Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Archive 3

My recent edit
The following is an explanation of what all I did to the article. I tried my best to clean it up and make it more palatable. I truly believe my changes have been for the better here. Please try to look at them objectively before passing judgement. One thing that still needs work: The references. Many of the things I removed were attributed to sources but not actually cited. If you can re-add them with an actual cite (transcripts of interviews are great) then please do.

Quotes

 * "...Basically, everything that I was going through in my life, ... I would go in the studio and write a song about it, and it was just kind of like ... a diary."

I removed this not only because it did nothing to add to the article (merely reinforces the line(s) before it) but also because I can find absoloutely no transcripts of it (for a credible cite). I did, however, keep the "reference" (though it isn't really one) in there.
 * I don't agree, the quote adds value to the article. Reading it helps users.  I trust Everyking, so no transcript is needed to verify her words.  Shard 02:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Responding to a question from Charles Gibson on Good Morning America&#8212;"You're 19 years old; how can you have an autobiography at 19?"&#8212;Simpson said half-jokingly: "Yeah, you know, it's pretty dramatic being 19 years old; I mean, we have boyfriends, we get our hearts broken..." (July 19, 2004)

I can't see what this really adds to the article or the paragraph it's in...again, it seems superfluous. Looked for a transcript to cite, but could once again find nothing.
 * I don't agree. Once again, it adds value to the article.  And again, I trust Everyking, so no transcipt is needed to verify her words.  Shard 02:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "I wanted to have, like, that element of, you know, rock ... the cool thing about, you know, rock is just to be able to go in there and...be free, and just kind of do whatever you want", Simpson said in one interview (Total Request Live UK, September 15, 2004)

Removed, kept the "cite" (even though these aren't really cites because it's not linking to where they were taken from! someone please fix?).
 * The article needs this quote. It's valuable interview information.  A transciption of the interview would be nice to get the full effect of Simpson's words, but only showing a portion helps to zero in a specific point. Shard 02:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "It was one of those songs where every silly thing that was sexual that I could think of I put into the song."3 In an appearance on Total Request Live on November 18, Simpson said light-heartedly about the song that "you can take it how you wanna take it." Reactions to the song have been mixed; People magazine called it "insipid" in its review of the album.

Restated.


 * In an appearance on Total Request Live on November 18, Simpson said light-heartedly about the song that "you can take it how you wanna take it."

Cite please.
 * Um, no offense, but your restatement isn't good. It lacks the nice flow of Everyking's version where Simpson's words are carefully adding value to the article. Shard 02:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "I just hoped my album charted. I didn't expect it to be number one in the country! It was a huge shock."


 * Simpson has said: "I think that it's an album that's, like, very true to my emotion; I think that, you know, people like to hear when somebody's being real, and you can, like, tell, if you listen to an album, if they're being real or not, you know, and I think that people have enjoyed that, and at the same time ... a lot of different ages can listen to it..." (Capital FM, London, September 15, 2004)

Tried to summarize, but without a real cite...:\
 * Your summary sounds incomplete and like sparse without Simpson's full words. Shard 02:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding it being the third single, she said: "It's nice because, you know, "Pieces of Me" was, you know, an up and happy kind of song, and "Shadow" was more serious, and now I get to have fun and, you know, jump around and be crazy, so I feel like this song's probably the closest to my personality."


 * although she is chronically late&mdash;"I am so late to every single meeting I go to!"


 * "The first time I worked with John," she says during the show, "we wrote a song called "Surrender", and we did it in like two hours, something like that, and it was just so short, and like, a great song."


 * Wading in again, my problem with the quotes - as alluded to in the post I made in the archive, above - is that Simpson almost certainly had no hand in writing the songs, and therefore she has nothing of substance to say about them. If we want to cut to the core of Simpson's music, we would need to find quotes from the songwriters, which are not forthcoming. Furthermore, these verbatim droves of 'like' and 'you know' are hard to read and reflect badly on Simpson; when news reporters quote politicians and businessmen they usually edit out of the 'ums' and 'ahs', and at the very least we need to do that here. Which leads to the further problem, which is what without the 'likes' and 'you knows', there wouldn't be much left. - Ashley Pomeroy 19:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably, removing the 'like' and 'you know' from the interviews can help, but the benefit of having those far outweight the costs. Without them, readers can't feel the true persona behind the album. Shard 02:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reviews
This was a toughie. I really have a hard time with any article that saturates itself with quotes; in an ideal world, the information should be summarized and then strongly cited. So that's what I tried to do...I removed most of the quotations, reworded the information and added cites so people could read it word-for-word if they so desired. I really think this is easier to read and doesn't make the article come across as a magazine article (something I've been taking issue with). But for records' sake, I'm copying all the quotes here (not necessarily in order):


 * People magazine regarded the album as a "passable debut" and said that it showed Simpson was a "credible talent in her own right" (August 2, 2004, page 41)


 * All Music Guide said it was "an unexpectedly strong debut".


