probably a few hundred kids, maybe a few thousand. They don't deserve to have that kind of attention given to them&mdash;maybe I'd accept it if others would accept some of the other things in the article that were removed for being "trivial", but which were in fact vastly more significant than that figure. It's a double standard, attaching more notability to anti-Ashlee information for no good reason. Everyking 08:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Everyking's point about including the petition figure. IMO, not only are internet petitions pointless (and occasionally deceptive), but this is clearly POV (to me, anyway). I'd be willing to remove this paragraph not based on my knowledge of Ashlee Simpson, but simply based on my belief that internet petitions are pointless. --Deathphoenix 14:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On January 6, an Internet petition complaining about Simpson's singing was started. It accumulated nearly 300,000 signatures over the following weeks, making it among the most active of the site's petitions. 


 * In fact, I decided to be bold and deleted the text above. I thought briefly about including the petition in the external links, but I don't think it's needed. Internet petitions are pointless anyways (or did I say that already?). --Deathphoenix 15:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold and stuck it back in. I figure that any time people get worked up enough to collect 300,000 valid email addresses, it's worth mentioning. --Carnildo 19:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree (but I won't be bold and remove it again (-:). It's very easy for people to bomb a petition with throwaway addresses. Being able to collect 300,000 valid email addresses could mean anything from 300,000 individual people actually signing the petition to one person signing 300,000 times under different identities. Of course, the answer is somewhere in between. But because of the wide variety of possible meanings, I don't see how including this piece of data is appropriate for an (online) encyclopedia. Strong reactions about Ashlee's singing? sure. But I don't see how an internet petition is a reliable source of information that can be used to demonstrate a point, because it can mean anything. --Deathphoenix 20:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems to me it's worth mentioning, if it was one of the most popular on-line polls, but the number itself is not very important for the reasons Deathphoenix outlines. How about something like In January, an Internet petition at www.petitiononline.com  complaining about Simpson's singing was among the most active of the site's petitions. ? Worldtraveller 21:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to either wording, but a link to the petition and the news article which mentions it should remain for verification purposes. I think having a number attached just requires us to keep updating it as the # of signatures increases. But simply based on the volume of signers (even if some of the entries are mickey mouse/donald duck/heywood jablome/etc...) Its much more likely that the real number of signers is going to outweigh the fakes, and as it did make the news its a noteworthy event.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 23:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I prefer Worldtraveller's version. "Most active of the site's petitions" is a good way to word it accurately. --Deathphoenix 01:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. --Carnildo 05:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed the text to Worldtraveller's version. --Deathphoenix 18:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Astroturfing
The "astroturfing" claim needs to be removed. There is apparently no evidence for it, and even if there was, it'd still be nonnotable. Everyking 06:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It is notable, and a few websites have linked to it and made a comment on it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. A few websites linking to something does not make it notable. And I repeat that there appears to be no evidence. Everyking 07:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A few? You must be kidding. Try a google search of that phrase. Seems pretty damning to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The evidence seems pretty damning to me. Fifteen identical posts on message forums by the same username, said username only having the one post on each board?  The same person making the exact same typo fifteen times? --Carnildo 07:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Even Boing Boing has reported on it.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 09:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is weird. Maybe in my outrage I was not understood. Yes, there is ample evidence that posts were made. But where is the evidence that this was deliberate marketing my Simpson's people? In the first place, you need to attribute this claim, not state it as fact. Everyking 07:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Want proof, here's proof... the posts in question were traced back to the firm responsible by IP on several of the message boards, and up until the story broke on CNN (yes Guerilla advertising and this company in particular did hit CNN Headline News on Feb 7th) they proudly displayed that Geffen Records and Vivendi were customers. As of this moment in time they no longer show their connection.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a reference for this? --Carnildo 08:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For which part?  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 08:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The IP trace. If there's an older version of the guerillapr.com page on the Internet Archive showing that Vivendi and Geffen were custormers, that would be nice as well. --Carnildo 08:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I liked Alkivar's edit summary. He should work to attribute the information in a NPOV manner instead of yelling at me. Blunt, unreferenced claims aren't acceptable. Everyking 08:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope TBSDY has a good explanation for that rollback. Everyking 12:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trying to make Ashlee Simpson look better is most definitely NOT npov
I object to this edit:. It was changed from "Ashlee Simpson also later stated that she had acid reflux and her voice was apparently in such poor condition just hours before she was scheduled to perform&mdash;she may have had little choice but to rely heavily on the backing track." to "On the other hand, with her voice in such poor condition and given the importance of the show, she may have had little choice but to rely heavily on the backing track in that situation." I refuse to allow us to make Ashlee Simpson look better. That is not the point of an article: we state facts and we don't try to make people look better than they are. Hence I've rolled back and made an edit to fixup some text I was going to copyedit anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Rollback is designed to be used against vandalism, not in content disputes. Everyking 12:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine. It won't happen again. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also object to you saying I'm trying to make her look better. My only goal is neutrality. I presume that's your goal, too, so we shouldn't have any need for dispute. Everyking 12:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That was your edit? I didn't know that when I edited the article. I merely removed some weasel words (some people called her a hypocrite - who exactly?) and some text that appears to try to position Wikipedia into a justification of the whole incident. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An open question: should the "astroturfing" claims be in their own section, or rather in another, larger section, such as "controversies" or "in 2005"? Everyking 13:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree with your edit of putting it into 2005. Works better with the flow. I wouldn't oppose you if you put it back the way it was. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One SNL video is more than enough. Everyking 21:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would also agree with this. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Its two different formats, I think its acceptable to have 2 links in this case. Its not a matter of being overly anti ashlee in this case.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 10:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh. I wasn't aware of this. In that case, I agree with Alkivar. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a library for video clips. Everyking 11:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When the videos are related to the topic, it is perfectly fine to have links to the clips. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is advertising for lipsync.us. Tell you what. We can have the clips linked in the ext. links section, not in the text, but in exchange we get to remove the main lipsync.us link. Everyking 13:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with using lipsync.us, find the video in the alternative formats and post a link to them instead. The only steady easy to find versions I found were the ones on lipsync.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 14:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * They will all be gone in a few months anyway. I try to think of Wikipedia over the long term. Everyking 14:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So do I, whenever Jimbo gets off his butt and picks a definative video format for commons, I will get someone to reencode this (since LipSync.US has given permission) and upload it there.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 14:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well permission for their copy anyway, its still a fair use since SNL owns the actual copyright.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 14:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would be fair use any more than all her other TV appearances would be fair use in video form. Everyking 16:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's fair use because it is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research", its presentation on Wikipedia is of a non-commercial, educational nature, the portion excerpted is small relative to the original work (i.e. the entire SNL broadcast that night), and there is no effect on the market value of the original work. (That episode of SNL is *not* available for purchase, to my knowledge.)  Skyraider 17:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that applies to all her TV appearances, then? Everyking 17:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It could. It really depends on how they're used.  (Fair warning:IANAL.)  Skyraider 19:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think that's right. Everyking 19:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Any copyrighted work *could* be used in a "fair use" manner in a subsequent work. Whether a specific use constitutes fair use is determined by the courts, but the law lays out explicitly what factors are to be considered in making that determination.  The nature of the original and subsequent works and the manner of use are key factors.  (Fair use is an excellent article, IMO.)  Skyraider 20:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing
