User talk:FuriousFreddy/Archive1a

Keep in touch
Sorry to see you go. You know where to come when you need a ((((hug)))). And you can always e-mail me. :D Bless. deeceevoice 06:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go
You did a lot of good work, especially with the R&B entries (which are still way too thin). I myself haven't been too active here as of late, but because of college and school-related things. Good luck. WP will be a lesser place for your absence. Volatile 23:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Superhero
As a contributor to the above article, would you mind looking through it and seeing if you can provide any references? The reason I ask is that at WPT:CMC we are trying to get more comics articles given Featured Article status. Thanks for any help you could provide. Steve block talk 15:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

James Brown
Noticed some of your album cover descriptions. James Brown is a disambigaution page, while James Brown (musician) links to the funk master. Cheers.--Commander Keane 09:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Freddy, I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on this matter. I was editing the Michael Jackson article today, and saw some aggressive editors reverting his nationality from African-American to American. Is there any way to revert this without getting into an edit war? A certain person there seems to be digging up rules to prevent a reversion, but Jackson really should be listed as African-Americian. OmegaWikipedia 14:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) There is no such nationality as "African-American", and Wikipedia style is to give nationality in the summary, not someone's sub-national ethnicity.
 * FF, when that RfC is ready, count me in. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But I've not said anywhere that people's race or ethnic origins can't be mentioned. One editor has, however, been insisting on removing Jackson's nationality and replacing it with his ethnicity, and I've been replacing the nationality. When I'd done this a couple of times, the editor started deleting the nationality, replacing it with "popular" (which implies that it wasn't the addition of "African-American" that concerned him, but the removal of "American").
 * Biographical articles start by giving basic details of the person (birth date, death date where relevant, nationality, profession, and reason for notability. If ethnicity, etc., are relevant, they're generally mentioned later.  Some articles get this wrong, and you've mentioned a couple of them (both, but especially Fat Joe, are also full of other mistakes that go against the MoS).  It's never a good enough argument in these cases to point to one or two exceptions (that logic would lead us to edit this article so as to get its punctuation, Wikilinks, etc. wrong).
 * OmegaWikipedia played no part in any of this, but brought it to your attention (in typical style: "a certain editor", etc.) in the hope of enlisting you in his little vendetta.   --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it odd that you should accuse me of racism over this, even in a message on someone else's Talk page. The accusation is not only absurd in itself, but doubly absurd based on this incident. And yes, I have changed "Italian-American" to "American" on more than one occasion, as well as other non-nationalities, both for U.S. citizens and for citizens of other countries. I'm disappointed that you should have fallen for OmegaWikipedia's nasty little attempt to play the race card, so gaining support against me on an issue in which he in fact has no real interest.

As the main writer of African philosophy, and the creator of or chief contributor to many articles on black artists and philosophers, I find your careless attribution of racist motives to me deeply offensive. Perhaps you needed a longer holiday from Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps I'm being a little over-sensitive and need a Wiki-break myself. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

re: You see why I left?
Frankly, I'd gotten to the point where I just let it go. Not only does he spread misinformation, francruft, and obvious bias; but denies doing such when the evidence is clear to anyone with half a brain. Thank you for editing the article, as it looks much cleaner now - I didn't bother trying, knowing that my work would only lead to further arguments/an edit war. The kid is awfully impulsive, moving from one fight to the next with reckless abandon, so I think now that the disagreement between he and I has been "settled," I doubt he'll notice your edits.

If you do follow through on the rfc, you know whose side I won't be taking. (Please let me know if you do, as I rarely frequent the rfc pages, or much of WP for that matter.) Oh, and welcome back to the jungle, it's great to hear from you. Volatile 16:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * An additional note: If you want to take the Respect articles a step further (or backward, whichever), I'd be willing to help recombine them as long as a certain someone doesn't put up too much of a fuss. We could use this as a template, including some of the new text that you've added. Just a thought, as everyone but that certain someone seems to think the articles shouldn't have been separated. Volatile 16:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no problem with you recombining the articles, but prepare for all wholy hell when OW finds out and tries to separate them again. I never saw the purpose in separating them to begin with. Volatile 17:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi back atcha
Hey, darlin'! :DDDD Glad you're back -- even if periodically. Missed u. I'm glad you've made some changes to your liking. Life's too short not 2 love it. Hope you don't mind me "vandalizing" your page in your absence. See ya 'round the site. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 19:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: The Shazam! Family
Yeah, I see your point, but until then, I think they should remain inactive.

