User talk:FuriousFreddy/Archive2a

Welcome back
As you see I have restored your user page and your talk page. Welcome back :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Your message
I understand and sympathise. It drives me crazy too. Just as I think I'm making progress, some new fifteen-year-old boy arrives full of arrogance and hostility, and sets them all off again. I'm still trying to get more editors involved, as I see that as being the main solution; the pop-music articles are heavily dominated by adolescent testosterone, and we need the input of many more more-experienced editors. Working on the criteria should help too, though. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Pigs is Pigs (1937)
FuriousFreddy recently removed "That's All Folks!" again. His reasoning: "This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite." Could you elaborate? -- Jason Palpatine 08:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Freddy, why did you lie?!
Thanks a lot for lying, Freddy. You made a promise not to do something to those articles if I didn't reply to you. I kept my end of the deal. *Sigh* Thanks for not being a man of your word. OmegaWikipedia 15:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, no, it didn't. That had nothing to do with the agreement, and that was written long before our disucussion anyway, so you shouldnt retroactively hold it against me. I find it disgusting that you lie to people around here to get your way. I can't believe how vile and hateful you are OmegaWikipedia 16:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. Whether its fancruft or not is not the point. The point is you said something and you didnt keep your word. Are you like this in real life too? A chronic liar?! You lie and manipulate people to get ahead? If I make a promise, I keep my word. I don't manipulate, cheat, and lie to people like you do. OmegaWikipedia 16:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point again. The nicest person? I would like to think anything but that. It doesnt matter if this is about fancruft, world peace, politics, sports, science, or whatever. The point is you made a promise to me, not to do something if I didnt do something. I kept my end of the bargain. What did you do? You lied. I don't know how you can live with yourself being such a maniupulative person.

For the last time, no I don't own the article, and I never have claimed to. You on the other hand act like all R&B music belongs to you, and get very possessive when others edit them. And its very hypocritical of you to fill the articles you edit with fancruft or endorse R&B articles with fancruft. But wait, I supposed its because its R&B music. God forbid anything happen to that! And your bias only applies to pop music. OmegaWikipedia 17:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me?! You should be talking. Factual? Then why did you remove the section from Fallin' about the arpeggios? Way to make the article false. A quick look through some randomly picked R&B articles like Never_Can_Say_Goodbye and The_Jackson_5_in_Japan sees fancruft in its true meaning.

....soulful vocals accompanied by his brothers' soulful background harmonies and a fabulous musical accompaniment. It was an unlikely song for a successful teen group as they were but it soon became part of music history as the song rose to #2 on the Hot 100 and #1 on the R&B charts.

Throughout this set, the quintet showcased why they are considered one of the greatest live performing bands of all time, going through songs like a faster Temptations and singing them like five Sly Stones

WHAT?! You have been editing these articles for MONTHS. And even the live album article yesterday. Yet, you didnt anything to remove this fancruft. Incidentally, Im pretty sure in my edits Im pretty sure Ive never gone and said "Oooh, Mariah showcased why she is considered one of the greatest singers of all time". Because I know thats fancruft and I dont do that. So your accusations of fancruft are hypocritical. And I dont think you'll find it in the articles I edit. Yet you endorse these articles with fancruft. Tell me with a straight face this isnt hypocritical. Oh wait, its R&B its ok. Pop music sucks and R&B rocks. Thats what youre thinking. This is so biased and you know it. But of course, you'll probably defend these articles. Meh OmegaWikipedia 17:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Pop singer fancruft
I'm at my wit's end in trying to deal with the glut of heavily biased and infactual articles on Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, and several other pop singers. The editors' actions in making all of these articles have gone unchecked, and are establishing bad precedents that are steadily decreasing NPOV coverage of music in the WIkipedia. I have talked to one of them until I was blue in the face (and had wasted an entire Friday evening) to no avail; he thinks I'm "jealous" of "his" articles. What can be done about this, or is the matter truly a lost cause? --FuriousFreddy 04:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can cite some specifics regarding these two articles, I would be more than glad to assist you in toning down any sort of promotional text within either one. Not long after I finally registered here I took on the task of requiring sources for vocal profiles within articles, a feat that many thought unimaginable.  If you would like, I would also be glad to help communicate the nature of GFDL and show that no one single editor is in possession of an article on Wikipedia.  Surely, if we can take on more exhaustingly politicised articles like Barbara Schwartz we can handle this.  Don't lose hope.  :)  Hall Monitor 16:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you mind reviewing and possibly commenting on the discussion at Talk:Whitney_Houston? There may be reasonable cause for placement of Whitney Houston into Category:Gay icons, but so far I have not seen anything convincing.  Hall Monitor 21:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

