User talk:Evengan

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edge of Glory. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I meant no disrespect. I just noticed sarcasm at that user's comment, so I responded with sarcasm, but not in the uncivil way you may think of. I hope we're okay now. --Evengan (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm pleased that you meant no disrespect, but please try to keep cool in future. Happy editing! Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your comment as disrespectful at all! Like you say, you were replying to a sarcastic comment in the same tone. Just thought I'd represent 'the other side' here, so to speak (especially as Adabow didn't post a similar comment on the other editor's discussion page)! (Paul237 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Cool, thanks. --Evengan (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:HairBTWCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:HairBTWCover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MacMedtalk stalk 01:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HairBTWCover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:HairBTWCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hair move
Hey before you move the article, ask me. It can be nominated for a WP:DYK credit, wich I will nominate you for. Got it? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * DYK is the abbreviation for "Did You Know?" which you can see on Wikipedia's main page. It is actually an interesting piece of information from an article you nominate. For eg "...Did you know that Clarence Clemons, who played saxophone in singer Lady Gaga's song "Hair", was asked to come to the recording studio immediately and reached there at midnight. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 13:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, it reached the charts in Ireland and Portugal. Isn't it enough?
 * I will need sources for both charts please. --Evengan (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to mainspace now, hope you like it. I have nominated ourselves for a DYK credit. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic
I see you're one of the foremost advocate for the removal of the aforementioned review from the Lady Gaga article. I read your comments, and to be honest, they are all invalid by the standard of arguments that Wikipedia expects when discussing these matters. It is not your call to make personal judgments about the reviewer's musical taste, or if, when and how he is biased. Wikipedia expects you to show that the website in not authoritative, based on the qualifications of the reviewer (not whether or not he loves pop music). You have done nothing but attack his personal taste (and for the record, reviewers are allowed to have personal tastes, as everyone else. One shouldn't have to love pop to review a pop album. Good music is good music). Read the five pillars of Wikipedia: WP is not a democracy, and unless you can prove just cause as to why the review should not be included (rather than rally a few people who agree with you, without actually providing valid arguments), then the review most likely will be included in the article. And I'm going to personally make sure that the article stays as neutral as possible, which may include including any negative reviews when they arise. Oran e  (talk)  09:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do as you wish. I honestly don't care either it has 1 star o 5 stars, but I found Sputnik's review unprofessional. You didn't? Well, I won't try to remove it. --Evengan (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, explain why you think the review is biased (and please excuse my bluntness in my above post. I was just a bit irritated overall, and didn't mean to come off like that). And I have just a few preemptive comments in regards to your answer.
 * When I say that qualifications should be the focus of your criticism, I mean this: picture a guy who has a PhD in music theory, is a journalist and music editor, and has written extensively (books, articles) about the history of Rock and Roll etc. If he believes that pop music is at its worst, and loves Hip hop, indie and rock, and believe that only these are relevant in today's industry, would that make him a biased critic of Lady Gaga? Your arguments suggest you'd say yes. But, if you guys are making the claim that an editor should not be included on wikipedia, then you need to challenge his credentials (PhD status, experience as a writer/critic of music), and not his own personal taste. Because when it comes down to it, everyone has taste, and his dislike of the album should be no more irrelevant than you (or my) love of it. What makes his opinion more valuable than ours is his credentials.
 * Good music is good music is good music, and should speak to everyone, and if Gaga releases a great album, then a critic who loves indie, rock, jazz or hip-hop will appreciate it. As a weird example, I have a friend who listens only to indie rock, metal, and The Beatles. I know pop culture like the back of my hand. And the other day he came to me and said: "Dude, I was scrolling on YouTube and I'm not usually a fan of these female singers, but OMG this chick Adele is amazing!" And I gave him a few things to listen, but that's beside the point. But if someone release a good album, then others will see it, regardless of taste. AbsolutePunk, a rock/alternative site gave Adele, a pop singer, an A+.
 * Lastly, it's only when an album is subjected to the harshest critic and emerges unscathed that you can truly call it great. One can't criticize something that you love. That Sputnikmusic critic represents those people who are non fans. Fans are already gonna buy the album, regardless of critics. But what does a non-fan say about this album? Would other people who think like this critic (and there are many who share his taste) benefit from this album? I think you should read, appreciate and understand his criticism, if only to see where he is coming from.
