User talk:OmegaWikipedia/Old Comments Part 2

Re: Pop rivalries
Should be fine. Good work. --FuriousFreddy 05:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: List of number-one R&B hits (United States)
Would you mind helping with the rewrite (see the link at the top)? You seem to have access to chart information that I do not have, and it would help to fill in the post-1979 years in the format similar ot the Hot 100 pages. Also, it owuld help you compile the list of artists with the most #1's, etc. (I'm going ot go out on a limb and guess that it will be James Brown). --FuriousFreddy 15:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We already have everything to 1979, so we'd only be missing one decade. Surely that missing decade will pop up somewhere. --FuriousFreddy 21:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Hot 100 charts actualy are tables; just without borders. As far as non consecutive runs, list it as many times as it appeared and disappeared from the charts. Here are my examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%26B_number-one_hits_of_1978_%28USA%29; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%26B_number-one_hits_of_1979_%28USA%29. We might need ot remove the last clumn; I nly did it to retain all the info from the original page. --FuriousFreddy 22:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hot 100 Achievements page
Hey Omega, I put a new comment in the Hot 100 talk page, but in case you don't see it, just wanted to show you the Hot 100 achievements page I have been working on: click here. I figured perhaps we could combine our ideas for the page and then remove a lot of the extra junk from the main Hot 100 article. Let me know any ideas you have. Also, let me know if you want any assistance with the #1 R&B lists. Later. -- eo 19:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Templates and infoboxes
Here are some reasons why using template infoboxes is more helpful than using raw syntax directly into the article (click here and here for more information). I already explained some of these at Talk:We Belong Together, but I thought I should go into more detail:
 * 1) To reduce article size.
 * 2) To increase the ease of editing pages. Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia article than anyone can edit. Using raw syntax in articles keeps that from happening. The infobox is much easier to use for those not overly familiar with how to use the syntax.
 * 3) To keep a consistent appearance of single articles throughout Wikipedia. If somebody decides to do something different with the syntax in a new article, it would then not match up with any other article that uses that syntax. With infoboxes, you can edit the syntax in one place, and the changes are reflected across Wikipedia.
 * 4) Closely related to the above, to make sure articles obey the WikiProject Music and Song guidelines (as well as Wikipedia's manual of style, which the version you prefer to use (and keep reverting to) does not. The album's title should be on a yellow background with the single's title, "Director" should give a clue as to what the word means, chart positions should be in their own section and be in order of the single's position, and song years in the chronology at the bottom should be in parentheses. Extraordinary Machine 11:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The syntax is confusing: just because you are accustomed to editing it, it doesn't mean that anybody else wants to (compare). And it's better to be able to edit it from one place than go through every single article and make sure they are correct. I have already explained this to you. The specific order of single positions is to prevent edit wars arising from which country should be listed first (I see you've had disagreements with other editors in the recent past about this issue, looking at your edit history). It's a useful policy, whether it was added a week ago or a year ago. Extraordinary Machine 12:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Now tell me: which of the above is shorter? Which is sleeker? Which would be easier to edit if it was to be copied and pasted into another article? I'm not stalking you; edit histories are there for the world to see, so don't complain. Putting USA positions first would be introducing systematic bias in favour of the United States: this is an English language encyclopedia, and is not restricted to the U.S. I've already justified my edits: you're just not listening to my explanations. Extraordinary Machine 12:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are preferring to make your edits based on what you think is correct, rather than what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state (e.g. systemic bias, NPOV, citing sources, and many more). Be aware: there are rules here, and you must abide to them. Don't just keep reverting people's edits willy-nilly because you don't agree with them. I've explained and justified my edits as much as possible, and am about to file a request for a third opinion on this matter, but I'm not going to debate much longer with somebody who refuses to adhere to even the most basic WP:MoS guidelines such as enclosing years of songs in parentheses. We're going in circles here. Extraordinary Machine 15:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was pleasantly surprised by your last comment, and was about to agree to start talking more maturely, but I just noticed your edits to WikiProject Songs. It's unacceptable to do that, especially when you are in the middle of a dispute. You can't edit Wikipedia's guidelines to conform to what you think is correct. Extraordinary Machine 16:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I contacted Mel Etitis because he edits a lot of music-related articles. I didn't have any alterior motives in approaching him specifically, I assure you. Extraordinary Machine 23:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Question
Are you the person who has been adding all the material to each song section? Winnermario 21:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are the one adding all the song information to the various artists, I'm just curious to know where you are obtaining your information from, and if you could fill in the song articles about Avril Lavigne. Winnermario 01:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just the general, like in all of the music artist's sections. The chart performance, song information, etc., etc. Winnermario 01:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Keep up the good work. Winnermario 12:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for adding the "Sk8er Boi" section. I'd just like to request for when "I'm With You" goes up that the "W" is capital, since "With" is capitalized in songwriting. Thank you for your time. 64.231.65.47 21:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Shake.jpg
Please do not remove image copyright tags from image description pages. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 17:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Canadian positions
I'm using the airplay chart, because whomever previously posted the peak of number four on "Behind These Hazel Eyes" was using the airplay chart. I'm saying it's a Top 40 because it debuted at number twenty-eight, and since there are still two (soon to be one) weeks remaining in the trajectory box, I will just add those positions.