User:OmegaWikipedia and pop music articles
I know I haven't discussed anything with you before, but I just had to say that I immensely appreciate your attitude to this growing problem of contemporary pop music coverage within Wikipedia. You're making it more public, which I think is the best thing that can be done at the moment. Editors shouldn't be allowed to claim ownership of fangushy, overdetailed articles and undo almost any significant changes that don't agree with their style (even if those edits abide to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). I don't want to bore you with the details of my encounters with User:OmegaWikipedia (I'll just direct you to Talk:We Belong Together, Talk:Shake It Off and my talk page for that, though there are several other heated debates regarding this issue on many other talk pages, and my words on those discussions barely scratch the surface of my frustration), but rest assured, I will help to make sure that this problem comes to an end. To this effect, I'm currently preparing a request for comment against him, and would appreciate if you were to weigh in on the situation when I actually get around to posting it. You don't have to, of course (especially if you feel you've been burned enough already from this whole fiasco), but I'd just thought I'd let you know. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 17:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I might not be able to file the RfC myself soon (at least before the last week of October), as I'm devoting my Wikitime to an article which I would like to have featured on the main page on a certain date (a non-pop music article, thank God). But, if nobody else files it before I do, it will be done. Again, thanks. Extraordinary Machine 16:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you have nothing good to say, keep your mouth shut. Or fingers shut. --Winnermario 22:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply (A New Start?)
No, I never blamed you for that. If you believe I revert anything to the Mariah articles, then my reputation truly precedes me. Like right now, Hoary is cleaning up the Mariah articles. If I really was like that, Id revert him, but Im not. Well, it did seem peculiar for you to bring up the POV in the Carey articles, and then to not correct the other articles espeically the ones yesterday, which were very short ones. I have the same image of you as a 15 year old too - you mention that R&B isnt covered enough, and Ive actually seen you yell at another person about, yet you have to remember that Mariah is an R&B singer.

But you know what? Like anything, the truth is always somewhere in between. I disagree with many of your actions, you disagree with many of mine. That said, in the past, I have made reverts and edits, which I now realize were in error, and I'm sorry. I hope you realize you often were hasty too in the past. But that was the past. I hope this doesnt sound cheesy, but I want this to work out.

Whatever happened in the past, let's forget it, and can we start anew? Starting from today? Both of us were hotheaded in the past, but we dont have to be in the future. I really think we're on the same page in some respects, but taking in Wikipedia can be a bit hard and I think it would be better to communicate in real time. Do you have AIM? My aim is also OmegaWikipedia. Please contact me, I want this to work out, and I hope we can move forward

I'm sorry for the problems we've had in the past, and I'd like to offer this dove as a sign of peace to show that I am sincere and I want us to talk about the matter...and hopefully we can work this out. OmegaWikipedia 03:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)



Fancruft and washing hands and stuff
Sorry for the belated reply -- I just started a new job with extremely odd hours for me, so I'm spending virtually all my time either working or trying to sleep. (plus I just quit smoking) As such, I won't have time for much beyond checking my watchlist and various minor changes for the near future. I just wanted to say that you do a lot of great work here, and that you should have faith in The Process. Maybe that faith is unfounded, but if the Wiki Process doesn't work, then something similar will arise to replace it -- there's too much accurate and unbiased information here for it to just get buried in stupidity. Have faith that no matter how bad things get, someone will find a way to rescue what's good about Wikipedia and fix what's bad (that may be unfounded faith, but that's good enough for me -- I've been around awhile and have been surprised many times before; at one point, I thought no one would spend any significant amount of time on The Supremes, for example, because the only people interested would be middle-aged black women who are fairly unlikely to be Internet-savvy -- obviously I was wrong about that). Anyway, whenever I get frustrated with articles I don't really care about (like Mariah Carey and related cruft), I take a break from either all Wikipedia or everything but a handful of articles that I focus on improving. Imagine that, ten years from now, the equivalent of WP:FA are the standard source of information for every topic and work on getting those articles you care most about to the point where they are ready for that. Sure, some one-hit wonder's pallid cover of a mediocre song by some two-bit band may have its own article full of irrelevant details about stupid shit, but that's not likely to ever be a Featured Article, so ignore it and focus on what you're good at and what you presumably enjoy writing about. Anyway, the point is that everything that grows progressively more wonderful has fits and delays -- take science, which belabored under false assumptions for many years, and probably still does, but in the end, it is a process that produces the best result, even if some of the intermediate stages are subpar. Thanks for all the work you've done for Wikipedia in the past, and all that you will do in the future, Tuf-Kat 07:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Aim/Internet problems
Hey Freddy, sorry about that. I don't know what happened. I need a new service provider. My internet's been really unstable lately. Didn't mean to leave you hanging. Anyway, I hope we can talk again tonite. Let me know a good time. Later. OmegaWikipedia 11:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

VFD: Bracketed songs
Just a quick message to let you know that a page that you have contributed to in the past, List of songs with brackets in their titles, is up for deletion here :( David 5000 18:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep On Keeping On
I was actually about to leave you a message saying the same thing (probably not as well) as Tuf-Kat did. It's very sound advice, especially here at WP, where the jacks rule the realm.