 * Blender magazine said in its review that "there isn't a song on her debut that doesn't paint in huge strokes" (September 2004)


 * Billboard said that it was "chock-full of catchy songs." (August 7, 2004)


 * "edgy, soulful and real".


 * Rolling Stone, for example, called it "mundane" with a "predictable script". (August 5, 2004)


 * the BBC said that "half the album ... feels self indulgent and lacks substance".


 * IGN.com, in a mixed review, called it "by-the-books, generic (and at times bland) pop/rock". (September 17, 2004)


 * "a never-ending battle against adolescent insecurity."


 * "American Sweetheart is tragic and blasted and pissed-off and pathetic and desperate and sad; Autobiography is all those things, plus it has Fruit Stripe bubblegrunge guitars and insanely chewy melodies and an ear-tickling production job." In addition, it praised Simpson's singing, stating: "...Simpson can pack so much contradictory emotion into a single line&#8212;a single word&#8212;that the music can barely contain it." 2


 * the New York Times, in its review of the album, said that Autobiography "is a thoroughly calculated package, aiming for the same audience that embraces Avril Lavigne and Pink."


 * The Village Voice review described the song as "a compact masterpiece of wrist-pumping Joan Jett rock candy".


 * Reactions to the song have been mixed; People magazine called it "insipid" in its review of the album.

I really want to keep this in the article but I can't find a cite! So I just removed it for now.


 * People magazine said that Simpson "succumbs to cliché" on this song.

See above.


 * described by People magazine as a "bubbly" song that "should have Hilary Duff worried".

So many quotes, so few cites.


 * was described by People magazine as "Joan Jett-esque", but in its review, People also said that Simpson "doesn't quite nail" the song's "tough rocker-chick pose".

Sigh.


 * However, IGN, in its review of the album, called it a "slow-to-mid-tempo shuffle that actually features some poignant imagery", but "falls victim to the run-of-the-mill production and eventually simplistic lyrics."