Everyking's recent edit summary: summarize a little...we deleted the article on the tour and this is not 1% as notable as that. Everyking, you only ever want to 'summarise' or 'trim' things that are not favourable to Simpson. It's really irritating to see such flagrant pushing of a POV. The VfD on the tour article does not entitle you to some kind of quid pro quo removal of information which casts her in a bad light. Pop groups tour all the time - underhand publicity techniques are somewhat less common, so what makes you think a tour is 100 times as notable? Worldtraveller 23:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, is this about the BBS spamming thing? It's extremely common nowadays, used for virtually all new major label acts.  That's part of the so-called viral marketing that companies like Fanscape, Fanpimp etc. perform in addition to the more visible "street team" stuff. --iMb~Mw 00:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's also usually a violation of "terms of use" agreements on the forums where it occurs. 24.195.17.40 17:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, then an article about the marketing practice might be useful, or perhaps a discussion of it under one of the existing spam articles. To dig up the relevant postings bring it up in the article for each and every current music act would be serious overkill, bordering on spam itself, though. --iMb~Mw 23:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Photo Queue
I'm sure there are plenty of good photographs for the article. However I removed this one for the moment since 1) we already have a photo from her tv show 2) this sorta clutters up the section around the discography since there is already another photo there. I personally recommend not readding this one, but thats up to a consensus. ALKIVAR ™ 06:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It could do with a better caption if it is re-inserted. Mike H 07:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the section will grow and then it can be readded? Everyking 07:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to another photo in that section once its expanded, however I personally would prefer a different image not a 2nd image from her TV show (just for varieties sake).  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 07:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I think screenshots are considered free from copyright issues, whereas most everything else isn't. Everyking 07:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No screenshots are not "free from copyright issues", however they are "fair use", the problem of course becomes that Jimbo eventually plans on removing "fair use" images, and that "fair use" images arent commercially useable which goes against the whole GFDL'd encyclopedia concept.   ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 07:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know about all those legal matters, but the point stands that screenshots can apparently be used before most other things can. Everyking 07:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Keeping' it Real" trivia
Is this:


 * As a guest on a European television show she participated in a "Keepin' it Real" segment where she was tested on common knowledge. She was unable to state the cost of a carton of milk, nor could she name the capital of Spain or what the employment position of Condoleeza Rice was. This was featured in episode eight of season two of The Ashlee Simpson Show.

...notable enough for inclusion? I think it could be worth a mention in the article on the reality show, but not here. If you agree, feel free to remove it, because I'm not allowed to. Everyking 12:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Trivia sections in general are frowned upon, we're supposed to find a way to work it into the article itself. Perhaps this would be decent comparison material versus her "intelligent" chicken of the sea sister?  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 15:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't really see how it has any place in the article at all. Everyking 16:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats because you never see a reason to include any negative information.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 16:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It was on the show; if it was so negative, I don't suppose they would've shown it on the show. My only point is that it's too trivial for this article, but might have a place on the TASS article. Everyking 17:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I was the person who added it, I guess I'll defend it. Considering that she has accomplished relatively little in terms of famous entertainers, I'd be hard pressed to understand how this information is any more or less trivial than any of the other minutea mentioned within the article. Ashlee simpson, by and large, is hardly a person of great accomplishment. That being said, I think the information is important in establishing exactly what kind of a person Ashlee Simpson is; IE, one who is relatively removed from "real life," and not very educated. There is no reason why a person who is successful enough to be in the public eye should not have achieved enough of a level of education or personal knowledge to know who Condoleeza Rice is. It speaks volumes about who Ashlee Simpson is as a person. I fully support removal of a "trivia" section, but I don't think it would be appropriate to remove the information completely. Pacian 06:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have restored the trivia omitted by Everyking because I believe that it is "informative, interesting and presented in an NPOV fashion." Furthermore, this sort of information fairly demonstrates how well in touch Simpson is with real world politics and current events.      If someone disagrees with me I will not revert their changes but wanted this to be discussed further.  Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

I tell you, if I tried to add some comparable level of trivia, it'd be removed within an hour. But I wouldn't even want to. Everyking 13:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any idea what these people are talking about, about some picture that's disgusting? They seem to be saying the article was vandalized with an image, but in the history I see no vandalism at the time when they would have been looking at the page...I see no image vandalism at any time, anyway. Everyking 14:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Image poison vandalism... the album cover was changed to Goatse guy. It's been reverted.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 15:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I should be more specific, someone renamed it to the same as the album cover and uploaded it in its place, they did not alter the article itself.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 15:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I always lack imagination when I try to figure out vandals. Everyking 17:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Defining place of birth
It's generally difficult to find out a place of birth definitively, short of a statement by the person him/herself. Jessica's place of birth was given wrongly for years; it's even stated wrongly on her own website. For that reason I've never added a place of birth to this article, no matter if there's a statement from the label on the website or not. My personal preference would be not to include it without something more conclusive. Coming at the very beginning of the article makes it very important to get it right. Everyking 16:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that the Simpson press kits and releases have all been consistent about this detail, it can stand, unless all information that has been released through Geffen is to be retracted as suspect. --iMb~Meow 16:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I would rather wait to hear her mention her birthplace, or one of her family, since I'm a stickler for accuracy above all else. But if you disagree, of course I am powerless to do anything about it, so I guess that's that. Everyking 17:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like her birthplace was either Dallas or Waco. Given the history of Waco, my guess is she would say Dallas regardless.  I guess it doesn't really matter either way.  You could say "in or near Dallas" if it matters that much.  --  BRIAN  0918   17:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that the only hospital I can find in Waco (via google search) is a Veterans Affairs hospital, unless she was born via Midwife at home, she was likely born in one of the 14 hospitals in the Dallas Metro area (a mere hours drive away.)  ALKIVAR ™ 18:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I made the change to from Waco to Dallas. Her IMDB profile indicates that to be her birthplace, and sites like this and this agree. I've seen some that state her birthplace as Waco, but from what I can see, a lot of them are actually Wikipedia mirrors. --Deathphoenix 05:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dead links
Two of the external links, for the fan site and the associated pictures site, have gone dead, and at present it's unclear if they will ever be back, so I figure we should remove them for the time being (I'm sure User:IMeowbot knows why they are down, but I don't). At the same time, however, if we don't have a fan site to link to, we shouldn't link to lipsync.us either, so we should remove that link for balance. Everyking 10:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just stick in a link to a different fan site. There's tons of those things.

