User talk:OmegaWikipedia/Old Comments

Mariah Carey Singles

/Old Comments

Just thought I'd let you know I think your doing a fantastic job on writing articles for the Mariah Carey singles. You progress very quickly as well which I also commend you on. Just one point when writing the articles, please do not bold every single title, just make the single title at the very beginning of the first article when you say "song x was the first single from album y"; only the name of song x needs to be bolded and nothing else in the article. Please try and keep to this and keep up the good work! Ultimate Star Wars Freak 16:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you also link to the albums, and prominently include the dates the singles came out and charted? I just happened on Butterfly (Mariah Carey song) via Special:Newpages and only by association with "Candle in the Wind" 1997 could the reader directly get a sense of the time. But! Agreed with the above. Great work! Samaritan 03:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well done, with the completion of the series (at least to date), this series of articles looks fantastic. I'm hoping we can work on improving them even more, which is why I've included tables. Please let me know what you think of them, and please add to them if you have the missing information. They are official Wikipedia singles tables. I'm hoping we can get them to Peer Review and eventually, FAC status. We could organise a system of working on the songs as I am keen to help you on this project, either album by album (ie work on "Vision Of Love", "Love Takes Time", "Someday", "I Don't Wanna Cry" & "There's Got To Be A Way" at once), or simply single by single, or in another order. Obviously, more information can be added, and I think the articles are slightly US-centric, which of course is acceptable to a certain degree as she is from America, however do not forget Mariah Carey has a huge fanbase worldwide and has sold millions in other countries. If you get the information on the official release dates of the singles and their debut positions on the Hot 100, that would be incredibly useful for this set of articles. Keep up the amazing work, you really are doing some fabulous write-ups and I hope O Holy Night is kept as a separate article, I will be fighting on the Votes For Deletion page to keep it up. At worst, I will accept merging, but I'd rather it be a separate article, as it is another demonstration of your fantastic contributions. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 20:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Genre, definitely needs distinguishing between pop and r'n'b, I've kind of been more focused on getting the tables made & put on, with an interesting array of colours and the chronology fully correct for navigation purposes and was going to focus on tidying them up after putting them all on. I suppose after Daydream, most of her singles will be considered R&B, with the occasional exception such as Butterfly. Recorded is usually included in official singles tables, but it would be the same as the album it came from so I guess there isn't much point, but I suppose we could look into it to see if there was any point. For Format, I think only list the USA releases, as if we did anymore it really would be overdoing it. I wasn't too sure about the 7" single, I am quite useless with that section of the table really. We can always add in single release dates later, at least we have the months for most singles, but it would be nice to have specific dates. Debut positions would be a great help. Complete Hot 100 chart runs are perhaps a bit overdoing it; I often find them quite useful and informative, however on Wikipedia and generally across the Internet, they are looked at as unprofessional, so we could discuss them later. I can manage with incorporating the tables into the articles, but they will need tidying up. I should have that done within the next 2 - 3 days. As soon as I finish the tables, we could perhaps start on the singles from Mariah Carey, if you think that's a good idea. Best to go chronologically, as by the time we slowly go through the singles, The Emancipation of Mimi's singles will have all been released and completed their chart runs. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 22:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's start our editing discussion on the talk page for Vision Of Love.

Definitely, I think that's a very sensible idea to split up the chart data. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 15:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: I'll Be There.

Thanks for letting me know. Mind you, I don't mean any maliciousness; I don't want at all to ruin the project or anything. I had a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs when I was working on the article for Who's Lovin' You, a song sung by *many* artists and released as b-sides, and they showed me the compound-box thing. A few other songs that have had more than one hit version of the record released still have one article for all versions of the song. "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" was a hit for both Gladys Knight & the Pips and Marvin Gaye, for example).

I just wanted to get a consensus and not do anything too rash. Are you all working to elevate Mariah's article to featured status? That would be great. --FuriousFreddy 13:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

P.s.: Song infoboxes are color-coded by the type of song, according to the WikiProject: singles are yellow, album tracks are orange, b-sides are green, and soundtrack songs are purple. See [[1]]. --FuriousFreddy 13:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind. I just wanted a consensus to see if we needed consistency with the other articl4es. --FuriousFreddy 15:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't withdraw a VfD proposal. From the looks of the vote, though, I really shouldn't need to. So far, the vote is "keep" 8 to 7. If the vote is "merge", mind you, both versions of the song are gong to get their own sectio nof the artcile, just like the other song articles; it will essentially be a copy/paste job. You won't have to worry about losing much of the text, or any of the facts. --FuriousFreddy 21:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, as far as the single box colors go, they're for categorization & consistency. Using a seperate color scheme for the work of just one artist wouldn't quite be right? Who made that descicion (which I'm not sure it was theirs to make); they should be informed of the WikiProject: Songs formatting scheme. Also, I just found this: [2]. Apparently, you all have been down this road before. I guess I should ask why Mariah Carey, even though she is a popular and influential artist, needs seperate articles for versions of standard tunes recorded by others. --FuriousFreddy 02:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for telling me about the vote. Everyking 23:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I've done an example merge at I'll Be There/temp. I think it significantly adds to both articles ,and takes nothing away from either. What do you think? --FuriousFreddy 01:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Friend, we need to talk....