There...Don't think I missed any.
 * I don't think it was a good idea to summarize and/or remove the above quotes. Your definition of an ideal world greatly differs from mine.  In my ideal world, the information should be kept in the article.  It creates a professional tone to the article, if you don't believe me...read the article out loud.  It sounds like an informative article giving specific instances of the album's impact throughout the narrative.  I don't see how some people, I won't mention names, can find the reading uncomfortable or cumbersome.  Unless, english isn't their first language or something.  Shard 02:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Album and charts success
This was apparently the subject of a huge dispute. I think I've come to a compromise: I left in more information and was more specific about the small spike at week 12. The rest of it I condensed. I honestly don't think anybody needs a 17 week play-by-play of album sales and chart positions; I have yet to see this on any other article and it could even technically qualify for original research (since it was admitted that this information was recorded as it was released...not to mention there are no cites backing it up).
 * Your compromise isn't satisfactory. Everyking's version displayed valuable statistics and data.  A citation isn't necessary.  Would you delete the number of people killed in World War II because every source has a different number?  Shard 02:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I dispute that the week by week chart positions are valuable statistics and data. I would delete them all and simply state "Debuted at No 1. Went Platinum very quickly." The rest is pure fancruft. I mean I am a fan of certain bands and the only thing that interests me is the highest position that the CD reached, and even then I don't try and add this information to wikipedia, instead I summarise in some way all the chart postitions worldwide and ideally find a citation to support this. Also the week by week chart positions are original research. By all means publish the information somewhere else and then link to it for those that are interested. - Drstuey 06:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Promotion
This entire section needs better citing IMO. I left it alone for now, but this is just for future reference.
 * Personally I think the entire section should be deleted because none of the TV appearances mentioned are notable. - Drstuey 06:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Overall
Well, that's it. Again, please read and respond before blindly reverting. I'm trying to make this article better overall; keep this in mind. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 16:58, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * This seems good work to me. There really were too many quotes for comfortable reading, it seems to flow well now  -- sannse (talk) 19:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I read both versions. I agree with Sannse.  The reworked version was easier to read and looked more like an encyclopedia article. The Punisher 22:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reene, pick one thing you would like to discuss and we will deal with each issue separately. I would also appreciate an apology for all the things you said before. Everyking 22:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Everyking. Reene's edit seemed valid and useful.  I really think that reverting is a bad idea here -   surely you can work with these changes rather than simply removing them.  -- sannse (talk) 22:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I give it an honest try and get shot down for no apparent reason other than "you must do what I say". I'm not feeling the Wikilove here. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 22:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely, if opinion opposes me, I will respect that opinion. However, I'm an editor too, and I can't even begin to digest all the changes that Reene made. We will have to discuss the changes one at a time. Everyking 23:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Then why not do so in the other direction. Check each of the changes in turn, and describe why you have a problem with any of them you disagree with.  That still allows discussion, and doesn't throw away a good chunk of work by Reene -- sannse (talk) 23:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Which takes more work, building a house or bulldozing one? We should err on the side of inclusion of information. Everyking 23:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Popular opinion already does, and I took great pains to lay out my changes one by one for everybody to see here. The only major thing I did was remove/condense/re-cite the excessive quotes in the article- and I copied all of the quotes here for archives' sake. I agree wholeheartedly with Sannse: I have no problem with changes being made (you'll notice I encouraged them because the article was sorely lacking in cites) but I strongly disagree with all my work being immediately reverted just because. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 23:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree this was bulldozing. The large number of quotes really made this less comfortable to read and the information contained in the quotes can be better presented in another form. From what I see of the changes, Reene has been careful not to remove too much information. And she has given a lot of information in talk to explain her changes - that's valuble -- sannse (talk) 23:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll also say that I think your last edit comment was unfair. The implication that Reene is not being civil or editing collaboratively with this edit is not on. She has made careful changes and explained them fully in talk - that's collaborative editing - reverting is not. I know that there is a lot of argument behind all this, and a lot of bad feeling has developed, but I think that this edit can be built on rather than discarded. What's happening again on this article is simply extening the bad feeling -- sannse (talk) 23:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I will happily discuss any of the changes, but they must be discussed one at a time. Sannse, I know you're a reasonable editor, but understand that Reene is not being reasonable, and that should be obvious to anyone reading this. You cannot reasonably expect me to have my article wrecked and have to deal with that all at once. My personal opinion is that Reene simply doesn't like Ashlee Simpson and has decided, by extension, that she doesn't like me either, and consequently she wants to get on my nerves. In which case she is succeeding brilliantly. Everyking 23:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not being reasonable?
 * I've managed to keep my biases separate from the article- something it seems you have a more difficult time doing, since according to some other users you're a fairly good editor when it comes to other articles and your behavior on this is very much out of character.
 * My reasons for disliking you run much deeper than that. I understand the desire to make them into something shallow and undeserved, but really, to preach this as though it is some fact you are privy to is silly and (dare I say) uncivil. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 23:29, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand when you say your article was wrecked. I thought it was Wikipedia's article and partly belonged to Reene.  When I read through it with the changes, it was easier than before and I didn't notice any wreckage. The Punisher 23:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Everyking, I simply don't agree that Reene's edits are wrecking the article, to my eyes they are improving an already good piece of work. Although I do agree that personalities are beginning to be more the point of conflict here than the actual article itself.   Perhaps it is time to back away from the article and try and sort out the conflict on a more personal level -- sannse (talk) 23:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See, note the difference here: Sannse is at least saying that the article was good before as well, and isn't calling me a horrible person. I can talk all day long with someone who is willing to be reasonable like that. Do you understand why I might be hesitant to deal with someone who has repeatedly done the opposite, and who has caused me such a degree of stress? The least I can expect is to have the changes discussed one at a time. Everyking 23:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aren't there a wee bit to many quotes now?
Really, while there is certainly nothing wrong with citing sources, Everyking's version seems like one fine example of overdoing this. This is the Wikipedia, here we have articles. (And remember, too many quotes in a text will get you bad marks at school as well.) For quotes, we have Wikiquotes. So I clearly support the less-quotes-version.