Somebody revert the anon edit, please. Everyking 06:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Done.  ALKIVAR ™ 06:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Either Pacian's recent paragraph should be cited and demonstrated to be in some way notable, or it should be removed. Everyking 05:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't like you very much, Everyking, and I have to be honest, I don't think you're a very good Wikipedian. I'd like to inform you, in case you didn't already know, that the users of this website are in fact human persons. I understand that you feel the need to be blunt and use candor about your opinion, but does it actually cause you some kind of physical pain to be polite to others? You seem to have a wicked habit of stating your opinion without actually stating it, and then making it sound like it's the ONLY correct opinion (all the while ignoring the potential effect it may have on others and their feelings.) For instance, above, you are basically saying "Pacian's recent paragraph is not notable, and it should be removed." Well, I happen to disagree, and you don't get to definitively decide what is notable and what is not, sir. It is NOTABLE because for a celebrity to potentially offer an indirect endoresment of a product that is in direct competition with a product they are paid to represent could result in millions of dollars of legal damages, and though it is a developing incident, it is none the less completely legit. As a citation, why not visiting The Smoking Gun (the very website I - GASP - cited!) In all seriousness, you need to start thinking about people's feelings. You don't have to kiss butt, but you could TRY to phrase things more politely and considerately. Pacian 06:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you don't like me. I have no particular opinion about you. I am aware of the Smoking Gun link. However, where is the cite for this claim that chewing some other kind of gum could produce some big controversy? Personal speculation isn't notable. If you ask me, if she's just quietly chewing the gum in her dressing room, that wouldn't rationally seem to contradict any contracts, anyway. I don't know who made those papers public, but it certainly wasn't her or her management. So this stuff should be cited. And before it even needs to be included at all, there should be a demonstration of notability. The Smoking Gun thing is arguably very, very marginally notable. But speculation about one particular aspect of it? I think there should be a demonstration of notability for that. Everyking 06:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Drudge reported there is a lawsuit pending. Its relevant.  ALKIVAR ™ 06:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can give a cite, then the paragraph (appropriately modified) can go back in. --Carnildo 06:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If there really is a lawsuit pending, OK, that'd make it notable. But where's a cite to show that a lawsuit is indeed pending? Everyking 06:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The specific page of the smoking gun site in question about the gum is page 9. The question I have, is should the paragraph mention the fact that the documents state the drummer is responsible for "pre-recorded sequences" even tho she swears she doesnt use them? Thats on page 2. I happen to find that more controversial. I cant seem to find the link on drudge that was on there earlier today.  ALKIVAR ™ 06:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That wording was a little odd. It says that the "orchestration" includes pre-recorded sequences.  Does this "orchestration" include Ashlee?  Pre-recorded sequences could be background sound effects, like what someone would normally play on a synthesizer. -- brian0918    06:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would assume it's various intrumentation they can't properly duplicate with the band. I think that's common. Everyking 06:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the paragraph. The "Smoking Gun" link is just a set of scans (or maybe transcriptions) of Ashlee's requirements for performing; any claims of controversy based on that would be original research. --Carnildo 06:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alkivar's edit directly claims that the prerecorded sequences are vocal. This is highly unlikely to be true and there is no evidence to support it. Everyking 06:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if thats the way you took it, feel free to specify a better wording. I did not mean to imply it was necessarily vocal oriented. I think they happened to pick deliberately overbroad wording with "pre-recorded sequences" so as to potentially include vocals.  ALKIVAR ™ 06:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your edit claims she contradicted herself. That's not true. She only said she wasn't using any vocal guide tracks. That's not the same thing at all. Everyking 06:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have since tried to clarify my statement, is this better?  ALKIVAR ™ 06:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It still falsely accuses her of contradicting herself, drawing a false connection between what she said about guide vocals and the possible use of recorded instrumentation sequences. She did not deny the use of the latter. Everyking 06:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Suggest a specific wording then. I'll be happy to change it, I just think it should be included.  ALKIVAR ™ 07:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just remove the quote, and don't suggest there's a contradiction. Everyking 07:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You should probably not be posting here, it looks like it violates your arbcom ruling. The only way I could see you getting around it is to talk on user pages, and not use her name specifically, but I wouldn't suggest trying to get around arbcom rulings, they might not like that. -- brian0918    07:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What on earth would make you think the ruling applies to talk pages? Rulings hardly ever apply to talk pages. Everyking 07:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. -- brian0918   07:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's silly. It specifically says "article". silsor 07:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me what it says quite plainly is that he is not allowed to edit articles and that, in fact, the only participation allowed is if he sees vandalism in progress (and if so he is expected to report that to someone else so that they can make the correction.) In other words, coming to a talk page to state that something within the article doesn't belong is *NOT* tantamount to reporting vandalism to an appropriate party. Using a talk page to attempt to get changes made that you would make on your own, if you could, is just an attempt at bypassing the fact that you have been instructed not to make changes. Pacian 07:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What it says quite plainly is that I cannot edit articles. Which means I can edit talk pages to my heart's content. Everyking 07:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You could try contributing something meaningful to the encyclopedia. -- brian0918   07:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I make at least 100-150 edits on an average day, and I have a featured article to my credit, so I must be doing something meaningful. Everyking 07:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. -- brian0918    07:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe you don't think my work's been meaningful, but I can just about guarantee you that I've done a lot more than you have. Everyking 07:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was for your future work over the next year. It'd be more meaningful to write new articles than to fix spelling errors and bicker 24/7 on Ashlee Simpson talk pages. You may have more edits, but I guarantee that my edits are more meaningful to the encyclopedia. :)  brian0918    07:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And I have written new articles recently, for instance: Central African Republic elections, 2005, Togo presidential election, 2005, Liberia elections, 2005 (maybe others I'm forgetting), not to mention expanding lots of other articles. But why am I justifying any of my work to you? Everyking 07:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure. -- brian0918   07:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Just curious, Everyking--since Wikipedia articles are a community effort and nobody owns them, how do you have a featured article to "your" credit? 24.195.27.248 00:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I wrote it. What does that have to do with owning it? Everyking 08:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed speculation