 * Personally, I love pop music. I think Lady Gaga is a star. The biggest out right now. She's raised the bar for what a pop star is supposed to look like, and how/what music videos are supposed to be. Her videos and image are endlessly creative. But her catalogue of songs is the most generic, rudimentary piece of fluff I've ever heard in my life. If I was reviewing her as a star, or her music videos, I'd give a solid A+; her music I give a C- (and I have this theory that her image/videos is an overcompensation for her bland music, but that's also beside the point, because, when it comes down to it, I have no credentials...)
 * PS: Sorry, for my long reply :P Oran e   (talk)  03:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, first of all, that wasn't too long, don't worry, I've received bigger replies :P Those are some good points you make there. But nevertheless, I was just expressing my opinion, and if Wikipedia's policies say that Sputnik's review should be included, why not? (Not like if my opinion was relevant on a Wikipedia article...) But, first of all, I'm not exactly a Gaga fan. I used to like her old music, and as an artist she shines, so I'm not trying to be biased in any way. About your statements:
 * The reviewer has a music theory PhD? He's a journalist or music editor? Has he written extensive books on Rock and Roll? I only saw a forum with an experienced user giving his opinion on the album, not a professional critic. That's what I could appreciate at least, forgive me if I'm wrong.
 * Reviews tend to be biased when an inexperienced critic displays his music taste on his forum user page (Pop isn't even near). I love Alternative and Rock music, the Beatles (greatest band ever), Arcade Fire, Adele (because she is talented and her music is just amazing), Aerosmith, etc. I'm not a huge Pop fan. But I could appreciate his dislike on Pop music, and I don't believe that's fair for the article.
 * I'm sure that negative reviews won't affect the album at all. I mean, this is Sputnik. Fans will still buy the album, and I'm sure it'll sell millions of copies by the end of the decade. And if the album emerges, as you said, despite the negative reviews, it means the album is good. Sputnik's review will be very useful for indie lovers indeed. But we're not reviewing an indie album, so that's the reason I don't think it should be included in the reviews section.
 * I do agree that Lady Gaga has raised the bar on Pop music. If I had to choose a Pop artist I'd go with Gaga (after Adele, honestly), because she changed the game. And although I'm not a big fan of her music, as an artist, she's brilliant. I appreciate your message, thanks :) And don't worry, if the review needs to be included, I won't oppose. --Evengan (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a profile at Spitnuk! I'll see how their process actually works, and if the reviewers there lack authority. No, the reviewer that wrote about Gaga's album does not have a PhD or anything like that. I was just stating those things to make a point. I don't really know what their qualifications are, to be honest. But like you said, Sputnike is not disputed on Wikipedia, so we can't out-vote it, so to speak, on the Born This Way talk page. There are a number of other review sites that are questionable to me also. Pop Matters also has these issues. I remember once, they were looking for new writers and contributors, and I applied and got hired! (well, not technically hired, since it's not a paying job. It's more of a kind of internship thing, and a way to get your name out there). I haven't really submitted anything to be published yet, though. But Wikipedia may soon be citing me as a critic for the next Gaga album lol.
 * And yeah, Gaga has changed the game. And I kinda hate her for it lol. There are so many good singers getting overshadowed by her excess. I love pop, but I'm a R&B fan at heart: Alicia Keys, Beyonce is the best of today's bunch IMO, discounting her and Gaga's lack of originality. It's exciting to see the numbers for this album. I won't be buying, though. That's what youtube is for :P I'm not considering putting the Sputnik review back in the page- the ones listed are ok. Oran e   (talk)  05:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we'll see, and if Sputnik's reliable enough we could add it. But honestly, there are already too many reviews on the article, don't you think? Although Sputnik's review would give a wider and more unbiased look of the album. You got hired by Pop Matters? Wow, I want to read your review for Gaga's next album :P
 * Well, I don't hate Gaga for changing the game, but in a world of over commercialization and talentless musicians (not the indies, the "famous ones like Rihanna, Britney Spears, Kesha, etc.), I have to thank Lady Gaga for bringing a little bit of imagination and originality (not her music, but her outfits, performances, and some songs) to this world. I agree that Alicia Keys and Beyoncé (although her last single was... bad) are strong singers on this industry, as so is Adele. I think that Born This Way will sell about 900,000 copies on its first week, which is insane. The album isn't even that good, with a few exceptions like Bloody Mary, Government Hooker and The Edge of Glory. But still I'm not buying either of them, that's what YouTube and Listen to YouTube are for :P --Evengan (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HairBTWCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:HairBTWCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)