Also, @Everyking, certainly you are not serious when requesting changes to be done "one by one", because you "can't deal with all this at once". Really, how long have you been here? We encourage people not to clutter up an articles history, and if you really cannot handle "so many" changes at once, the WP:Sandbox is probably a better place for you to play. -- AlexR 23:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I also support the Renee less-quotes version. Personally I would take even more of the quotes out. None of them are remotely interesting or useful, they are mindless fluff that you would find in a TV Guide magazine rather than quotes you would find in an encyclopedia. - Drstuey 06:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Care to point out all the quotes you deem as "mindless fluff"? They are all crucial to the article. Shard 06:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert war
Well, now we've encountered the 3RR's more problematic side: I've reverted 3 times, and so has Reene. If I revert again, I'll be breaking it first, so I'll be guilty while she's still technically innocent. I ask you, is this fair? Everyking 23:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's the general idea, he who starts the edit war, looses. If your reverts are valid then someone else will join the dispute and revert for you. Except in the case of simple vandalism (which obviously this isn't) that's the way it works -- sannse (talk) 23:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I won't revert a fourth time, but at the same time I won't be backed into a corner here and forced to discuss the article on unacceptable terms. If Reene isn't willing to discuss her changes one at a time, I'll simply wait until this time tomorrow and revert again. Everyking 23:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Now who is behaving uncivilly?
 * I listed all of my changes above. All of them. Pick one and start talking or shut up and stop bitching. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 23:51, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Everyking, if you do that, then you will simply be in this position again tomorrow after the same number of reverts. Is that really the best plan? Why not start discussing the edit specifically. Don't get overwhelmed by the changes, just read the dif to the first part of the edit you object to, and start with discussing that. How would that work for you both? (And please both of you try to keep things civil) -- sannse (talk) 23:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes yes, you're right of course, I'm sorry. Temptation is sometimes too much to resist. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 23:56, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I am being perfectly civil. But there is only so much I can do. One can't make concessions all day long, or by the end of the day one has nothing left. I am absolute on the point that in a dispute changes should be moderate and gradual, and I will stick to that point. I will accept one element of Reene's edit, any portion she chooses, provided she restores the rest. Otherwise there can be no discussion. Everyking 23:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to make concessions, I'm saying that the article is as it is, but that you should ask Reene to make concessions in response to any valid and discussed disagreements you have with her edit.   All I'm asking you to do is to explain specifically the problems you have with it.  Just the first one to start with.  Surely that's a better plan that scheduling another edit war for tomorrow? -- sannse (talk) 00:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Civility and moderation must be the basis of any discussion, and apparently Reene is unwilling to be civil or moderate. It doesn't help that other users, yourself included, are enabling her behavior. Everyking 00:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "enabling her behaviour". I certainly have said that I think her edit is an improvement to the article, and I stand by that view. I also stand by my requests to both of you to be civil - which Reene replied to with an apology. My hope here was to try and defuse some of the obvious tension and hostility on both sides of the disputes (which I am aware spans several pages and involves several users). I trust in the good intent of all the participants, but I feel that things have simply got too heated for the argument to go anywhere right now. -- sannse (talk) 00:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from this article/talk page as well as any related articles/talk pages for an undetermined amount of time (day or so at least). I would highly suggest Everyking do the same as we could both use some relatively extended time away from this and all relevant articles. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 00:45, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

How long will this revert war last? Frankly, I find the trimmed down and summarized version more readable. I don't see how the 2 parties can discuss when they can't even agree on what terms to have the discussion. Should I request this for page protection to stop the edit war? or will both sides just work on separate versions in their user subpages and when the protection is lifted the war starts all over again? The Punisher 01:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it will last until Reene either quits or is willing to discuss the article reasonably, one change at a time, on the basis of a spirit of compromise as opposed to simply getting her way. Note that she also inserts all kinds of subtle inaccuracies into the article with her paraphrasing, which I was fastidious in avoiding as I was originally writing it. Everyking 01:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not a soothsayer, and I doubt anyone else here is either. I've tried my very hardest to come to an agreeable compromise (middle ground) but it seems that's impossible when some people hold different definitions of the word "compromise". I'm considering a few other courses of action, I'll be sure to leave a note when I've come up with something. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 01:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Every single time I've proposed a compromise I've been ignored. I'm sick of it. What's the point of even trying? It seems plain that you will not agree to my pledge to discuss things on talk before making major changes, and that you won't agree to my plan for conflict resolution through gradual discussion of individual points. Everyking 01:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't start this again. What you offered was not a compromise (saying I could keep one edit and that I have to revert the rest is not compromising), and you did not ask for agreement with anything else, you made a decree. You're also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of concerned users agree that the version without superfluous quotes is easier to read and is overall better for the article. I would ask that you review their comments once more before responding again. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 02:06, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I guess this goes back to what Sannse was mentioning yesterday. There will be a displayed version and the other party will have to discuss how their edits are harmful/beneficial one by one. I doubt it can be settled on which version is displayed and which party discusses their edits one by one. Well, I hope the best for both you. I have to go to sleep now. The Punisher 02:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is what I attempted to do with my original edit by posting everything I changed, so it would be subject to discussion and dissection and so we could (hopefully) come to consensus. Obviously, this did not go as I'd hoped. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 02:12, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's fundamentally absurd to say the displayed version should be the new version with less information. Logically it should be the old version, which survived without controversy for a long time, and we should err on the side of including more information. Everyking 02:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Could you please point me to a policy that says the old version == better by default? I'd be interested in reading it. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 02:39, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

All right, I've thought things over, gotten a little sleep, and now I have a new proposal to make. There were two quotes in the old version that I myself thought were questionable in their value&mdash;the GMA quote and the TRL UK quote. I would like to replace the TRL UK quote with a better one, if I can find one; we can either omit a quote in the place of the GMA quote or I'll try to find another one, or I can try to think of a way to develop the paragraph further without a quote. Can everyone agree on this, that we restore the old version, with these exceptions, and then continue discussion for the time being on these two points until they are resolved? I want to point everyone's attention to something I said yesterday, as well:


 * "I think we should agree that any edit to the article that might be controversial should be discussed here on talk first, to see if there are any objections. I'll make that pledge myself, to describe any major changes I plan to implement here first and wait for others' reactions, and if others will make the same pledge, I think we really can get this up to featured quality and avoid a revert war and protection at the same time."