 * On April 09, 2005, The Smoking Gun posted one of Simpson's concert riders. In it she demands that either Dentyne or Orbit gum be provided at her venue. This has caused a conflict with her paid commercial endorsement of Liquid Ice mints and gum, part of the Ice Breakers mint and gum line. Ice Breakers are a product of Hershey corporation, while Dentyne is made by Cadbury and Orbit is made by Wrigley. Aligning herself in any fashion with mint or gum products made by the competitors of the company for whom she is a paid commercial endorser is cause for major legal action, though whether anything will come of it remains to be seen. Also of note in this report is a mention of "pre-recorded sequences" which could potentially include vocals, something Simpson claims to have stopped using as recently as April 8 in a Sun-Sentinel.com interview by Jon Bream regarding her Florida tour leg: "'There will be no backing vocal tracks at all,' Ashlee Simpson said of her current tour". 

Without a cite for a lawsuit or threat thereof, this paragraph feels like original research. If you wish to re-insert it, please provide a citation. And please stop editing this page so fast -- I can't get a word in endwise! --Carnildo 07:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it. Alkivar now says he may have been wrong about the lawsuit. -- brian0918    07:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone edit the anon addition--her career does not need "saving", least of all by an internet petition, which are not taken seriously by anyone whether they are for or against her. Everyking 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. I've removed the sentence and link to the "Save Ashlee" petition. --Deathphoenix 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does this article exist at all?
Guys,

Given the level of acrimony I'm seeing here between her supporters and critics, I have to ask whether you don't all have something better to do? Ten years from now, she'll be forgotten just like the Bay City Rollers, Menudo, and the New Kids on the Block. Leave this subject for the tabloids.
 * What? You don't want an article on Menudo? Everyking 04:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think as long as it's a topic is fairly notable, someone some where in the world would find its entry helpful. When articles start popping up about the World's biggest cheeto, that's where we might want to start drawing the line.
 * You're kidding me. We don't have an article on the world's biggest cheeto yet? Everyking 04:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're going to have articles on the likes of Ashlee Simpson and Menudo, then there should probably be a category for pseudo-musicians; products of marketing departments, lip-sync coaches, choreographers, plastic surgeons, and publicity agents. Whatever these people are, they're NOT musicians.
 * There's an article on Milli Vanilli, if that's what you're looking for. --Carnildo 22:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because we decide whether or not people should have articles based on whether they suit your personal taste. Everyking 22:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of significance. I have no use for Jackson Pollock at all, but he is significant for founding the P.T. Barnum mode of selling so-called artwork.  This little ditz will be throughly forgotten in another year, tops.
 * That's possible. But irrelevant. She's very famous. Everyking 17:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And how much more famous has she become because of you, sir? --Newnoise 20:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine an increased familiarity among a few Wikipedia editors compares to millions of albums sold, millions of TV viewers, and dozens of sold out concerts. But if you want to credit me with that kind of influence in the world, hey, I don't mind. Everyking 20:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's a paragraph about the Punk'd episode I wrote on the Wikicity project. Someone could add that here, perhaps with less detail. Everyking 21:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone please improve the Punk'd paragraph that an anon added. My suggestion is something along these lines, possibly in abbreviated form:


 * On April 24, 2005, she appeared in an episode of the MTV celebrity prank show Punk'd. She was the subject of a prank in which she was set up to think that her jacket had caught on fire due to being placed near a candle, causing the overhead sprinklers in the art museum she was in to go off, thus ruining the paintings in the room. She became upset when confronted about it, but then laughed and was playfully angry when the prank was revealed to her by the show's host, Ashton Kutcher.

Everyking 22:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Somebody please revert the anon. It is vandalism but maybe not quite blatant enough for me to be able to get away with reverting it. Everyking 23:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely vandalism, but I think you did the right thing by not reverting it yourself. Rhobite 23:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the anon's edit. More tears? Where's the first mention of tears? Everyking 22:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Plus the awkwardness of "reduced into" vs. "reduced to" and the passive voice of "Ashlee Simpson was reduced. . ."  Cleaned it up to what I hope is a generally acceptable version. Skyraider 16:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that contributor is sort of odd. All of his contributions seem to be about celebrities who appeared on Punk'd. Most of his sentences are awkward, maybe he's a kid. I agree that "reduced into tears" is a strange way of putting it. Don't know why he keeps reverting to his version of the sentence. Rhobite 20:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ext links
In my opinion the ext. links section is a bit bloated and could use some trimming. Any thoughts on what (if anything) we could remove? Everyking 03:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A subject near and dear to my heart. Is there a directory of fan sites that could replace the separate fan site links? Also, I don't think we need the SNL incident in three formats. Unless the MPEG one is of significantly lower quality, I think having just that one will suffice (MPEG is the nearest to a "free" format of the three, and also has the widest compatibility). --W(t) 03:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * I think we could get rid of the German lang. site, 2 out of 3 of the SNL links, the NNDB link (it's just POV; there's no useful info that's not already included here), and one of the "anti-Ashlee" links (still leaving us with one). Everyking 19:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Also the Smoking Gun link&mdash;if anything, maybe give it a mention in the article itself, but I think it's painfully trivial. Everyking 19:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, definitely get rid of the German language site (I'm sure de: will already have it it they found it userful), NNDB, and the Smoking Gun site. Of the remaining two anti- sites, I think it's safe to get rid of http://lipsync.us, which is currently down for maintenance (and has been for some time). I concur with Weyes, I think we can delete all but the MPEG version of the SNL video. --Deathphoenix 19:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead with this since nobody else was voicing an opinion, and everyone who did is in favor. If anyone objects to it now, feel free to revert me or add back an individual link, or whatever you like. Everyking 17:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I think I may have made a mistake in agreeing with leaving the MPEG video, since it links to the lipsync.us site (which is down). I will restore the WMV version while removing the MPEG version. --Deathphoenix 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing that. We could perhaps restore another video format and have two in that case. Everyking 20:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an idea, though I'm not terribly fond of the RealPlayer format. :-P --Deathphoenix 04:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The weird Punk'd wording is back. Revert? Everyking 04:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I already did so. --Deathphoenix 04:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the trivia section? Should it be removed, reworked into the main body of the article, or left as is? Personally, I've never liked it and I would like to remove it on grounds of non-notability. Everyking 05:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've got no real opinion on that, though I'm probably wavering on delete for the same reason as you. I'd like some other folks to weigh in on this before we do anything, though. --Deathphoenix 05:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to keep it. --Carnildo 06:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Hall Monitor has restored it. Everyking 1 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Hairstyle changes
''In early May 2005, Ashlee cut her hair short and dyed it a shade of light brown with blonde highlights. On June 19, she appeared at the MuchMusic Video Awards, where she performed "La La", with fully blonde (and longer) hair.''