For "Because of You", I'm using the Top 120 because the song debuted at number one-hundred and twelve. Its low debut compared to "BTHE"'s good debut is possibly because it does not have a music video released (although there is one being shot). Is this what you wanted to know? If there is anything more, just ask. Winnermario 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop undoing my edits
Stop undoing my edits. If you continue, a request for comment will be filed against you. Wikipedia is not your personal playground; you cannot revert other editors into submission. You've been blocked for this type of behaviour in the past, so I'd strongly suggest that you stop guarding these articles as if they were yours to do as you please. Extraordinary Machine 21:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Funny how you pick apart my point about the Songs WikiProject, and dismiss every other argument I have made justifying the use of the new single infobox. See above for my four points. As WikiProject Songs states, "This project is not yet fully defined. Feel free to add stuff to make things clearer.", which Moochoogle did. You're not supposed to change the guidelines after somebody has created one, at least not without a discussion first. No other objections have been raised by any other users about Moochoogle edits, and it's pure common sense to deduct that the guideline he introduced is likely to reduce the likelihood of both edit wars and U.S.-centric systemic bias. But, I forgot, you called it "nonsense". Extraordinary Machine 21:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As I already said on Talk:Shake It Off, you are in violation of, among others, Ownership of articles, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AWT, WP:CITE, WP:POINT, Captions and Fancruft (have you read any of these yet?). Of all those, you could only have sufficient ground to accuse me of violating the ownership of articles policy, and your argument probably wouldn't hold much water, since you're the one you started this edit war in the first place. I'd present evidence to you backing up my claims, but I know you'd dismiss my accusations without looking at it. Fortunately, WP:RFC patrollers are more open-minded than that. Extraordinary Machine 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Spice Girls singles
I was just curious to know why you updated all the Spice Girls singles from the Spice album, but not the Spiceworld album? Winnermario 23:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am expecting an answer to my above question. Winnermario 00:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Respect articles
Since the split is staying for now, I might as well point out a few issues with the Respect article.

Aretha Franklin had no part in the writing of the song performed by Otis Redding. In fact they only met casually long after her version was a #1 hit. While I'm okay with you keeping the Aretha version as your "pet project" for now, please do not add incorrect information to the Otis version.

Problems with the Franklin version: 1) "Respect" was anything but a flop for Redding. #4 is not a "moderate hit," but a hit, especially for an underground soul musician at a time when poppy songs (like My Guy, My Girl, or Chapel of Love) were topping that chart. It also was far from a flop at the pop charts, considering who he was and what pop radio was playing (The Beatles, etc.) at the time. You're whole reasoning in this matter lacks perspective and logic, and is just plain incorrect.

2) There is no documentation for the argument that Atlantic Records was concerned about her version of the song becoming a hit, esp. for the reasons stated in your article. The original, had in fact, been a major hit at R&B and one of the few underground soul records at the time to cross over to top 40. Also, with Jerry Wexler behind Franklin's version, Atlantic had nothing to worry about. If you can find a source for this information, then it can stay. Otherwise, it's just plain incorrect and should be removed.