Though I'm not a minority, I know injustice and just plain ignorance (as well as stupidity in the case of some people here) when I see it, and I completely understand your feelings. I think the best advice one can give you right now is to let WP set for a time, and come back once your head is clear. And, when you do come back choose your battles selectively. You certainly aren't going to stop idiots from coming in and undoing your work, but you can gradually make it harder for them to do so.

Also, I think one has to keep things in perspective. OW is undoubtedly young and his ideas about decency, ethics, music, etc. aren't necessarily wrong, but affected by age and surroundings. Wikipedia is like a new playground where one's thoughts and ideas are at least partially embraced. It's easy to get drunk off the possibility of "rewriting history" (in a sense), and being respected for "knowledge" you may or may not have.

Anyway, I'd hate to see you become really frustrated by something as futile as this project. To be honest it means very little whether the Britney Spears article features the drippings of neurotic fans or not - the only people that rely on such articles are fans who won't tell the difference anyway. The best thing you can do, like Tuf-Kat said, was to work on the articles tha people like OW won't go after because they're not interested enough to completely mess up or even visit. Just keep on keeping on and I hope that Wikistress meeter goes back to green soon. :) Volatile 02:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Moves

 * I've fixed all the moves by the "BET" user, I think. Let me know if there's edit histories still missing anywhere. Happy editing! - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Song criteria
I have responded to your message as follows:

You are right. We do need to have consistent criteria for songs that is consistently sensible across various eras and genres - your definition is probably more restrictive than mine but I am sure that a concensus can be reached. As stated above, I will be turning my mind to this over the weekend on the various forums especially WP:music, as well as songs and albums. Your point about Stevie Wonder is well made.

Thanks for your message.

Capitalistroadster 02:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge suggestion
You've probably got enough on your plate at the moment, but I've just suggested a merge of These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson single) into These Boots Are Made for Walkin'. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Succesful FA
Congrats on the well-deserved FA status given to "Just My Imagination". Jkelly 18:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Furious! Just chimin' in. Congrats on another great piece. :D deeceevoice 09:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Any chance you're thinking about working your FA magic on War (song)? (Oh, and if I can impose, could you weigh in on Talk:First and Last and Always? Jkelly 01:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks &mdash; and yes, the outbursts on the RfC and Talk page from WinnerMario and Anittas in particular have woken people up to what's been going on. It's come as I was trying to cut down on my editing (the beginning of a specially busy term), but I should manage to juggle it all without my head exploding (I hope). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Parliament Funkadelic: One Nation Under a Groove
Hey, Furious. Thought you might be interested in this -- in case you missed it the first time around.


 * RECOMMENDATION CORNER --"PARLIAMENT FUNKADELIC: ONE NATION UNDER A GROOVE" AIRS AGAIN ON PBS


 * "Could this be me, immersed in funk so deep?" Just in case you missed Tuesday night's PBS Independent Lens premiere of Yvonne Smith's "Parliament Funkadelic: One Nation Under a Groove", it will air again on Friday October 14, 2005 at 2:30am ET. (Check your local PBS listings.) We think this is a funky film that you wouldn't want to miss, so stay up late!


 * George Clinton was the mastermind behind the legendary band Parliament Funkadelic, known as P-Funk. Find out how he expressed the cultural alienation of young African Americans, creating an alternate universe of 'aliens' who brought the redemptive power of funk to a world sorely in need of a new point of view. For more information, click here. Peace and hair grease. :p deeceevoice 13:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Real reasons
I know I say this often, but is there any real reason to stay on board a sinking ship?

Sez Freedy. Course not, but if you're alluding to Wikipedia I'd question your premiss that Wikipedia is a sinking ship.

True, a large and probably increasing percentage of Wikipedia does look like cruftopedia. (A dog show, you might call it.) However, there are still ways to challenge this. Moreover, large areas of it are not at all crufty. So if the coverage of pap music (and no I haven't made a spelling mistake there) is irrepairable (which I'd question), just look at other areas. Whenever I'm depressed, I find inspiration in some recent feat by Giano, for example. -- Hoary 06:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Stephan Sommers off SHAZAM ?
Freddy, I noticed that IMDb has removed Sommmers' name from the Shazam movie entry, as well as removing Shazam from Sommers' entry. I think he is no longer connected to the Shazam movie, if he ever was ( I find it curious no one except IMDb ever reported that he was signed to direct Shazam). You may wish to remove his name from the Capt. Marvel entry about the new movie. Thanks.