 * Do we really need to document each of Ms. Simpson's hairstyle changes in an encyclopedia article? I have no objection to the hairstyle mention at the beginning of the "Style and Personal Life" section, but I think that's sufficient.  Other opinions?  Skyraider 4 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's notable. Everyking 4 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)
 * I think each of her hairstyle changes are trivial details that don't need to be included here. --Deathphoenix 4 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)
 * They aren't trivial. I've argued against inclusion of trivia and I assure you it's not trivia. Blonde to dark was a major image change, in just about every interview she had to talk about it, it was remarked on a lot. And then when she went back to blonde that got a lot of attention, too. Everyking 4 July 2005 13:31 (UTC)
 * I do not think anyone's hairstyle changes are notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia article. Not of any interest to the general reader, and unrelated to what she's notable for. Worldtraveller 4 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is of interest to the general reader. What does the general reader want to know? Probably, first and foremost, the same kind of things that get the most attention in the world outside Wikipedia. Well, I'm telling you that the hairstyle changes are notable. We have some silliness in the article about supposed message board spamming by someone called "Mandy"; well, what's more notable, this or that? If you're going to talk about her image at all, you mention the hair. It's important. Everyking 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
 * I do not think you can judge with adequate objectiveness what the general reader wants to know. You need to rely on other editors to decide what is worth including and what is only of interest to hardcore fans. Worldtraveller 4 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you seem to lack an understanding of what's important about her image. If you're not going to mention the hair, there's no point in even having an image & style section. You can't adequately discuss it at all without mentioning the hair. You'd have to talk about how she had a more rock-oriented image than her sister without mentioning the huge component in that, that she dyed her hair dark. It would be like deliberately tip-toeing around it. So what do I have to do to prove this to you, aside from just arguing? What sort of evidence can I present? Everyking 4 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no real need for an image and style section. Suggest you have a look at the articles on Kylie Minogue and Madonna - the former doesn't mention hair once, while the latter does mention hair and images changes, because these were rather crucial to Madonna's success.  If Simpson dyed her hair to differentiate herself from her sister, that's worth mentioning (briefly) - subsequent changes in hairstyle aren't. Worldtraveller 4 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Good one, Everyking? Say, old boy, do you happen to know what brand of peanut butter she prefers? I think that's notable. In the meantime, I am going to start work on a branch article, Styles and recolourations of Ashlee Simpson's hair. I'm working on the timeline now. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 4 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)
 * Be as obnoxious as you want, you're not going to goad me into a revert war. Everyking 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

OK, if we are going to remove entirely notable info on her hairstyle, we ought to also remove the stuff about the supposed "astroturfing". If the hair is non-notable and that is, then that's stepping over the line into absurdity. Everyking 4 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
 * I don't get that at all... how is her dying her hair as or more notable than her PR people engaging in a pretty widespread astroturfing campaign to artificially inflate sympathy for her? BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 4 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
 * Because people know about her hairstyle changes and are interested in her style. Meanwhile virtually no one knows about those message board posts. Everyking 4 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
 * You are a trip, bucko. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 4 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
 * I'd say the astroturfing is quite notable. A celebrity considered by many to be fake had two major negative career incidents in the space of a few months.  Her ferociously bungling PR machine then tried to create some positive buzz by inventing fake message board users, and they got caught at it.  (I might add-- advertising, let alone advertising that poses as communication from a disinterested party, is a violation of the Terms of Use of most internet message boards.)  Talk about putting out fire with gasoline!  As far as the hairstyle info, as I stated in my initial comment, I don't think it needs to be 100% absent from the section, I just think the first mention covers it and the rest is overkill. Skyraider 5 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
 * Your POV is showing. Everyking 5 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we've got neutral people like you to balance me out.Skyraider 5 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
 * I may not be 100% neutral, but I can tell what's notable and what ain't. Everyking 5 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
 * Really, you can't. That's the root of all the disputes about this article - your refusal to accept the consensus of the community as to what's notable and what's not, and your behaviour in trying to own this and related articles. Worldtraveller 5 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
 * "Community consensus"? I don't buy it. You are just perpetuating a petty feud. If I go left, you go right. This is not community consensus. Community consensus is honest editors, with a genuine concern for the content, putting forward serious ideas about article improvement and engaging in fair give-and-take when they encounter opposition. This is as far from that as the Earth is from the Sun. Everyking 5 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against including the information you want to include about hairstyles. Astroturfing is a completely separate issue, and there is no quid pro quo allowing you to insist on the removal of something you don't like in return for the removal of something you do. Worldtraveller 5 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
 * That's a majority, not consensus. And it's hard to say what a majority of people who were interested in the article for some reason other than a petty personality feud would think about the matter. Everyking 5 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
 * If one disagreement means no consensus, how is any editing on this article to proceed? And who do you consider to be interested only in a personality feud? Worldtraveller 5 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)
 * For starters, you. Everyking 5 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? And what about the first part of my question? Worldtraveller 5 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that people who neither know or care about this subject and are only here to harass a particular user should not get a vote on these content matters. Everyking 5 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of only being here to harass you? Worldtraveller 5 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