Britannica
If you have a minute, would you mind stopping by Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia? I've listed an error there regarding hip hop, and I'd like a second opinion because it looks nitpicky. The issue is the first paragraph of the Britannica article, which defines "hip hop" as "the backing music for rap, the musical style incorporating rhythmic and/or rhyming speech that became the movement's most lasting and influential art form". What do you think? Tuf-Kat 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Ok, Freddy, I want to remain calm (but I am sort of well...pissed off right now). And I did crtique some of your actions in another post (so considering that, I hope we can avoid drama). But can we talk about these issues calmly, and try to reach some middle ground? I think your actions were a bit premature tonight, but I dont want us to get into some nasty wikidrama. OmegaWikipedia 05:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Freddy, its also a bit unfair of you to pul Mel in this drama. You know he's going to side with you and screw me over. OmegaWikipedia 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this needs more talking than five minutes could handle. But for now, is there a way to retract those VFDs? Even if you think they should be merged or deleted, that is a not a policy yet. The current policy says that those articles can remain the way they are as Mariah Carey fits into the current guidelines. I feel that you made a premature action on a policy still in the works. There are many Carey articles which should not have been created which could be deleted, which were not notable, but the songs youve listed for VFD are not those. Each of those articles has notable details that would be lost if they got merged. And is it fair to get Mel involved into this? I feel like you two are combining your mutal hatred of me together, and its hard on Wikipedia when people gang up on a solo individual. Maybe we could talk this better even AIM or something later (if you dont mind). OmegaWikipedia 05:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To?) (Diana Ross song)
The best thing to do is probably to put it up for AfD, with a request for merge & redirect. It shouldn't be necessary for something so minor, but experience with OmegaWikipedia will tell you that it's the only way. He won't give in, he's not open to reason, he just wants his own way. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, to save time I've done it. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh
Oh god. Freddy, if you really did watch the revert wars between me and Mel, like you claim you would know it was not about the grammar. Whenever I made any type of content edit, Mel would normally rollback. After awhile it got frustrating so I rolled back too. Of course, then Mel claimed "Hey, you're messing with the grammer!" And I've reminded him that was never an issue. So if you want to say something please look at the real history before you come to the wrong conclusions. OmegaWikipedia 11:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no point trying to rewrite history when it's all in the History of the articles. A quick check will show that this is a complete distortion of what happened. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Expand"
I just thought I'd mention that has to go on Talk pages, not articles. I've moved a couple that I've noticed. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply
Did I miss anything important in those sections?

About the edit war, then you read wrong, Freddy. If you want to, please go ahead and look at the history and talk pages.. it doesn't lie. Like I said yes, grammar did get edited out, but that was when Mel was rolling back everything even new content I added. I told him I didnt mind the grammar fixes, but asked him not to revert content changes, but he apparently cannot listen. So we got into a rollback war, so yes, grammar was rolled back, but like I said not intentionally, and Mel kept rolling back content changes. But what is up with this bias against pop music? I think theres a tendency on Wikipedia for people to get jealous or harbor some form of resentment for articles which take off in popularity. If the R&B/Soul section had exploded, I find it hard to believe that you would have asked it to tone down (Of course, you will say you wouldnt, but...) OmegaWikipedia 01:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If the articles survive the vote, how does that make Wikipedia unencyclopedic? OmegaWikipedia 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well of course, you Afded "Do You Know..." because of its connection to Mariah Carey LOL! I mean I dont think you did that for other Diana Ross singles did you? How is "Do You Know?" not notable? There is plenty of information that could be expanded on that single - and there is no reason why it cant remain a stub - if stubs werent allowed here, then the song stub would not exist. My Heart Will Go On is currently a stub, and no one (or it was..I havent looked at in awhile). No one is asking for it to be merged with Titanic.

And I agree with you to a point - a single should have some form of notability, and those songs you placed on AFD did. Just FYI, there are some Mariah Carey articles which I feel shouldnt have been created that dont have that notability (but the songs on AFD do). When I created the articles, I was very selective in which articles I picked. Technically Mariah could have maybe over 100 singles. But I chose to be selective and only picked the ones that were notable in some shape or form

If you're not biased or jealous, then sorry for thinking that, but your behavior in the past suggested that. Everytime, there was an issue with a Mariah song, you would rant about how no one cares about R&B/Soul, but instead focuses on Mariah Carey and the Beatles. How else do you want us to think? If you think theres a problem with the Soul/R&B music section, then you have the key - fix it. The people who created the Beatles articles thought they needed articles, so they created them. I thought Mariah Carey needed articles, so I created them. If you think the R&B/soul section needs help, then do something about it, and stop complaining about no one helping. OmegaWikipedia 02:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Time for a new one

 * Ok, you just did it again.