Be happy to dismotivate one more Wiki-fan
''Forgive me for prying, but I just wanted to comment on your current situation.

''#We have set colors for all album infoboxes throughout the Wikipedia. The reason for this is for categorization, not aesthetics (studio albums are oragne, live albums are teal, compilations are olive-colored, etc.) As was pointed out to you, this was established some time ago at WikiProject Albums as the consensus of the editors working in the music section. Wikipedia may be a free encyclopedia, but that does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want ot do; that leads to disorder and chaos ''#As far as catalog numbers go, as far as I know, it's OK to include them, but not as a seperate entry in the infobox. Note the way it is done here: I Want to Hold Your Hand and here: Psychedelic Shack (album). It is done using a text code next to or below the name of the label. I personally would limit the catalog number included to that of the album's original release in its country of origin should be included, however, to avoid a long, cluttered infobox.

''You're welcome to contribute to the project, but, just like in life, there are rules and regulations that you must follow. --FuriousFreddy 19:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * ''Two more things:


 * 1) ''all of the singles are improperly formatted as well (there is a WikiProject Songs which describes how to categorize singles infoboxes). Many of these articles should probably be cleaned up to remove POV and biased language, and some, like the seperate article on Madonna's cover of Marvin Gaye's "I Want You", aren't neccessary.


 * 1) I notice that you cleaned off your user talk page in July. You need ot create an archive with all of those old discussions included; otherwise it looks like you're trying to hide or delete old conversations, which is not good. --FuriousFreddy 21:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well fine, feel yourselves like kings here. Make your statements. I'm deleting my account and stop adding something good to that thing. It's not worth it. Because you are not ready to change, to improve. You've made your rules here. But without changes you won't go far. You will be on the same boat. Even rules are a subject to be changed. But you do not comprehend it. It always happens when Philistines have the power. Do it on your own. Bye. Be happy to dismotivate one more Wiki-fan. Ex-fan. Beautifulstranger 22:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

^^^''This is not the way to behave when someone informs someone else of the rules. Rules should not be changed just because one person wants them to be changed.'' --FuriousFreddy 00:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I'm just about out of patience with fixing these infoboxes. I've made it to, um, I'm Breathless so far, but I'm going to log soon.  I'll fix the rest in the next couple of days if no one else gets around to it.  Jkelly 03:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say it is worth the effort to re-insert the proper template, as it just might discourage more displays of mad HTML skillz. I eventually got up to Ray of Light. think that I got them all.  Jkelly 07:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply
This is hardly an empty threat. Its very weird of you to criticize me of fan-cruft when you write articles full of it too. And what exactly is the problem? You dont believe there should be sections on remixes and chart perforance, from what I remember. Since this is your personal preferences, its weird to see you claim its fancruft just because you dont agree with it. OmegaWikipedia 04:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You also seem to forget that Wikipedia is not an exact translation of a real life encylopedia. Look up any article on a print encylopedia and compare it...they're not the same. Heck, if I looked up an article about a single in a real encylopedia, there would be none, so who are you to dictate what consitutes an encylopedic single article? Peak positions only are important? Radio remixes only are important? This is very wrong thinkig. Peak positions are misleading often, and people need to know how they got there. Songs often have high airplay and low sales or vice versa or had circumstances surrounding how they charted, and that needs to be mentioned. Unless you enjoy misleading people who read this to believe that Carrie Underwood's "Inside Your Heaven" was a bigger hit because it hit #1 than most other Top 10 singles which didnt top the charts of 2005. And why only radio remixes? Do you realize that most of the remix industry deals with dance music, stuff that is not heard on radio? Thats very ignorant thinking of you to think that whats heard on the radio is all that counts. I follow the guidelines for your information. Nowhere there does it say that remix and chart info should be excluded. Yes this is your personal preference. Im not trying to "threaten" you, but Im just saying it is it hypocrtical of you to make accusations like this that you violate yourself. Once again, I'm willing to talk it over and hope we can resolve this. OmegaWikipedia 04:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I guess you edited you stuff, but I have to disagree with you. And there is no "we" here. To my knowledge, no one has ever complained about the inclusion of certain charts except for you. Its very biased for you to think that only the R&B, Dance, and AC charts are important. Many songs are notable for their records on the sales and airplay chart. Hollaback Girl, Photograph, and Gold Digger are very notable for their sales records. It would not make sense to pretend they didnt exist. This is simply your opinion, and there are no rules stating which charts are allowed, and if this your case for "fancruft", then I have to say you have a very weak case. OmegaWikipedia 05:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't believe you want to actively mislead readers of this encylopedia. The Carrie Underwood song hit #1 then dropped like a rock. Unlike you, I am keeping the reader in mind. If I wanted to mislead people like you are trying to, I could save myself a lot of time. This needs to be an accurate encyclopedia, and giving them an impression that a song is more succesful than it really is, shouldnt be the goal of being here.