 * OK, shoot: why are you here? Everyking 5 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to justify myself. Either lodge an RFC about me or withdraw these personal attacks. Worldtraveller 6 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
 * This has been going on for a good six months now. That's long enough for me to draw a reasonable conclusion about the purpose of your involvement in this and related articles. And I say it's due to a personality feud/harassment, or due to pushing a deletionist agenda, or a combination of the two. In fact I cannot conceive of any other logical reason to explain your behavior. Everyking 6 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
 * So lodge an RFC. Worldtraveller 6 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)
 * You could just make it easy and leave me alone. By the way, if you want my guess (you tell me if it's accurate), I think it started as pushing deletionism, but now it's continuing mainly due to bitterness and hostility. Everyking 6 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
 * You could make it easy and rectify the behaviour that has seen you subject to restrictions on editing this and related articles. If you want to question my behaviour, do so via RFC or RFA and not via pointless sniping on talk pages which gets us nowhere.  If you don't want to lodge an RFC, then stop the sniping.  If your behaviour continues to be abusive and obstructive, I'll have to lodge an RFC or RFA against you.  Worldtraveller 6 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)
 * I would think a celebrity would have thicker skin. How do you handle the tabloids? Everyking 6 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Everyking, my boy... I think Worldtraveller is here for the same reason as many of us are &mdash; to try to maintain some semblance of encyclopaedic quality at this article. Lord knows if we let you out on your own, we'd have a 70k article full of everything from her hairstyles to the brand of nail polish she uses, not to mention ten or so branch articles... We just want to keep it professional, here, buddy. I think most of us would prefer the Ashlee Simpson encyclopaedia article not read like an unauthorised biography... <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 6 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
 * You have either misread the situation or heard wrongly from others. I have no desire whatsoever to include anything but notable info in the article. It was me trying to get the ext links section reduced, the trivia section removed, and the "astroturfing" bit removed. As compared to one thing, the changed hair color, which I wanted to stay. In general I may favor a bit more info than you, but I am no radical inclusionist by any stretch of the imagination. Everyking 6 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
 * No, that's just the thing, buddy &mdash; the astroturfing bit is actually notable, but here you are pushing her hairstyles. And if you're so not an inclusionist... what was all that business with the branch article for, what was it, the design of one of her album covers? It doesn't get much more crufty than that, my friend.  <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 6 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
 * I do consider myself an inclusionist, but a moderate one. What I meant is I don't believe in including non-notable trivia. And yes, I think the hair is more notable than the astroturfing. The astroturfing is very obscure. I don't think it made any papers or magazines or onto TV. (I, as a fan, didn't even know about it until someone added it here! Apparently it's just been something discussed on some net forums.) On the other hand, the changed hair is very well known. It has been on TV, in the magazines, all her fans know about it. Everyking 6 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Vocal profile
I'd like to see the removal of the vocal range section. It's unsourced, uncited. Pure original research. One person says one thing and one person says another. Everyking 04:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, well, nobody is objecting, so I'll wait a little while longer for an objection and if there's none then I'll remove it. Everyking 08:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did a quick check and wasn't able to verify it. If someone else can, feel free to note it here. --Deathphoenix 12:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree--if it isn't coming from an authoritative source, it doesn't belong in the article. Skyraider 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Vocal Profile subsection has been removed in its entirety. This appears to be a widespread problem amongst vocalist articles on Wikipedia.  Hall Monitor 16:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Anon
OK, so an anon/probable sock has reverted my improvements to the intro and the bit about the two tour dates in Canada. I ask for second opinions on what approach to take here. Everyking 09:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with mentioning that a 'US' tour also visited Canada, but I agree with the anon edits to the intro, which removed bias and unnecessary verbosity. Worldtraveller 11:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, my edits to the intro consisted of NPOVing as well as mentioning of events that have occurred in 2005. I find it staggering that you think my version is biased and the old one was not. The old one was severely biased. I try to fix it and I get reverted. I'm not saying my change was perfect but it was unquestionably better than before. Everyking 13:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is severely biased to keep on trying over many months to tone down references to the lip-synching and insert excuses as if they are widely accepted facts - the anon's edit removed your bias, which continually pollutes this and related articles unless it is continually removed by those who want to ensure WP:NPOV. Worldtraveller 15:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's almost funny. What I was doing was NPOVing, and rather mild NPOVing at that. Moreover you haven't yet addressed the 2005 addition which was deleted. Everyking 15:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is a problem here. Your view of what NPOV is does not mach the consensus as to what an NPOV is here, and any change you don't like is generating reams and reams of pointless discussion that gets us nowhere as it covers the same ground over and over again.  I'm not sure I see a positive way forward here as your attitude has not perceptibly changed over the last few months despite the sanctions imposed on you by the arbitration committee.  Do you have any intention of allowing others to edit this article without a barrage of objections at anything you don't like? Worldtraveller 16:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Remeber that Everyking is under mentorship with regard to this and other articles. Get in touch with his mentors if necessary. --Mrfixter 17:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Mentor here. I believe the anonymous user was wrong to simply revert Everyking, probably knowing that EK is not allowed to revert the article back. However the reference to lipsyncing should stay - lipsyncing is what she was doing, there is no need to water it down by stating that she was merely accused of lipsyncing. Worldtraveller, Everyking's recent edit was not egregious. Please try discussing the edits and come to an agreement.