Okay...The seperate "I'll Be There" articles were one thing. Then I found the seperate articles for more songs she has covered. And Then I found an entire discography of Jermaine Dupri-produced Mariah songs in Dupri's article. To be quite frank...what gives? Yes, Mariah is an important artist, and yes she's the most successful solo female artisr ever (I think)...but I think you muight be overdoing it a bit. Every song she's covered (and I know there are several) does not need a seperate article from the original version of the song; it's almost unheard of.

Also, I've noticed that each song article lists the song as being by "Mariah Carey", without crediting the other artists on the song (see: "One Sweet Day", which I edited).

There aren't even articles (or even stubs) for Mariah's albums yet. I think that would be a better place to starts.

And, again, the whole color issue distracks from the purpose of using color for the infoboxes: identification. Infoboxes for a-side singles are always yellow, and no other color. In order for people to take Wikipedia seriously, we need ot have consistency and order; otherwise, we have chaos. --FuriousFreddy 03:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me, but it was me who kept changing the colours, I will change them all back to yellow as quickly as possible, I wasn't aware the system existed for singles as well as albums. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly; most users have e-mail through Wikipedia enabled, for me, here. Everyking 21:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

re: I'll Be There (Mariah Carey song) (again)

No, RPMs are not neccessary (though it is useful information), but retaining red-links does not make for good article editing. As far as trying ot maintain "consistency with your project", I would point out that (a) your fromatting is inconsistent with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs project, under which any article on a song falls, and (b) I don't see a project page for any Mariah Carey Project as it is, and (c) the formatting of all of the Mariah Carey song articles need to be revised and reformated so as to be a more assessible read (without the small sections seperated by the level 2 headline--try using only two or three of them for articles that small and use level three headings for everything in-between), not using the proper ternminology for the formats in the infobox, not adding the dates of release or other performers to the lead paragraph, and (erroniously) crediting singles on which Carey only guest stars as her own singles.

What this essentialy boils down to is the prevention of allowing anyone besides you and the other Carey fan Wikipedian from making any substantial edits to these articles. I think I'm left with no choice but to file a request for comment (hopefuly not arbitration), and reel this situation in before it gets out of hand. --FuriousFreddy 21:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reply 1

(let me apoligize before hand for any misspellings or misformatting--they're locking the office up & I've gotta go)

Trust me, I'm not being dramatic. It's just that you're painting with blue paint while everyone else is using red. I don't want ot start an edit war or anything like that. All I want is for all the articles about songs to be consistent with each other, regaurdless of who the articles are about or who is editing them.

You need to calm down. You're acting way too dramatic about this. How is my formatting inconsistent? Because I list the single formats differently than you?

Not that you list it diferent from me...that you list it different than the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs project guidelines and you have redlinks as a result where just using the formats listed would prevent that.

The way they list it on that page is not even how you list it.

...same formats, but with slight changes. My main issue is the plethora of redlinks in the format section.

If I created a Mariah Carey project page would that calm you down?

...again, I'm not going crazy over this. If you create a Mariah Carey project page, at least it would help other people see what is going on, and we could at least get some official policy worked out on issues of dispute.

For a song like I'll Be There, the sections can be small, yes, while as for other singles, the info on music videos and remixes can be big, so to maintain consistentcy thats where Im coming from.

Every article doesn't have to have the same exact sections; some sections might be relevant to this article, but nonexistent in the next. It just looks strange to have a big level 2 header and two sentences underneath (and that's for any article, not just yours.); it ends up looking a bit mechanical and results in the template "showing".

I'm erronously creditng singles on which Mariah credits on as her own singles? First of all, someone else helped create the tables in the first place, so that is not something that I even noticed when editing. As I didn't even put that heading, if I had known, I would had corrected it. I didn't go out maliciously like you accused me of to make sure that Mariah got credit and the others didn't.

I apoligize for blaming you. But (1) when you preview the page, you really should check the infoboxes too (something that I myself sometimes forget--we all make mistakes--but we should still try). and (2) similar wording is soemtimes found in the text as well (examples: [3] and [4]). I know that there would be an inherent favoritism, but there should be balance to the articles. What you really need is someone to read over the lot of them, suggest improvements, and then implement agreed improvements. I'm willing to help.

No, this doesn't "essentialy boil down to is the prevention of allowing anyone besides me and the other Carey fan Wikipedian from making any substantial edits to these articles." This situation is not out of hand. That is not the case at all, so please stop trying to make it something that it's not.

Tons of people edit these articles. I don't really care. I edited back the article you edited because you pratically did a major revamp of the whole article that I thought lost base with the consistency of these articles. I know you make single articles too. If I were to majorly revamp your articles, would you just sit back and accept my edits?