3) It would help if you had concrete references for all of your “new” information, as well.

Volatile 12:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand and respect you trying to reconcile the situation, however, please refrain from making changes from the Redding version. At the time of both the Aretha and Otis versions of the songs, the BILLBOARD HOT 100 was known as the POP CHART and the BILLBOARD HOT R&B/HIP-HOP SINGLES & TRACKS was known as the BLACK CHART. "Hip-Hop" wasn't even around in 1965 (or 67). Thank you. Volatile 12:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My last comments regarding the Respect fiasco can be found here. As long as you post no more incorrect information and don't make unnecessary edits to the Redding article, I have no problem. Volatile 23:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

American music
I have reorganized American popular music, giving it a tighter focus. In doing so, it has become significantly smaller. I would appreciate any additional comments you might have at Featured article candidates/American popular music. Thanks, Tuf-Kat 02:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Apology and reply
My eternal apologies for missing that message you previously sent me. Could you please ask Ultimate... whatever his name is to fix up the Spiceworld singles? Thank you, and sorry!

The Canadian Singles Chart? I've only used the "official" chart for "A Moment Like This" (reaching a position of one), "Miss Independent" (reaching a position of six), "Breakaway" (reaching a position of three), and the infamous position of number two for "Low". The chart positions for "Since U Been Gone" and "Behind These Hazel Eyes" are a bit awkward though. Since neither officially made it onto the sales chart, "Since U Been Gone"'s chart position comes from MuchMusic, and "BTHE"'s chart position comes from the airplay chart. So far "Because of You" has also been coming from an airplay chart&mdash;but not the official one, more of a mainstream Canadian radio that only posts the weekly positions (all one-hundred and fifty of them) in the papers. Since this can be met with criticism, I was debating about "BoY"'s chart removal. The rest, as I've mentioned, come from the various above places. Winnermario 14:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We can most certainly use the airplay chart for BTHE if you want to, and with the other two singles? I guess it would be fare to for SYBG, but for some reason I feel reluctant on BoY. Winnermario 21:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Behind These Hazel Eyes"'s peak of number four is the BDS chart peak. I made a huge error early, my true apologies. The BOY chart trajectory is unofficial&mdash;it has not charted on the Canadian Singles Chart or the BDS Chart. And the SUBG chart is MuchMusic&mdash;do you want to get the BDS chart for SUBG since it was unable to chart on the Singles Chart? And I'm not sure if there is, for BoY, that is. Winnermario 18:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, from sales, to airplay, to MuchMusic. This "unofficial" chart is just something that is run in my city of Saskatchewan&mdash;we do not need to use it, but I only used it because it has yet to chart on any other chart. This is probably due to the fact that its music video hasn't been released yet. Winnermario 18:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That is correct! And yes, we will do that with BoY. Winnermario 01:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson the African -American
Please do not remind me. I very nearly quit this project altogether because of such foolishness. Just leave it alone (they'll keep changing it to American, just like they always have, and then comes the highly racist suggestion of "I'll add a picture"). The situation, and its inherent racial undertones (you'll never see Italian-American removed from someone's article) have seriously pissed me off. Just let it go, and make sure he's at least in African-American related categories. --FuriousFreddy 14:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging
All of your images, a list of which can be found here, must be tagged. If you need help doing so, ask on my talk pages. Be hasty, because images marked no source can be deleted in 7 days. Superm401 | Talk 02:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Image:IKWYW copy.jpg has been listed for deletion at WP:IFD because it is an orphan. Superm401 | Talk 02:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OmegaWikipedia, it's impossible to claim fair use on an image without specifying its source. Stop tagging images promotional when most of them don't even fit that description, and none of them specify their source and/or copyright holder. Extraordinary Machine 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand...I'm not giving you these instructions just to "make me happy". Wikipedia has a strict policy against copyright violations; you can't just upload copyrighted images and claim they are something they aren't. Promotional images would mean something like this, not just any general photo. Are you sure the copyright holder of Image:WMAWBTMariahCarey.jpg is the World Music Awards organisation? It looks like it was taken on the red carpet after the ceremony to me...anyway, I've tagged it with no source again until this issue has been cleared up. Additionally, I don't think that a cropped screenshot would qualify as "fair use" either, unless there was a good reason for it to be cropped. Extraordinary Machine 15:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Omega, you're right that Image:WMAWBTMariahCarey.jpg shouldn't have been speedied. The criterion says that the image must be in Category:images with unknown source for 7, presumably consecutive, days.  This image was only in the category for 1 day. More importantly, the criterion is meant for uncontroversial cases.  However, in this instance, you did provide a source, though Extraordinary Machine disagreed with its validity.  For disputed images, WP:IFD is better.  So I agree with you.  I'll try to recover your image and then we'll give it a fair shot at WP:IFD. I'm putting a request to get it back at Lost images, the proper spot. Superm401 | Talk 17:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Omega, you asked me whether you have objected to deletion in the right place. You did so properly, but the image is smaller than an identical one and no longer has any links, making it an orphan.  I still support deletion. Superm401 | Talk 17:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you need to be much more specific when claiming promotional. For instance, for Image:FLABHurricaneKatrina.jpg, who released the image, EXACTLY?  Was it the singer, her agent, the record label, the group organizing the concert, the television station where the concert was shown, or maybe the charity it was raising money for?  The promotional tag doesn't tell me that, but you have to.  Also, what were they trying to promote?  Did the charity want to sell a video or DVD of the concert?  Did the singer or her agent want to promote her next album?  Was the television station trying to get people to buy a special music package?  DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS.  We need them.  Also, what media organization was the image released to, Reuters, AP, NY Times, Billboard, or what?  After that, how did you come upon the image?  Did you find it on their web site, the paper, the magazine, or did your friend at Billboard send it to you even though it wasn't published?  We need to know all this information to make a fair use judgement.  Again, ask me if you have questions. Superm401 | Talk 17:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I added no source to the deleted image and contacted you, assuming that you would be given a full week to supply source and copyright information, as it said on the template and at WP:CSD. I did not realise that it would be deleted on sight. That said, I should have tagged it unknown and listed it at WP:IFD, so I apologise for that. Also, most of the images on my user page are there so that I can keep track of what I uploaded, but I'll trim the extraneous ones and move the others to a subpage. Extraordinary Machine 15:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Just to inform you that Ive answered that questions on My RFA. you can now vote accordingly. Jo urna list |  huh?