 * On an unrelated note, I think the word "successful" is used too often in this article. The reality TV show is described as successful, the tour is successful, Jessica Simpson's show is successful, etc. Thoughts? Rhobite 17:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we don't know if she was lip syncing or merely singing along to the track to support her weakened voice (I have also heard the argument that she sang along at first but then quit when it became clear her voice could not handle it). In fact this is not something we can determine, so we can't say it's "what she was doing". We have two versions: Ashlee said that she was singing along with the track (I'll grant she was never particularly emphatic or persistent about that claim, but one can hardly blame her for not wanting to rehash it), while many of her critics (speculatively) say it was simple lip syncing, and indeed this is a perception shared by most of the casually aware public. So. My position is that you balance this out, as per standard NPOV practice, by not endorsing either version and stating it in a neutral way that nobody can contest. Everyking 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Didn't her prerecorded voice come on at full volume and start singing the wrong song? That certainly sounds like lip-syncing to me. Rhobite 18:43, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV means we can't conduct our own investigation and decide between two points of view. We report both neutrally. Everyking 18:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * although she apparently needed the track due to illness
 * Neutral? 24.195.29.118 17:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly my opinion. The illness claim is quite irrelevant to whether lip synching was occurring or not, and the tone of the sentence is that of a defensive fan, not a neutral encyclopaedia.  NPOV does not mean we give equal credence to opposing theories, or use a tone which seems to endorse either of them; if one situation is widely accepted, then it should be reported as such, while the opposite view might be mentioned as existing but not promoted. Worldtraveller 17:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By this logic every popular misconception in the world would be stated as fact. If you think my version is promoting one point of view, well, I don't know what to say to you. It plainly isn't. Your preferred version most certainly is promoting one point of view, though, because it states as fact something that is disputed and has been denied by the person being accused of it. It's really pretty simple, which makes it all the more exasperating. You think I write like a "defensive fan" in tone, OK, you rewrite it then. If your issue is only with the tone and not with what is actually stated, then we shouldn't be having a dispute about this. My purpose is to have a neutral tone. Everyking 18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Would the following version be objectionable?
 * In October 2004, she was accused of lip syncing when she was caught using a pre-recorded vocal track on the sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live. Simpson claimed she needed the track due to illness.  This highly publicized incident drew substantial negative attention from the press.
 * Skyraider 21:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * IMHO, that is an acceptable and NPOV stance to take on this issue. Hall Monitor 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fatigue may have dulled my perception but that looks pretty much like my version, so yeah, it's fine. Everyking 03:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's like saying "John Wilkes Booth was accused of assassinating the president when he fired a bullet into his body." Just say he assassinated the president. 68.118.61.219 19:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess that's what I get for trying to float a compromise. Well, okay, 68.118, if you feel that way, then either propose alternate language here or make an edit on the article itself.  (Those who feel equally strongly that what Ashlee Simpson did on SNL was *not* lip-syncing, perhaps you can take this opportunity to clarify the distinction.) Skyraider 22:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it was lip syncing per se or not. I don't feel strongly that it was or wasn't. I just think the distinction needs to be made for NPOV reasons. Everyking 03:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparent claims
I would like to talk about strengthening "claimed she needed" in the intro to "apparently needed". I say this because "claimed" seems to cast doubt on it&mdash;she claimed it, nothing more&mdash;whereas in fact the evidence is overwhelming that she was in fact sick. The 60 Minutes bit alone is almost rock solid. Then there's the footage from the reality show, and the fact that we already knew months before that she had this ailment which sometimes affected her voice. Everyking 04:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would not consider the reality show to be a reliable reference: more along the lines of historical fiction than biography, and thus good for general outlines, but not specific details. --Carnildo 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha. Well, it's footage. They don't call it a reality show for nothing. But still, there's the 60 Minutes segment. Everyking 07:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that she was sick, but to state as fact that the only response to her illness was to proceed with a backing vocal presupposes that there were no other options. SNL could have proceeded with an alternate musical guest (On any given night in New York, there are plenty of world class musicians who would be available for a last-minute substitution).  Or the show could have proceeded with no musical performance at all.  (SNL prepares 2 hours of material per show, of which the best 90 minutes sees broadcast.  They could easily have resurrected some of the material they dropped after dress rehearsal to fill time).--Skyraider 21:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a weird thing to say, because I am not proposing that was their only option. In any case it's well known they commonly use backing tracks on the show (even the week afterward Eminem was caught, albeit far less obviously, apparently using a track), so your opinion that you're going on about is off-base. But that's beside the point. Explain to me how saying that she apparently used the track because she was sick presupposes that there were no other options. It seems simple to me, but let's try an analogy. Say I have a cold but I go to work anyway. If, later on, I mention to someone that I went into work even though I had a cold, that person isn't going to think that I'm claiming, from a theoretical perspective, that there were no other options available, such as calling in sick and staying home, or for that matter driving my car off a bridge. Rather they will implicitly understand that there were other options, but I chose not to take them. Everyking 04:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Saying "although she apparently needed" gives the impression that the article endorses that viewpoint; saying "she claimed she needed" simply reports her claim, and is thus more NPOV. Worldtraveller 11:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Worldtraveller has got it right. Everyking, your situation really isn't analogous at all, because you're not making any claim of necessity. "she apparently used the track because she was sick" is not the language that was in the article. The word was "needed". Suppose Lorne Michaels took one of the options that eliminated Ashlee Simpson's performance from the broadcast. Would she still have needed a backing track? Obviously not. Therefore, her illness alone did not necessitate it.--Skyraider 17:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We're having this argument just because of the word "needed"? Good lord, I don't care if it says "needed" or "used". If it says "used", then will you agree to the change? Everyking 19:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes? No? Everyking 18:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the sentence is fine as it is. As per worldtraveller, it is more NPOV to use "she claimed she needed". --Mrfixter 19:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I already explained why it's inadequate. Read above. Everyking 21:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid not, it is adequate. Read above. --Mrfixter 23:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Lip synching
Surely there is no question that she was lip synching? If she was 'using a pre-recorded vocal track' what else can you call it? I'm not sure why this was described as POV vandalism. Worldtraveller 23:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've explained this to you already. One can use a backing track to enhance one's vocals while still singing. Lip-syncing means just moving the lips. Everyking 23:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes?
The footnotes here seem to be completely misaligned; in addition, there are 33, and only 32 referenced in the article. Anyone have the time to go through and fix this? Odysseyandoracle 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably needs work. The problem with setting things up that way is that it becomes very complicated and hard to change. Everyking 06:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia again
Earlier an anon vandalized the "trivia" section with the comment "what a retard". Once again I lobby for this section to be removed. I got two votes in favor and none against last time; should I take that as sufficient consensus, or would someone else like to weigh in? Everyking 04:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold and removed it. This sort of trivia (for or against Ashlee) isn't really appropriate, IMO. --Deathphoenix 13:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's discuss removing the "spammer" trivia. If we included everything as trivial as that our article would be enormous. In fact, in the past many things more notable than the spammer trivia have been removed, so I think it's time for that to go as well. Everyking 19:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Two things:


 * A) Unless someone opposes it in the next day or so, I'm removing the spammer trivia.