Only the R&B, Dance, and AC charts are the important? I cant believe Im reading this also. The pop charts, the rap charts, the country, the rock arent important? This is very biased of you, and you wonder why people often question why they believe youre doing this out of personal preference. FYI, this information on the charts are often found in several album articles here that werent associated with me. They were deemed important and put in for a reason. Just because you think only the R&B, Dance, and AC charts are the only important charts, does not mean that everyone else does.

There was a definitely a consensus for the charts as they have been adopted in several articles and no one has complained except you. What other people have complained about is mostly writing styles and I have complied with them. Think about it also, if several people like DrippingInk, WinnerMario, Ultimate Star Wars Freak, and even that Madonna fan have criticized you for your behavior, dont you think theres some truth to it too that there could be something wrong with you?

And for an example of fancruft look at Just My Imagination (Running Away With Me). Although I'm very sure, youre going to be stubborn and defend yourself and not admit that the article is full of fancruft. OmegaWikipedia 05:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, no Freddy. The main chart is the main chart, its not the pop chart. I think this may be where we're having some problems, since you seem to lack knowledge of the music industry. Beautifulstranger may have broken policies, but no policies have been broken here concerning the charts. Like I said, people have questioned chart style before, but no one has ever asked to eliminate most of them. If 1 person VS most of Wikipedia is what we consider "no consensus", then OK.

Crazy in Love almost became a featured article. It has those charts which you dread so much. It didnt become one, because I didnt have time to fix the references in time. But if it had become one, would charts suddenly be justified? Actually Im suprised that article became one with all the opposing votes which never changed to support, but oh well, stuff happens.

This has nothing to do with the Funk Brothers, but your behavior to include credits in every single article. While they may be notable, not all musicians in the credits are. That article is so full of fancruft, its not even funny. I dont know where I would start, but I'll start with one of the numerous problems. A Length 3 paragraph on the songs definition in Song Information! That is ridiculous. I can summarize a songs message in one paragraph or even one sentence. There is no reason to write 3 of them. Then there is more trivia in that article too. I did not want a trajectory, stop twisting the facts, Freddy. I asked for some insight into how it performed. You just cant throw out random numbers and expect people to understand what they mean. Youre tyring to make it sound like the recording process is the only important thing in a single article. No, its not. Video and chart info is important to. I think youre biased against these factors because most articles you write are very old when videos didnt exist and when there was only one chart. Guess what though? The world has changed, and the times have changed. You need to get used to it and stop living in the past. OmegaWikipedia 06:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Then you better start acting like you know what you're talking about, instead of reffering to it by an archaic name. Those of my group? Once again with the stereotypes. Can I refer to you guys as a group too? And um, no, you seem to be enjoying distorting facts tonight (or maybe its jsut late), but I was refering to eliminating charts, not that..A suggestion only you have made. Mel and Hoary for their part have re-written the articles (so your endless claims of POV are very mystifying and just an excuse). They have commented on the style, but youre the only person who has a problem with including this info. And once again, I have to reiterate that there have been plently of people who have criticized your behavior too.

And once again, I cant believe youre defending your thoughts on throwing out random numbers. Fantasia's "I Believe" peaked at #1. It did not chart on the year end chart for overall singles. Britney Spear's "Everytime" peaked at #15, but was able to plae on the year end charts. You claim to be in the music industry. Well if you werent in it, I could understand your ignornace, but since you are in it, you should know better than to mislead people like this. Peaks dont mean anything without sufficent context. I told you before even in our conversation that I dont do "blow by blow" unless there is actually is a plot. But apparently you chose to forget this. This is not a case of you criticizing me, and me looking to find faults with your work. This is about being hypocritical and having personal preferences which having nothing to do with the factors youre trying to bring up OmegaWikipedia 07:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Carrie
I wasnt even talking about the chart trajectory. (And theres no need for you to issue a disclaimer about "dropped like a rock" not being NPOV - you know I was just saying that to explain things here, criticizing something like that is probably what causes all this drama) You said that can be explained in prose, and I agree, which is why we need the chart performance section OmegaWikipedia 07:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The CIL video does not have a plotline and is not described blow by blow. Like you mentioned it only describes the settings and atmosphere of the video. First of all, no, that was not an insult, and if that it is, then Ive been greatly insulted by you tonight from your various remarks. As far as schoarly writing is concerned that is only your opinion. Beautifulstranger is the only who has complained who has broken the rules in direct relation to your problems. Other people have disagreed with you often, but havent broken the rules. And again, no one has told you, you write fancruft because not many people read your articles. (And I say that in terms of there being a lack of devotion to R&B here and you know that, its not an insult - just stating a fact). The articles have been fixed, what we have here is you not agreeing with chart performance, charts, and music video sections OmegaWikipedia 07:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