Image:Vma3.jpg
Hello. I was wondering if you have a source for this image? If not, then it will have to be deleted soon. Zach (Sound Off) 05:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

re: Song stubs.
In general, song stubs should be redirected to the album they come from. There is no reason to write a stub article on a song, nor is there a reason to write a stub article on every song. I am redirecting "Theme from Mahogany" back to the film it came from, there is no reason to change it. --FuriousFreddy 03:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any well-meaning reason why you keep reverting the merge? Honestly, I'd like a detailed answer. Both the article aon the song and the film mentioned the film's plot and the fact that the song did better than the movie in the same amount of detail; why not merge? It is better ot have one good article rather than two short stubs which repeat information. --FuriousFreddy 05:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

We can most certainly have a calm discussion.
I'd like nothing better.

But this has to be brief (at least tonight's part of it). I have a job to wake up for in five hours. I'll have a proper reply in about five minutes. --FuriousFreddy 05:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

...and that was the longest five minutes in recorded history. Nevertheless...

First of all, note that I am not doing this as any sort of a personal vendetta. This isn't about you. It's about your edits. Don't take anything I do personal, or any comments I make about articles or edits personal. Remember that there is no ownership of articles, and that "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."

That being said, I will plainly state my position. I may come off as slightly blunt, but I do not mean to offend.

First…
You (and several others) are going overboard with the song articles. In fact, you could say the life rafts are already in the water. An encyclopedia has a certain scope or focus in that it is to cater primarily to a novice on a subject, or someone unfamiliar with a topic. As such, it must remain accessible for those persons, and easy to read. When articles start getting long, this becomes a problem. I've written some long articles while I've been here, and I'm constantly trying to shorten them, compact them, and send parts of them off to sub articles. There should certainly be an information cut-off, and I honestly don't think that readers need to know every country a single charted in, every position the single held on the hot 100, and every alternate remix or version of the song. Encyclopedias are about presenting you with a general scope on a subject, and then allowing you to take that foundation and build upon it by researching other sources.