 * B) I would like to go ahead and start the article on the new album In Another Life, to be released in October. There is information about it I'd like to add to Wikipedia, but I feel it would be too detailed for this article. However, I'd like to hear some other opinions first, because I know some people think writing articles on yet-to-be-released albums is like trying to tell the future (which I think is flatly wrong, because you're using verifiable info, but that's just my opinion). Everyking 03:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the spammer trivia has already been discussed above, and consensus was to keep it. I believe it should be kept too, since the level of triviality of this item seems consistent with the level of triviality for some of the other items mentioned in the article. --Deathphoenix 04:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is nothing else even close to the level of non-notability of that bit of trivia. It's some posts on internet forums! Stuff that was five times more notable has been removed. It stands out like a sore thumb. I don't see how you can make this argument. Everyking 04:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Look. I made this point before, but I'll do it again: the spammer trivia made no newspapers, no magazines, and no TV shows. It's nothing! It was reported on some internet site and I, who keeps up with this stuff, didn't even hear about it until someone added it here. On the other hand, we have removed numerous things that have made it into all three of the above forms of sources. Everyking 04:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You have just made the case for keeping it. If it's not recorded here, this historically notable fact will disappear and be forgotten.
 * Well, you definitely know much more about Ashlee than me. I'm just putting in my opinion, as requested. If you remove the text, I won't revert it (though I can't speak for the others, of course). --Deathphoenix 06:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/start.html?pg=10   Keep it.
 * B) No objection
 * C) I've restored lipsync.us to the external links section. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe Wikipedia has any "recent updates" requirement for external links. Skyraider 14:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A)Right, and if I provide a link (or 10) for the hairstyle info, then can we restore that?
 * C) It's an argument, not a rule. Everyking 18:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A)I never said the hairstyle info wasn't mentioned anywhere, just that I didn't consider that level of detail to be encyclopedic. As for the astroturfing matter, you stated that it wasn't mentioned in any magazine, and I provided the Wired link as evidence to the contrary.
 * C) Fair enough.  Reasonable people can disagree about it.  Skyraider 21:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't tell if that's print or internet only content. If it's the former, I guess you proved me wrong, but the point still stands that her hairstyles get a lot more print coverage and yet we removed that. As for lipsync.us, I'm struggling to understand your motives for defending the inclusion of a ridiculous little hate site that hasn't been updated in six months, especially when we already have another hate site link. Help me out here. Everyking 03:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is Jargon Watch featured in print? Its inclusion by a Wired staffer makes it more notable than not, though. I personally don't think lipsync.us really needs to be kept, and I have no real opinion on her hairstyles (though I think the level of coverage given to it seems a little much). --Deathphoenix 04:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jargon Watch is most assuredly part of the print magazine. The link I provided relates to Volume 13, Issue 5, the May 2005 issue.  My motive for keeping lipsync.us is a desire to preserve balance.  In the link section, we have an official site and two declared fan sites.  (The Wikicities site is not exactly NPOV, either, but for argument's sake, let's assume it is.)  Under those circumstances, I don't think it's unreasonable to include 2 detractor sites, especially when the "ridiculous little" one apparently gets a quarter million hits a month.  On hairstyles, Everyking, we did not "remove that", as there are at least two mentions in separate sections of the article.  There was simply a disagreement about the appropriate level of detail, and I appealed to the consensus.  Skyraider 00:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, let's say we cut it down to one fan site and one hate site. Deal? Everyking 03:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If that's the consensus, I'll accept it, but it is actually a worse balance than we have now. Skyraider 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why should we remove lots of links, just because Every king doesn't like one or two of them? Worldtraveller 23:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recent edits have added to the article that Ashlee was "accused to lying to the American public" and so on (the additions stress lying). I believe this should be reverted as POV and excessive. Does anyone agree or disagree? Everyking 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I fixed up the hair paragraph only to have it removed within minutes, without even an edit summary. Would the user who did so please account for this deletion? Otherwise I'm restoring. Everyking 07:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't. First, you're not allowed to revert this article, per your arbcom decision. Second, I'm not sure that a detailed account of Ashlee Simpson's changing hair color is necessary in this article. Mrfixter, could you explain your removal to Everyking, though? Wish you'd used an edit summary. Rhobite 08:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am allowed to revert the article. Nothing in the decision says I can't revert. Everyking 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/Everyking
 * For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson except in cases of clear and obvious vandalism (as per definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism), with penalties as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. What constitutes a revert shall be left up to adminstrators' discretion.


 * Requests for arbitration/Everyking
 * Any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson, is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by the revert limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson and in the opinion of an administrator reverting the article.


 * Is that clear enough? --Carnildo 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just about to link to that too. Everyking, as a mentor I am also asking you not to replace the hair paragraph for the time being, please. Rhobite 17:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been explicitly told by the ArbCom that old cases are supplanted by new cases. That case does not apply any more, and hasn't for two months now. Everyking 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Since only one of Everyking last three edits had an edit summary, I confess I am suprised at his reaction. Either way, this hair color trivia is too trivial to be mentioned in this article. --Mrfixter 18:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The one edit summary I made covered all three of those edits. They all pertained to the same thing. But one was major and two were minor. I gave the major one a summary. Everyking 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaken EK, but I've requested clarification. Rhobite 20:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not mistaken. This was spelled out very clearly. Everyking 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know about the controversy surrounding this article, but I thought I'd weigh in with my two cents (I hope nobody minds). I think that the paragraph about Ashlee's hair colour could be condensed and turned into the caption of the image present in the "In 2005" section. Speaking as an Ashlee fan, I thought it was too trivial for its very own paragraph (no offense to the original editor). One problem with this suggestion is that information on the current image's source copyright status is missing on its description page, but I suppose the image could be replaced with a fair use screenshot from a recent television appearance or something. Extraordinary Machine 23:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't mind if you revise it however you like. I personally don't think two sentences was at all excessive, but if you think so you can change it to a caption or whatever, no harm done. Everyking 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)