Now, compare that to what Reene has been doing here, in absolute defiance of the whole spirit of compromise that pervades what I wrote there. Everyking 04:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Something else:
 * "Many of the pictures, such as the one used for the front cover of the album, show Simpson in a dark setting, with graffiti-style writing scrawled on the wall behind her, and in two of the pictures used for the album, she is laying on a black couch: the one used for the back cover, a fairly close shot of Simpson's face as she is laying on her side, and the one used for the back of the CD booklet, in which she is shown smiling, laying on her back."


 * I think we can remove everything after "black couch"; it's a nice bit of detail, but not necessary, and I'm willing to discard it in a case like this. Perhaps I will create an article Autobiography album design or something like that for this. Everyking 05:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I feel like I'm making progress! I removed two quotes, simplified the inline references as John advised me to do, removed the triviality about her album couch poses, and removed the Village Voice review from the table since it was already in the references. The table formatting looks a little funny now, but I imagine someone else can fix that easily enough. Of course, if anyone else did all this they'd be praised, but since my edits are cursed from on high I may be promptly reverted; we'll see. Everyking 06:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK...well, my new article Autobiography album design got promptly VfDed, and I was using that as part of my plan to condense this article. So I don't know. Obviously I can't merge all that stuff back into this article; people thought it was trivial when it was less detailed than what's in the subarticle now. Everyking 07:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it definitely looks better than before. If Reene's edits were merged with this, I think this would make for a strong article. I strongly dispute Shard's contention that every possible quote Simpson has made should be in the article, though. This is an encyclopedia, not a book of quotations. Johnleemk | Talk 07:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But Reene didn't add anything, she just deleted stuff. What do you want to merge? I tried to respect her fundamental point, which was that the article should be condensed, and I think I accomplished that. Certainly I don't believe all Ashlee quotes should be in an article, we have Wikiquote, just those pertinent to the subject that help inform the reader and add context. Everyking 07:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When Reene was deleting chart and sales data, I noticed she also deleted this&mdash;(the closest she came was with the release of the special edition of In This Skin in early 2004, which debuted at number two)&mdash;and I thought I'd explain why I've restored it. It provides context to Ashlee's stardom; it shows that Jessica had a major boost in popularity in the months before Autobiography was released. Moreover, this is something I frequently see mentioned, so certainly I figure Wikipedia ought to mention it. Everyking 08:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a compromise if other people are still reverting it. A compromise should be something everyone is okay with. Rather 21:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re-added one of my edits
Everyking, your latest revert read "is this what I get for spending all that time creating a compromise version?" Well, I'm wondering the exact same thing. Seemingly without even reading over or responding to any of the things I posted here in the spirit of compromise, understanding, and mediation, you reverted all of my edits, making decrees as though they were final and somehow spoke for everybody while accusing me of being "nothing more than a troll" and saying I was attempting to "destroy" everything you've done to the article. I don't think this attitude is a benefit to Wikipedia at all, and I'm sure you'll agree. In fact, all of these things have been quite hurtful to me as an editor and as a person. In the spirit of Mergism, I've re-added a snip of the text that was reverted, leaving the rest of your edits to the article alone. I do not believe what you claimed to be a "compromise" before was really a compromise at all- telling another editor, an equal, that they must do this or else is nothing short of an ultimatum and once again, that kind of attitude is harmful to the Wikipedia as a whole. Now, I think all of this has arisen from the fact that we're both defensive of our work and our opinions. That's fine, but in this case it's been taken too far. I'd like to once again ask that we both take a short break from all of the articles in question and come back when we've had time to cool off. I hope you will at least acknowledge my request this time. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 01:11, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, we can discuss things on the basis of gradual edits, taken one stage at a time, as is necessary in any dispute such as this. I do consider your edits destructive&mdash;very much so&mdash;and I am unable to think of a motive for it besides a plain dislike for Ashlee Simpson. But of course, your motive really has nothing to do with anything, I suppose. The point is that you're not making worthwhile edits to the article, and you don't seem prepared to discuss them moderately as I've repeatedly requested. Everyking 01:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It appears you've broken the 3RR here, so I don't see how you can accuse others of being destructive and working in bad faith. I'd also note that the 3RR now has teeth as the proposal passed, so I'd be careful about violating it, as you can now be banned for doing so. I don't want to see you banned, but if you keep reverting the article, sooner or later someone is bound to take notice and ban you. Shane King 02:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Because my reverts haven't been destructive. They've been restoring information. Same as if someone blanked the page and I reverted it thirty times. Of course I know about the 3RR rule enforcement, but I voted against it myself, so I take no blame for that, if it is indeed judged to have passed. Everyking 02:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm certain your perception of the reverts is that you are justified. However, I once again ask you review the comments that have been left on this page concerning the section currently in question. Overwhelming opinion is that the truncated/cited version is generally more palatable and should be kept. Then I also ask that you read the paragraph I posted just above. I'm extending an olive branch here; it is entirely your choice as to whether or not you will take it or torch it. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 02:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why don't you take one of the many olive branches I've extended since this whole thing began? I refuse to accept that all of my compromises, from an editor who actually knows the subject and cares about it, are to be ignored and substituted for a "compromise" that would only do the article harm. That's unacceptable. And do you remember the time I suggested we start over on a new leaf and you responded with terse rudeness? Revert your edit, choose one thing you'd like to discuss, and from there we can proceed on a basis of civility. Everyking 03:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact that you are knowledgable and care deeply about the subject matter is a handicap here, something I am not sure you realize. And while I'm sure you perceive my changes as "harmful", "destructive", or "wrecking" the article, overwhelming consensus still says that they are actually an improvement on the article. I do not respond well to snideness, ultimatums, demands, or threats; this is no exception. I will not revert my edit. It is, after all, "one element" of my edit- and wasn't one of your proposed "compromises" that I choose "one element" of my total original edit while leaving the rest alone? That is what I have done. "Your" article is still for the most part yours. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 03:10, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think it matters whether you voted for it or not, someone can still ban you for violating it. Whether you agree with Reene's changes or not, surely you can see they're not clear vandalism, and therefore can not be reverted more than three times without risking getting yourself banned. This dispute isn't worth getting banned over. Anyway, all I wanted to do is make sure you know that since the 3RR enforcement vote is over, reverting more than three times is taking a risk which I think is silly. Shane King 05:33, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll be keeping an eye on my clock for when the allotted time rolls around. I have a 5,000 page watchlist to tend to; the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long. Everyking 05:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant a small portion. Something manageable. Reword one sentence, remove one quote. You can still do that. That's one compromise. Another compromise is to revert to my previous version, which was itself tailored as a compromise, and leave it at that. A third option is to revert to that version and then we can start to "think outside the box" about ways to work on the article without cutting out good quotes and factual info. Those are the three options on the table. Everyking 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * None of those are compromises, not fair ones anyway. Coming to a compromise means coming to an acceptable middle ground, not "allowing" someone to make a very minor change so long as they promise not to touch the rest of it.
 * Those are NOT the three options on the table. What about the compromises I've offered? Such as my leaving the rest of the article alone while removing all of the superfluous quotes from that one section? You seem to think that the only available/acceptable compromises are ones that you yourself have offered.
 * By the way, if I continue seeing extremely negative, hurtful, and insulting comments on other users' talk pages about me, I'll be forwarding all of this to people better equipped to handle it. This is not the way to build a better Wikipedia. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 03:39, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Reene, we all know how brutally offensive I am. I'm still waiting for an apology for all that you said before. As for compromise, I don't know what to tell you. You can think about those options if you want, or you can propose something else, but personally I don't know of anything else that would work out. Everyking 03:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell from reading the voluminous talk pages Renee is the only one of the two of you who has apologised. It is you who owe her an apology, not the other way around. - Drstuey