In the grand scope of the world, and the encyclopedia, pop singles are primarily trivial; something of interest, but nothing of true importance. The articles (and their length and detail) should therefore reflect that: mention basics and move on. Articles on albums are better places for detailed information, as an album is generally (in the case of modern music) the more concrete form of presentation for a song.

Second…
You have the dubious distinction of being the very first editor to make separate articles for the same song. Most song articles give passing mention to cover versions, unless they truly made an impact; and in that case, the relevant information will be covered in the same article. The Beatles' articles rarely mention cover versions, and although highly notable Beatles covers exist (in perpetuity), there's no point in writing separate articles on them. A number of times, you (or someone else) have even gone on to write articles on songs that were covers without even covering the original version of the song, something that can only be seen as bias or unconcerned writing (even if you didn't know anything about the original version; if you know it exists, that is a starting point in doing research to find out about it. I learned everything I now know about the Gladys Knight "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" by looking for information on the Marvin Gaye one.)

I know it's hard to be unbiased in writing about one of your favorite entertainers (I'm assuming that Mariah Carey is one of our favorites; and contrary to what you may believe, I don't dislike her and never have). I've had to go back and re-edit the article I originated on one of my favorite acts, Dru Hill, several times to remove over-information that I, as a fan, knew and cared about, but would be superfluous to the general person who would read that article. You can always request an uninvolved party to come in and give any article a good copyedit, so that you end up with a balanced article wit ha neutral point of view. You have to understand that an encyclopedia can't show favoritism or include any sort of biased language or formatting.

Third…
As far as listing those articles on AfD, I had actually planned to do that way back when they were first written, but never got around to it (or, at least, was trying to decide what should be done). I only nominated articles that were covers of songs, and covers that were not the most notable version of the song. There's no reason to be mad: no one was doing anything in a deliberate attempt to make anyone mad. You keep telling me to "calm down"; I'm not uncalm. A little annoyed, perhaps, but not angry; believe me, if I was, I'd let you know. There's far too many other things to worry about (job, bills, career, health, etc).

In the past, you've shown tendencies to revert good edits to articles so that they read "your way"; I've seen very long revert wars with Mel Etitis, where he would fix grammar or wording and you would revert. Wikipedia editors are not to revert good changes to articles; only ones that are factually incorrect or vandalism. We are supposed to work together, not do what we want to do how we want to do it, damning everyone else.

In all honesty, I would suggest that you buy some webspace and start up a pop stars fansite of some sort, where you could use the language you want to use and the amount of detail you want to add. Here, we all need to establish a sense of consistency and succinctness. I can't add everything I know on every subject to an article; I have to only include the most relevant information. I have to remember that some clueless person is going to want to pull this up, give it a quick once-over, and learn every thing they want to know as quickly as possible. One day, I'm going to start my own site, where I can do music reviews, something that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

Comapre your work with the featured articles. Does your look like you're including too much? What sort of language are you using? There are scores of project articles in Wikipedia on "how to write the perfect article", and a whole Manual of Style as well. We need consistency. We need to appear as a scholarly, dependable, reliable reference to the outside world, who see Wikipedia generally as a big collection of fan pages or free digital grafitti walls.

There's probably more to say, but that's enough for a start. --FuriousFreddy 05:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no retraction of A(not V anymore) fDs. You submit it, and it has to go through the process. Mariah Carey's personal article fits the notablility guidelines, which do not apply to articles on songs. My actions weren't premature (I could make a nasty joke, but I won't), they were done because the articles did not appear to be notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia as seperate articles. I've merged my own articles at time,s when I realized that they weren't notable enough or were just stubs (although you keep undoing the Mahogany one). Let the other editors say what they have to say about them, and it will be determined what should be done.


 * Again, no one hates you (why are you taking this personally?). Mel Etitis appears to be a stickler for proper English and scholalry wriitng (makes sense, he;s a college professor). He's had a mind to do this same thing for quite some time now. We're not ganging up on you; don't take it all personal, or even feel like you are solely to blame. I don't read user histories to see who wrote an article before I list it on AfD; I just do it. (Now I know that you know that I know you wrote several of those articles--I don;t even know if you wrote them all; I didn't look). But, again, don't feel bad. I'm assuming that you've never touched any of the articles on 50 Cent, but I've spenmt quite some time slashign through and speedily redirecting several of those articles as well.