How is that blow-by-blow? Like I said, I was describing the scenes and settings of the video like we both agreed. If you want a blow by blow descrption of that video, I can gladly expand it. I think details of the airplay and sales are important. Why should we not note that Fantasia's "I Believe" was a #1 on sales, but failed to chart on airplay? Why should we not note that inequalities between sales and airplay? Its misleading to lead the reader to believe that a song was succesful overall without looking at the component. And how is having articles on covers a problem? That is your opinion, but is definitely not a problem. WBT does have more chart info than most articles, but considering that it broke like practically every Billboard record in history, I think its notable. And this never became an issue before you brought it up either OmegaWikipedia 08:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And why are you stalking everything I write now? And no, Im not referring to the disagreement. Im talking about the hostile behavior in which you present yourself all the time. Maybe you should talk to Hoary to learn how to approach people without offending everyone. When he has an issue with something, we talk it over nicely, and we're able to work it out. With you, I get insults and hostile behavior and rude comments, and you. OmegaWikipedia 08:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You have the whole sitation with Hoary, the wrong way.I'm not tattling like you claim. And Im not asking him to save me. If you knew anything about him at all, youd know he tends to favor your sort of views. I asked him to be a third party to mediate and compromise the matter. If I wanted someone to talk to about the matter who would be on my side, I would not have talked to him. OmegaWikipedia 08:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * When did I insult your intelligence? And how can you look over what you typed tonight and say you havent been hostile to me? You even left a rude remark right now... "but they don't seem to be seeping in." No, that is a direct attack on my intelligence. While, we disagree on how the single article should be handled, its comments like that that have caused people to be offended by you. Just the same way, I could say "I have tried to explain to you, why we need covers, but you apparently cannot understand what Im saying". And no, I've explained this before, this has NOTHING to do with the disagreement, it has to do with your attitude. Like I said, Hoary is someone who disagrees with me a lot, and who I can talk to in a friendly polite manner even over disagreements. The only time you were nice to me was the first time you spoke to me, I remember this, because I was impressed with you before and you seemed cool. Then the next thing I know was a hostile message on my talk page over the matter of covers. While we disagree on matters, dont try to insult people by saying they dont understand because they dont agree with you OmegaWikipedia 08:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

By the same token, for half the year, I have been telling you that we need seperate articles for covers...does that mean its not been seeping in for you? Where did I call you ignorant? Was it about the remixes? Like I said on Hoary's page, sorry, its getting late and I was getting frustrated by your hostility. But it is a bit puzzling when you make a statement IIRC about how only radio remixes are important enough (and not club remixes). And once again, the way you wrote this paragraph, seems very belitting too. At the same time, you do realize we do have different views right? Its not the case of one person not understanding what the other is saying OmegaWikipedia 08:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I Want You (Madonna song)
Furious Freddy,

I have expanded the article on I Want You including the Marvin Gaye original and the Madonna cover. I suggest that I Want You be moved to I Want You (song) with I Want You being a disambiguation page for the Marvin Gaye album and the song. I Want You (Madonna song) should redirect to I Want You.

I would be grateful to hear your views on the subject.

Capitalistroadster 10:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Charts! HAH!
I, Mel Etitis, Hoary, Volitile, Extraordinary Machine, BMICorp.

I, Mel Etitis, Hoary, Volitile, Extraordinary Machine, BMICorp.

I, Mel Etitis, Hoary, Volitile, Extraordinary Machine, BMICorp.

Very nice! I see your army continues to back you up. You not included, of course.

I have also noticed your biased decision upon only using the R&B, dance, and AC charts, including the Hot 100 peak. Do you know why this decision makes me laugh? Well I will tell you. If we're using the R&B and dance charts, why aren't we using the pop and rock charts? These are the other two mainstream charts in the U.S. (and practically everywhere else in the world that runs on mainstream), and can't just be ignored. However, you think this. May I ask why? --Winnermario 22:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My sarcasm doesn't have to be appreciated. I'll still speak my mind.


 * Rock is as notable as R&B. You just appear to have a prefence in music. And unfortunately, I disagree with you. Strongly. I also disagree with you boldly. --Winnermario 22:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh? Then explain the R&B, dance, and AC charts only? --Winnermario 22:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I'm not going to agree with you, because again, this R&B thing is a matter of PoV. --Winnermario 23:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That new RfC
Fred, thank you for alerting me.