Well, until Reene has a change of heart I don't suppose we're going to get anywhere, so I've started an inclusionist version of the article in my own namespace (top of the page) for people to work on if they like if Reene's version happens to be up at any given time. Everyking 04:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it is significant that the protection message says users are welcome to 'add' to the version in your name space. You are unwilling to allow any of the un-important non-enclyopedic fanboy fluff to be changed, summarised or removed, and only accept other people's collaboration if they add to it.

RfC'd again
I re-added the page to RfC with a new explanation of the situation. Hopefully we'll be able to get a little community insight now. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 18:50, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

In protest at this lunacy, I will conduct no further discussion on this page until the article is either unprotected or restored while protected to the version with the most information. Everyking 08:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The longer you refuse to discuss it, the longer it will remain protected. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 08:51, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, someday I figure you'll be banned for what you've been doing here, and then there will be no more dispute. Everyking 08:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What "lunacy" would you be referring to, Everyking? Certainly not Reene's attempts at improving an overly long article. No matter how feverently you believe so, what Reene's done is not even close to being ban-worthy. --Calton 09:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should congratulate you on your two week anniversary as a Wikipedia editor, Calton. Everyking 09:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. No-Perspective Fan-Boy. I suppose I should have congratulated you, old-timer, on your nine-month anniversary. Woo-hoo! Also on your going a whole 33 minutes before breaking your no-discussion pledge.

Besides, what are you worried about? If you are so fervently convinced of the righteousness of your position, peer review ought to be a walk in the park. --Calton 09:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What has peer review got to do with anything, Calton? Everyking 09:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * And what is your problem with peer review that you would categorize it as "lunacy"? If it's obviously crazy, no worries, mate. --Calton 06:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)?


 * I haven't characterized peer review as lunacy. I'm fine with it. I don't know what you're talking about. Everyking 08:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about.


 * In protest at this lunacy, I will conduct no further discussion on this page until the article is either unprotected or restored while protected to the version with the most information - what you wrote within this very section.