 * This isn't about choosing sides or ganging up on people. This is about improving and maintaining an encyclopedia. --FuriousFreddy 06:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There's not really anything wrong with nominating an article for deletion, even if proposed guidelines (not policy) may apply. And articles may be renominated for deletion, as long as it is done in good faith.  Tuf-Kat 12:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no clear definition of good faith, but basically it means he nominated it because he seriously thinks it should be deleted and that it has a reasonable chance of there being consensus for it to be deleted. Generally, an article can be renominated multiple times (I believe Gay Niggers Association of America and White Dawg have been nominated multiple times -- you might peruse those previous noms to get an understanding of the situation), as long as the noms are not in immediate succession and the articles are not being nominated to prove a point. Tuf-Kat 19:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply 1
All that typing, and that was all you gleaned from that? I saw the edit war(s) with my own eyes, and I clearly read who changed and/or unchanged what.

Moving on, there is no intention of bad faith in my nominating the articles for deletion. One of Wikipedia's weaknesses is that it lacks strong rules on issues like this. MY personal ideal is for a team of editors to go in, revise, re-edit, merge, delte, etc. any and all of the articles on these pop stars, Poekmon characters, Star Trek, and anything other such groups of articles, so as to clean up biased language, fix grammatical and sentax errors, format in consistency with the manual of style, and maintain a semblance of a scope and discernment inasfaras what is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and what is not. Something like a team of editors who would have to approve each and every article for consistency, and dedicated themselves to doing nothing else. --FuriousFreddy 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. In reference to your comments on TUF-KAT's page, if the articles survive the vote, Freddy's going to wash his hands of the whole thing. I honestly have better things to do than to educate people on how to write encyclopedia articles, and to attempt to maintain a semblance of scholarly tone and coverage here. "What I want" is for encyclopedic treatment of notable subjects, which (I would hope) is not a lot to ask from editors for the Wikipedia. But if the people decide they want free fansite hosting, then I can show myself out (and discourage the use the Wikipedia as a reliale reference). --FuriousFreddy 01:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It depends upon the type of explosion. It would be great to get articles for every notable R&B/soul act, many of which are sorely lacking, and to get the ones on the notable ones up to a higher standard of coverage. But I would AfD, merge, and redirect overcoverage on any and all R&B/soul artists or categories just like I'm doing now for pop articles. Case in point: "Do You Know Where You're Going To" can easily be mentioned at Mahogany, without the need to create sepertate articles. Even though it was a number one hit, there's not enough information avaiable to write a full-fledged article on the song, and a stub repeats information already mentioned in the article for the movie. There is, and has to be, a cut-off as far as what gets included here, and what doesn't: something like a full Stevie Wonder discography, with an article for every single he's ever recorded, is far beyond the scope of the encyclopedia. As I've said before, most singles aren't notable outside of the fact that they are singles. Why make three articles on three singles that made no impact on society, culture, or otherwise; when they could be just as easily mentioned in an article for the song?


 * If someone writes an article for every Supremes single, most of them are going to get merged or AfD'd. THe same goes for any and every other act. Not even all of Michael Jackson's singles are notable enough for albums of their own.


 * This isn't a bias or jelousy thing; could you please remove personal feelings and such from this, and thing about the encyclopedia as a whole, its standards, its level of writing, its established precedents, and exactly why this is even an issue? --FuriousFreddy 02:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If the articles survive the vote, how does that make Wikipedia unencyclopedic? Because encyclopedias have a certain way of writing, scope, and coverage, that is not seen in those articles. Their very reasons for existence are dubius. Why should I waste my time trying to do scholalry and fact-checked writing when it's okay to just come in and write a glut of biased articles on my favorite muscician? 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)? --FuriousFreddy 02:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I AfD'd "Do You Know" because I never inteded to write an article on it in the first place (Diana Ross' solo recordings were BrothaTimothy's turf, anyways. When you wrote the article on Mariah Carey's cover (which isn't inherently notable enough for its own article), I added the information on the Diana ROss original instead of nominating it on AfD at that time. You're not understanding, so I'm going to say this one last time: none of this is a personal attack. I didn't nominate any articles for deletion solely because of who wrote them or who sung the song the article is about. Is that clear?