 * How can I take an encyclopedia seriously when Mariah Carey has more coverage devoted to her than :::the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and Malcolm X combined (let alone any two solo musicians :::without the last name "Jackson" or that are not young white or partially white females)?

First, you say you're not jealous, then you say something like this which just confirms it. King and Malcolm should have more coverage, but that does not mean Mariah Carey or any other musician should have less coverage. See, I dislike this biased behavior here. If you think theres a problem with any article fix it - don't be jealous and compare it to another article. Don't be like "Mariah Carey has so much coverage, why doesn't so and so have coverage too?"

And for your information, there is a very detailed chronology on Whitney Houston, and you know about my Beyonce articles too. I do music which I like, which at the moment, is Kelly Clarkson, Mariah Carey, Beyonce, and Gwen Stefani. Not suprisingly, I edit those articles. Why are you trying to imply some racial undertones? There shold be more coverage on other artists too, but if you have a problem, dont take it out on me. OmegaWikipedia 02:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Do You Know
If you're going to use the Oscars as "notability", then DYK was nominated for an oscar. And it was also the first song ever (or something to that extent) to be performed live via satalitte.

About the Star Spangled Banner, I'm not even involved in that article, so dont try to shift any blame on me. I didnt know there was a Jackson 5 version of SCICTT. But if you told me, I will glady research it, and make an article on it.


 * Answer: because they don't involve one of your favorite singers. You don't notice that there is a :lack of balance in your coverage versus that of the other artists covered in the encyclopedia? Has :it not occured to you that you are, as they say, "overdoing it?"

Well, I find this to be very rude. Do you ever do non R&B/soul music articles? You rarely do, but I dont question it. You found your niche, I found mine. I dont criticize what you do. And I did not mean to say that you didnt do anything in this field, but if you do it, can you do it gracefully and not whine about it? When I came here, there were no Mariah articles. I did not whine about it and try to bring down other articles.

Well out of courtesy, can you hold off on those Glitter articles for awhile? I want to deal with this situation first, and not have like every article being deleted. Obviously, youre not jealous of Pokemon, because its not music related.

And I find this statement to be very offensive. I thoght we were trying to have a polite discussion
 * As far as "what you do", you, to be honest, need to find better ways to contribute to Wikipedia.

Like I said above, I found a niche, I like. You found your niche. It's rude of you to insituate that my contributions to pop music are useless. Maybe someone finds your articles on R&B music and animation to be useless. Just because you dont like pop music doest not give you a reason to diss it. If people do Pokemon articles, thats there thing and Im not going to bash them. If you do articles on R&B music and animation, thats your thing, and Im not going to bash it, so why are you still insulting my contributions to the pop music field? Everyone has something that they can help add in their area of intrest and expertise to Wikipedia. You shouldnt criticize others because theyre making articles in a field you dont like. OmegaWikipedia 03:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

What?
Now, it has to *win* an award for notability? Being nominated is not good enough? So "One Sweet Day" which did not win a Grammy, is not notable because it was only nominated. WHAT?


 * I don't have to write or edit articles on rock artists, because all the once I know about have :articles with some decent form of detail already eclipsing what I would be able to contribute.

Then why do you order people to contribute to R&B articles? Ive seen you angrily yell at someone to help with an R&B article. Boyz II Men I think...

No, I never said I "owned" the article...


 * We're talking some here. You really should move on, though, and write articles on topics that are :needed. Fill in some existing redlinks. Go to the requests for articles, see iif you can write any :of them, and do so.

Again, thank you for the suggestion. But it is a bit forward of you to suggest what I do with my edits. No one should be ordered around. I edit things when I see them, but most people here have a niche. I dont see why you dont understand that. What if I asked you to stop doing R&B/animation and to do something else?

How am I overdoing the pop music articles? Mariah Carey has been in the business for about 15 years and has released about 15 or so albums - each album she releases about 5 or 6 singles. Most of them have music videos, remixes, commercial releases, they chart, and have an intresting notable factor about them. I'm sorry that Mariah has released so many albums.

And I do think the covers need their own articles. And this is not being biased to anyone. When I read an article, I want to know what happened to that version of a song. Most people have agreed that stacking them on top of each other looks like a mess.

Well, I think you're a lost cause too..Explain to me what makes your articles justified as opposed to mine. You do R&B, I do "pop". The pop artists happen to have more singles - and you breakdown. I can't help if they release a lot of singles. In the end, we're really not that differentOmegaWikipedia 04:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)