 * Oh, and what about your stern promise to hold your tongue? Didn't understand that, either? --Calton 13:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. What I wrote there didn't have anything to do with peer review. Do you have any understanding of the basis of this dispute at all? And by the way, I've long since dropped the no-discussion pledge, which was made in a moment of blind rage. Now it's only Reene who's refusing to discuss. Everyking 13:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Size
If the size of the article is the problem, why not make some subarticles for long section, which you can summarize here? No information will be lost and the size of this article will be kept down. -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:32, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

That's a good idea, actually, but the whole basis for the dispute is that Reene thinks the topic is unimportant and therefore much of the information needs to be removed. This all started because she felt La La should be merged with this article. Everyking 09:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Once again, I object to being told what I think, and I would like to ask that you obstain from being snide towards me while there is mediation in process.
 * Also, I never said "much" of it needed to be removed. Please do not misrepresent my words or intentions when I have made them quite clear in the past. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 10:15, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Do you remember what you wrote on the RfC page earlier today about what I think? Everyking 10:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reene, I don't hold a grudge against anybody. What do you say we agree to a compromise for the duration of protection? We ought to agree to merge our two versions together for the sake of fairness, so it's not one-sided. This would make it much easier to maintain goodwill as well. So I propose that I get to restore my version of the "about the songs" section, and you can have your version of the sales and charts section in the abbreviated form that you prefer for the time being. How's that for a deal? Everyking 14:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, frankly, if this (posted after you acknowledged my mediation request, btw) is your idea of "not holding a grudge" against anybody I'd hate to see you when you are holding one. The intent is the same even if the medium is not. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 06:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

If I may quote Reene's journal, in which she refers to my specific user name: "This along with some other evidence I got from other users leads me to believe the guy is an utter fanboy with a complete inability to lose the bias and edit in a useful manner. This would be a bit more easy if the guy wasn't a god damned sysop to boot. I'm against a fucking brick wall here."

I take it you refuse my compromise above? Everyking 08:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The difference being that is my personal journal, whereas you are nothing but a petty, immature vandal throwing a hissy fit because the article got protected on a version that wasn't by you (yes, I saw you screaming on Snowspinner's talk page). You are damned right I will not consider anything further from you after that kind of bullshit. I'm going to wait for the Mediation committee to intervene with something acceptable, and if they don't/can't, I'm going straight to Arbitration. I'm tired of this shit from you. You're a sysop and (I assume) an adult, start acting like one. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 09:18, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you see the irony in what you just wrote? Everyking 09:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would remind you, Reene, of the personal attacks policy on Wikipedia. Specifically, that they are not allowed. Snowspinner 15:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course. How could I forget? Everyking has been playing the wounded victim the whole time, despite comments like "I get no credit for that at all, while Reene, who is nothing but a troll with a personal dislike for Ashlee Simpson, gets praised for demolishing the article," and "You see now the can of worms it's opened, with trolls now taking advantage of it," (this one is from your own talk page btw). Let's not forget about these! (So much for personal attacks in edit summaries being a big no-no.) And I'm the one who is now being warned for "personal attacks", despite all this and his vandalizing my personal journal? Bullshit. Where were you a few days ago when he was taking out personal campaigns against me? Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 20:44, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Reene, I don't mind what you want to say about me. People ought to speak their mind about me, good or bad. That's not a problem. So like I said, I don't hold a grudge. I'm just concerned about the article itself. There's no sense in depending solely on mediation, either, when we're both intelligent people who can hold a discussion as well as anybody, and there's certainly no sense in depending on arbitration&mdash;you know how they deal with disputes, blocks across the board. And it wouldn't benefit Wikipedia for either one of us to get blocked, would it? Anyone who reads my candidate statement can see my opinion on that. Nor would it resolve the issue in question. So let's rethink the compromise proposal above. I also want to point out that you have effectively lost the VfD debate on La La, if we count up the votes, which means that you can't merge that article into this one, so I'm unsure what you're still fighting for. Clarity on both sides is necessary for conflict resolution; we ought to know who stands for what. I think I've made my stance clear; what is yours? I will reiterate mine if you ask me to.