 * I took a visit to the article on "My Heart Will Go On" (which is not a stub, biut just a short article), and then read the page on Titanic. The article itself barely established the song's notablility, but the song's notablility was saved by adding an important fact that the Titanic article mentions, but the song article does not: the record won the Oscar for Best Song of 1997. That's notablility right there, so it should remain seperate. I'd only suggest merging the article on a film's theme song to the film if there isn't enough information available to fill a non-stub article, as is the case for "Do You Know".


 * If the articles were notable enough to exist as they were, I would not have nominated them. Off the top of my head, Mariah Carey should really have no more than twelve to sixteen, possibly twenty, articles for her songs (which would cover all of her major hits that have had an impact on the music industry, leaving others--regaurdless of sales or chart success--as mentions on the article for the album they originate from. Every song I nominated except the Black Eyed Peas one is a cover of a song that is either a standard, or is more notable as a song for someone else. They are written fro ma fan point of view (their very existence shows bias--why not write an article on Roseanne Barr's notorious rendition of the "The Star-Spangled banner", or the Jackson 5's hit version of "Santa Clause is Comin' to Town"? 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?"


 * There is no way in heaven or hades that Mariah Carey has 100 singles or even 100 potential singles. Like I said, only less than two dozen of her songs are notable enough for seperate articles of their own--and that's still quite a lot.


 * I "ranted" about it because that is a major problem here: the Wikipedia has weak points, and few people try to fill them in instead of piling more and more detail onto what's already covered. I know all about the systematic bias, but it's honestly ridiculous. As far as "fixing it", a cursory look through my contributions will tell you that I have damn well tried (in fact, most any other editor here will tell you that that has always been my primary goal), but I am only one person, and I don't have time to fix everything that is wrong with the music coverage of the Wikipedia. The very suggestio nthat I haven't done anything ,and instead have been simply complaining is both ludicrous and highly unfounded, and I would suggest that you do not make such blind statemnts in the future.


 * By the way, consider this fair wanring: the articles on the Glitter characters need to be cut down to one paragraph each and merged to the article on the movie, or they are going to be AfD'd for non-notablility. Perhaps you could even keep them as they are (althoug hI'd strongly suggest they be cut down, they are far too long to be about characters from a film that isn't notable enough to warrant such coverage in an encyclopedia) and combine them intoa a Major characters in Glitter (film) article, but seperate articles for each one are far too much. --FuriousFreddy 02:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not jealousy; it's a matter of scope and importance. Yes, King and X should have more coverage, but the point of my comment is that Mariah Carey has (by far) too much coverage. I am not jealous of the articles or the amount of articles; to be quite blunt, the articles are poorly written and filled with fancruft, so there is no grounds for jealousy. By that logic, I most be jealous of the Pokemon articles also. --FuriousFreddy 03:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as "what you do", you, to be honest, need to find better ways to contribute to Wikipedia. There is a lot more you can do to help improve the encyclopedia other than continuing to make articles on nearly every single any artist put out. My comment about the white female artists was incorrect, and I apoligize. Nevertheless, nobody, black, white, or green, needs this many articles. --FuriousFreddy 03:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Nominated", as in "did not win". "My Funny Friend and Me" was nominated or an Oscar, but there is no reason on earth to write an article for it (you likely don't even know what movie it comes from and would have to Google it). The "My Heart" article at least has more facts to include to justify its existence. I'm not slow; you want to try and justify the existence of your Mariah Carey cover version by trying to make sure the Diana Ross version remains a seperate article. The song (as in, the Diana Ross record) is notable enough for an article, and it will get one when someone can write more than two catalogue-based paragraphs on it. Until then, it should remain redirected to the movie.


 * You didn't write the "Star-Spangled banner article"? Fine. I didn't know, didn't check, and didn't (and don't) care. Like I said, it's not about who wrote them; it's the fact that they were written in the first place.