Putting aside for a moment what I think about the allegations and counter-allegations, I think that this RfC is already a mess. Please take a look at OWP's talk page, where I make my point a bit less tersely, and invite OWP to undo his edits. If he does this, you might add the customary headers in order to help people agree (or of course disagree) with you in a clearly signposted and lucid way. If that isn't done RfC, I'm pretty sure that this RfC will quickly descend into chaos, and that people won't read it and instead will either websurf elsewhere or merely add unthinking "me too" votes. -- Hoary 10:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'd like to let you know that I very much appreciate your raising this issue for the larger community to comment upon, and that my comment "I cannot read it as is" wasn't meant as any sort of commentary on how you went about things.   I note that the page is now in some sort of edit war between User:Guettarda and User:Winnermario about its organization and whether or not to leave that unsigned personal attack on you in it.  I hope that things will calm down such that the community can have some reasonable discussion.  Jkelly 23:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its a challenge not to get frustrated. As you pointed out to me, there are these corners all over Wp that are starved for larger community input.  I'd say that the methods for getting that attention are neglected (check the history of Third Opinion, supposedly the first step in resolution), which makes things much more difficult.  You are also absolutely right that no one can clean this stuff up on their own.  Which is why I think your nomination of Mariah Carey to I-drive was a brilliant idea.  On a related note, what exactly is going on with the whole Music Project?  Every so often some conversation starts up (often fueled by the same names), but I don't understand what the status of the project is.  Jkelly 00:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. As for racism on Wp, check out the history of Rodney King recently, in which an anon felt comfortable removing the NPOV tag only after King had been explicitly compared to an animal.  Jkelly 01:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I was seriously considering blocking Winnermario for vandalism. I can't revert the page again without ending up in the same place that Mel was; I could make a solid case for reverting vandalism, but I don't want to have to make that article.
 * I don't know what good it would do to start over. These people have proven that what you said in Mel's RFC.  The don't give a damn about Wikipedia norms.  If you would revert it to my last version (which has things in the proper place) I will block them for vandalism if they keep at it.  This is clear vandalism.  Guettarda 01:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

On this edit: I sympathize a lot with your frustration. It's understandable to waver over whether an RfC is worthwhile. But to switch publicly within 24 hours from "this is worth my bringing an RfC" to (even momentarily) "any effort seems useless" is a bit much. The problem is, anything one says in WP is retained, and in this rather noxious atmosphere is likely to be used against one. Do think thrice before saying anything, particularly if you're angry. -- Hoary 02:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the page. Your edit summary was "rv to the way the admins fixed the page", and I think the page was fixed (or, from OmegaWikipedia's PoV, was screwed up) by Guettarda and myself. Just a minor clarification (perhaps to avoid misunderstandings in the future): Guettarda is indeed an admin but I'm not. -- Hoary 13:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

re: RfC: Pop music issues
Awesome job with the RfC; I'm sorry that it has proven to be difficult, but I've come to expect that from everything (see my attempted merging of the two "Boots..." articles) here. I'll try to add some comments when I have time this weekend, but I honestly don't think I have any opinion. We already know what needs to be done, but no one has the cojones to do it, and that is extremely disconcerting. Volatile 14:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Freddy, I'm a little surprised that hours and hours have gone by with no formal response to, other view of, or signed agreement to, your charges in the RfC. But not so surprised. For really, it's not entirely obvious what your main points are. You start by saying that the RfC was originally intended to be such and such; but really there seems no point in a history of your intentions. The "issues at hand" would be easier to discuss if numbered, titled, or of course both. Among them is a paragraph (?) reading in full: "This issue seems to be little relevance" which I suppose is a later interpolation: you're very free to zap it. Statements such as "The resultant stress and frustration in trying ot [sic] deal with the issue has caused emotional stress, time wasted in dispute, and nausea, and I have taken at least three leaves of absence, each of which I intended to be permanent (but never were, ...)...." don't help give the impression, which presumably you want, that you are the cool and rational party whose work is besieged by the (more or less) hot-headed or irrational. Digging up the URLs of diffs from page histories is an immensely tiresome business, but to be more compelling I think that you need some: better to make fewer, better documented assertions than more, poorly documented ones. Before anyone makes a formal response or agrees with you, I think it would be good if you revised what you say. (In your place, I'd print it out and revise it with a red ballpoint.) -- Hoary 02:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Enh. I probably should've just re-wrote the section at WP:ALBUM that I think serves as a poor example rather than bringing it up at the RfC.  I was hoping to steer the conversation to a larger picture, but it is probably a distraction.  Sorry about that.  Jkelly 03:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you say you're at work on it. All the best with it. Remember, when you feel angry, chill out, and then coolly describe the cause of the anger! -- Hoary 03:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely an improvement, but don't stop at this point. Here's an example: Have administrators monitor the contributions of the editors in question to make sure that they do not violate any policies or guidelines, or that they do not attempt to undo/circumvent any fixes to the articles. If problems with any particular user persist, then that user should be dealt with on a personal basis (up to and including blocking). Have administrators monitor all their contributions? That's a radical and authoritarian-sounding suggestion. And if clear problems with any user persist, WP already has procedures for dealing with this (up to and including blocking) -- so what's new? I mean, I understand and agree with the general thrust of what you're saying here, but you need to be more precise and (if you want agreement) you need it to be fair and easy to implement. -- Hoary 03:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