I want the full sales and chart data in the article, there's no doubt about that. But we can call a truce. I'll let you keep that data truncated, and I'll even let you leave out the Jessica Simpson In This Skin aside if you like. In return, I would like to have my version of the review section restored, because I think the most important thing for a reader is to get a fair summary of the album's critical reception, in case they are trying to decide whether or not to buy it. I'd also like us to agree that in the future we won't remove information without discussing it, and that I will be free to continue my normal work in improving the article without being in the middle of a revert war. I will be happy to keep talking here&mdash;and not reverting&mdash;until doomsday. What do you say? Everyking 16:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What part of "mediation" didn't you understand? Believe it or not, I was ready to jump on your first proposal for compromise yesterday before I discovered the nasty things you wrote in my journal. Now all bets are off, and it is your own doing. Gee, I wonder if that wasn't intentional?
 * By the way, VfD isn't about winning or losing, and I'm not the one that listed it in the first place. Stop the pettiness please. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 20:44, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Note that I did not break off communication with you when I discovered the viciousness you'd written about me outside of Wikipedia because, while it was somewhat irritating to me, nobody has any jurisdiction over that. In fact, I chose to not even bring it up. Anyway, you missed the point about VfD; the point was that you originally started this whole mess because you wanted to merge the article here, and now you can't do that, because the community has rejected it. However, your attitude is clear, and if you don't want to continue discussion, that's your right. But understand that the article can't just stay protected forever because you refuse to discuss matters, and understand also that the community at large would not be likely to look favorably on such an attitude. Everyking 21:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Once again, the difference is that it is my personal journal. If I'd written something nasty about you on my namespace that would be a different matter entirely, but the simple fact is you chose to make an attempt at attacking me personally under the "veil" of anonymity (guess that didn't work out for you did it?) on my personal journal changes everything.
 * Also, I'd like to remind you that I was not only not the first one to take issue with the article but certainly not the only one that supported my stance. Whereas you have...one person. Versus how many. Who, exactly, is the community not looking kindly upon? Someone who has made good faith attempts at compromise or someone repeatedly throwing fits and doing their best impression of a brick wall?
 * And I said I'd wait for mediation. Go read up on what mediation is. I'm not refusing to discuss anything, rather, I'm trying to force you to discuss things in a more rational, civil manner, even if it takes a babysitter to do so. And with that this particular discussion ends. I will wait patiently for a mediator. I suggest you do the same. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 21:40, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Read above for my attempt to discuss things in a more civil and rational manner. Not that I haven't generally been civil and rational, but I'll grant that I've gotten more worked up than I should. I've apologized personally to Snowspinner for getting so angry on his talk page. However, I have never displayed anything even close to your level of absolute hostility and contempt. In fact, I don't have any problem with you at all aside from your particular stubborness regarding this article (well, that and the fact that I find the VfD excerpt on your user page to be an expression of incivility) and I think you seem like an intelligent person. In all honesty, I can't even begin to fathom such animosity on your part. I try to overlook it and move beyond it, and you see where it gets me? If mediation is to work, you still need to change your attitude to be at least marginally conciliatory, so this doesn't bode well. Everyking 22:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also don't think this article should be protected if you're unwilling to discuss anything, so I'll consider asking for unprotection if this continues. I have much work left to do on it and I don't appreciate it being put on hold indefinitely like this. Moreover, the stress caused by all this has left me unmotivated to do research on improving various points in the article. Everyking 22:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have more information regarding chart and sales data I would like to add. Autobiography fell to 51 in its 17th week, but rose back to 50 in its 18th week, so it is at present still in the top fifty. As this is a factual matter of some importance, I will feel free to add it myself unless Reene voices an explicit objection. Everyking 00:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I won't do that. I don't want anybody to hunt me down and kill me, and since Reene apparently won't respond to me at all now, I guess my only option is to work on the temp version. People can see the work I'm doing on expanding and reworking my version of the article here. Everyking 20:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the radio interview which I cite twice in the article, because it's the only one of the awkward inline cites remaining. Would it be acceptable to cite a radio interview as a reference in the reference section? I'd think not, but I don't know. Maybe I could just integrate it into the text: "In an interview with Capital FM (London), Simpson said..." Everyking 01:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection
Noting that the three revert rule can now be used as a basis for blocking anyone if they get out of control, I have unprotected the page. The reasonable discussion going on here suggests to me that hopefully such measures will not be necessary, though.

Apparently there is also the temp version, which I have not done anything with. In the end, whatever version ends up on this page, the temp page should be redirected to the article and/or moved out of the article namespace. --Michael Snow 17:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that the article has been unprotected, I think it's a good time to start fresh. For my part, I want to apologize to Reene for calling her a troll and a vandal at various points, and for any kind of poor attitude I've displayed. She need not apologize for the nasty things she has said about me and to me; I have no problem with any of that, I am completely past it. I also want to apologize for rudely commenting in her journal; she need not apologize to me for the things she wrote that provoked those responses, which I shall not repeat here. I can forgive and forget. I hope the revised version I've added, with a fair amount of new info, will be acceptable to everyone, including Reene. Personally, I think this article is nearing featured quality. If Reene wants to summarize info, I will be happy to discuss how best to summarize it here on talk; if she wants to remove information, that might be OK as well, provided it can be convincingly argued that said information is trivial and non-notable. Everyking 19:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * she need not apologize to me for the things she wrote that provoked those responses. Ah, blaming the victim, always a lovely start to an apology, and certainly demonstrates one's sincerity, too. --Calton 08:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Serenity now, serenity now... Everyking 13:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)