 * Do not, DO NOT, DO NOT write an article on the Jackson 5 version of "Santa Claus". You know better than that. The Jacksons already have all of the song articles they need, thanks to BrothaTimothy.


 * I've written on articles for every artist that I knew about, and could provide factual information on, including much coverage of hip-hop and 1960s/1970s pop music. I've written articles for artists I could hardly call my favorites, and many that I've never heard of before. 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. There were no Mariah articles when you got here because most of them weren't neccessary. And as far as "whining", I'd also ask you to stop whining when people nominated non-neccessary articles you wrote for deletion. You're not the only one who does, though: I once had a user compain that "I should have told them I was listing their article for deletion".


 * Out of courtesy, nothing. To aparaphrase Chuck D, "you don't own no article." If I think it should be deleted, I will nominate it as such without hesitation. I'm telling you before i do it, in the hopes that you will take the initiative to do the merging and redirecting yourself before being made ot do it (you and I both know that articles on characters from Glitter are not going to survive AfD).


 * I'm not jealous of any other articles, especially not yours.


 * All of your contributions are not inherently useless, I wouldn't even say most. 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. You're still missing the point: everything does not need an article; you'd do better writing for Everything2, where they literally write about everything. We don't need seperate articles on Pokemon characters; that's fancruft. And this is not about people or about "not knocking what people do", this is supposed to be a group effort, and editors are supposed to defer to what the group has set out i nan attempt to make something cohesive and balanced. This isn't about what I do or don't like, this is about the quality of encyclopedia coverage. I'm not bashing you specifically for writing articles on pop music, I am crticizing the need for over-coverage of pop songs, seperate articles for pop song covers, biased language, and more. You're thinking that I'm deliberately trying to undermine your work because I don't like you. I don't know you; I just know your edits. You could secretly be one of my best friends for all I know, and I'd still be trying to fix this issue.


 * This is probablly a lost cause. You're obviously not aware that a change needs to be made, nor are you apparently willing to change in the better interests of the encyclopedia. I can talk from now until doomsday, but you're not going to stop. I'd bet if you were banned, you'd find a way to sneak right back and keep on. --FuriousFreddy 03:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, as far as my articles are concerned, if I've ever written an article that was obviously unneccessary, I got rid of it myself. I'd go so far as to say that there's not a single article I've worked on that should be nominated for AfD; if there was, then I've already nominated it myself and it's been deleted. There was too much to write and fix to write unncessary articles. --FuriousFreddy 03:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a waste of time.
 * 1) "One Sweet Day" is notable for other reasons besides an award nomination. You know this.
 * 2) I don't yell at people. I've asked for help, because I don't have time to do all of this myself. And this is supposed to be a collaboartive project, and not a piecemeal thing broken down into assignments. But aksing for help was obviously fruitless, so it's a moot point now.
 * 3) I'm not asking you to stop writing articles on pop music. I'm asking you to stop writing uneccessary articles on singles who have no notablility.
 * 4) We barely need articles on songs themselves, we sure as anything don't need seperate articles on different recordins of the same song. But I'm talking a hole in my head, and I have waisted my entire evening doing so. Since you're obviously not going to change, I'm going to stop trying to ask you to. Talking to you is pointless, and trying to get guidelines and cohesiveness established in the Wikipedia is, I now realize, a stupid idea. Because we have people like you who, desipte protests from more than one user, insist on writing what you want to write and how you want to write it. Reguardless of whether what you do is in the best interest of the rest of the encyclopedia, or even a specific section of it, you're not going to stop, because you're not going to listen.

It is now 12:40 at night. I have wasted almost four hours of my life talking to you, with absolutely no leeway having been made. I also wasted time on a weeknight before work typing a reply that you apparently didn't even fully read, in which I made every attempt to be cordial and nice.

This is the last comment that I will ever write towards you; and I will leave your Glitter articles alone as long as you do not make any comments to me again. And that would include a reply to these comments as well. --FuriousFreddy 04:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Mariah
Hi & thanks for telling me about the VFD of other Mariah songs. I hope they'll be kept. The singles chronology is very nice, I'm planning to do the same with singles of other artists as soon as I have time. :-) Alensha 15:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)