kudos
Just a note to say I am one who appreciates the work you're doing to fix the pop music articles mess. I won't even touch those articles with a ten foot pole. If there's anything I can do to help make things better, let me know (as I'm sure I've made mistakes of my own)... and I can certainly provide a name or two of people who are singlehandedly destroying articles with half-assed discography tables and innacurrate chart information and formatting. Keep up the good work; you're a braver man than I. -- eo 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * re:re:kudos
 * You're definitely doing the right thing. Just the other day I wanted to reference the book Last Night A DJ Saved My Life in an article pertaining to DJ culture and I think I got a headache from rolling my eyes so hard when another Mariah Carey article popped up... and for a song that's more famous in its original version, even.  I've tried to rationalize it this way - for a lot of these people, Wikipedia offers a free, easily-editable webspace for them to create fan pages, rather than having to create (and pay for) one themselves.  Good luck with your uphill battle and again let me know if I can assist. -- eo 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Let Me Hold You
Good progress. But there are literally hundreds, if not more than a thousand, articles that need this treatment. Btw, I'm wondering if you missed my two comments above, under "That New RfC" and "Rfc on Pop Music Issues". Jkelly 22:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I did post a question on the Talk page about endorsing statements, but I am in no rush for a reply. What I was actually referring to above was your response to me here, which I responded to above.  Jkelly 23:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Next time, I get to be bad cop, okay? Seriously though, I'm wondering about if what is happening here is helpful.  Maybe it will improve this one specific article, but the larger problem remains... Jkelly 02:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the pizza. I'm out to a movie in a few minutes myself.  Jkelly 03:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Last Night a DJ Saved My Life
I don't know if you'd noticed this; does it seem a reasonable split to you? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation
But no thank you...I will only have my intelligence and writing skills insulted like before. V. Molotov (talk)   19:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll put it to you this way, my work is barely appreciated here and I really hate some of the people here. 19:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Carey
I agree with your comments that it should be cut down a bit... though not too much. I really feel that the external links should be converted into footnotes though. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree (I really like references). If you see my latest edits, you'll see that I took out a whole bunch of references :( Looks like someone went overboard. When it comes to disruption, though, this is a good form of disruption (though not something I'd necessarily want to encourage...) :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks! Wow, I don't know what to say...the article hasn't been fully "emancipated" yet, but it's slowly getting there. Your firm attitude towards the Careycruft problem on Wikipedia brings to mind the wise words of this editor: "I respect Carey's considerable talents, but her fans here are her worst enemy." Although, I feel obliged to admit that I own a copy of The Emancipation of Mimi, and listen to it on a regular basis :). Extraordinary Machine 15:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Cool (song)
Oh, um, I'm practically speecless. But thank you. Most positively thankful. :) --Winnermario 19:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, I know, I know. Thanks anyway. --Winnermario 20:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't tell me that the references are not sorted out. If that "Yesterday" song by The Beatles made featured article with its references the way they are, I can certainly make it too, as mine are exactly the same. --64.231.71.208 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the above comment was from me. For some awkward reason, I was logged out. --Winnermario 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Then can you please format it for me? --Winnermario 01:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Merci beaucoup, thanks. --Winnermario 01:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel like I'm flirting with the enemy (I'm a girl, don't worry), but I think you're honest. I really do. I don't know where you stand between this debate about wanting "Cool" as a featured article or not, but I really have no idea how to format references. I request for your help. And if you don't want to, that's fine with me. At this point, I could care less whether the article wins the nomination or not. Will you help with the formatting? I don't have a clue of what to do. --Winnermario 23:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You know what? Forget my above comment. I'm taking off. Your gang has pushed my buttons, and just like every other person you've ruined on this site&mdash;all of them leaving in the end&mdash;I'm also going down that road. I'm leaving this site. Mel Etitis, Hoary, Extraordinary Machine... all of you. Forget it. After the nomination fails, which I'm most positive it will, I'm taking my leave. So thank you. Here adds another to your everlasting and ever-growing list. --Winnermario 23:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm acting foolish. I just want to know... if the article fails (which it will), thanks for your help. Just... you don't need to reference it properly. Okay? Sorry about the above. That was me being... dumb. Thanks for everything. --Winnermario 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)