...if it improved the quality of the article, sure. I'm not married to any of them; I can't be, this is an open-source project. Some of them definitely need expansion, but I only had so much information to provide. Some of them could maybe even use improvement in their content, if a writer better than I were to come along and improve them. Again, it's not about my ego at all or my preferences. I'd just like some consistency.

I'd think you'd like to have a say in how you think it should be like it.

The only things I'd be against are (1) vandalism, (1a) erroneous additions, which are basically vandalism anyways, and (c) anything that makes the on-screen formatting jumbled or hard to read. If anyone can tell me, like in those Beatles articles, how many takes it took Diana Ross to get "You Can't Hurry Love" right, by all means, please add it. How I like it doesn't matter, because this is an encyclopedia. My opinion or preference can't matter, that violates NPOV. All I care about is acuracy and consistency.

There are other collections of single articles out there for artists like Britney Spears, The Beatles, Ashlee Simpson, etc. Each of them is different in their own ways, different from mine, different from yours. And that's the same case with these articles. One shouldn't edit all articles just because it doesn't appeal to their personal style.

Again, it's not about my personal style. The style I use isn't really mine--I just saw what articles were already here, figured out how they were put together, and went on from there. The only things I added were the b-side listings and the credits section at the bottom. Neither of those would I require to be on all Wiki articles bout songs that I come in contact with. Again, my whole thing is consistency with the other articles, not this is how B. wants the articles to look.

My instinct and gut feeling was to just leave them all alone, but eventually, you'd run into trouble from some other editor who thought that the articles needed improvement or revamping, and then this issue would come up. The only reason I really care is because a few of the articles (Carey being an R&B artist) are essential to my goal of trying to improve R&B music coverage in this encyclopedia (which is horribly underdone), and the issue with making seperate articles for songs that Mariah has covered--something that, in all four years of Wikipedia's existence, was never an issue until now.

As far as the other singles articles being "different", I wouldn't know. I've never been to a single Britney-related page, and I only skimmed the Ashlee Simpson articles. But I do know that htose ebatles song articles are, hands down, the best music coverage in the encyclopedia: they meet all the WikiProject Singles guidelines, they're easy to read, the formatting is well done, the text is informative, and they're as exhaustive as one could hope for. That doesn't make those "different"--that makes them good.

I really don't want to waste my energy when it seems like a hopeless situation, and also since you think it's just me trying to have things my way. My solution is to bring in someone else who can look these articles over and suggest improvements or changes. Again, my issue is that the whole set of articles needs some improvement, and from a neutral party. I dont want to mess up the consistency; if I had time, I'd fix them all up, but that would have to be a gradual thing. Haven't you noticed what's been going on at the Talk:Mariah Carey page? If I wasn't trying to help you about (taking the--admittedly good--information you provided and buildng upon it to help plus the articles--which is what Wikipedia is all), I'd just leave it all completely alone. Would you at least consider some changes to the formats of the articles? I (or someone else) can implement all the changes decided upon if you would thik that it would be too much trouble to go back and fix anything. --FuriousFreddy 23:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reply 2

What exactly is that different?

Until you finally made the articles for them, the big scary capitalized redlinks. It's good that there are finally articles for them, but you could have saved yourself the trouble by linking vinyl record, cassette tape, and compact disc as is done in the templete. That was my one of the issues with the infobox; the other was the whole naming/crediting issue. I didn't know about listing songwriters (that list can get long) or music video directors (who have little to do with the song itself--they just create the "advertising"), but it's accurate information, so that's okay.

Even so, some big things that can be fixed on all the articles:

• No more seperate articles for cover songs, please. It looks very much elitist, and if we play the "we did it for her, so we gotta do it for everybody" card, we'd have a real mess on our hands. And if we do it for her, then we have to do it for everybody; otherwise we have bias and POV issues on our hands. And, on top of that, that would be a lot of articles.
• People are to be referred to by their last names (i.e., "Carey said", not "Mariah said"; "Mariah said" looks fannish). An exception is when you have a gang of people in one article all with the same name.
• I have a bit of trouble speed-reading the articles, which means there's a problem with flow. Is it possible to use borderless tables for the chart positions, as opposed to the black borders?
• Almost all of the lead sections are way too short. See Wikipedia:Lead section. A lot of Carey's songs are notable for reasons other than just being her singles. The lead section should at least contain (1) the year of the single's release, (2) the official artists credits on it, (3) if it was a hit, say so, if it was a number one hit, say so, and (4) historical importance if applicable).

For example:

"Thank God I Found You" is a 2000 #1 single recorded by Mariah Carey featuring Joe and 98 Degrees, released on Columbia Records. The single was included on Carey's Heartbreaker LP, and held the #1 position on the Billboard Hot 100 for *such and such number of weeks*. An New Jack Swing-themed remix, essentially a cover of Keith Sweat's "Make It Last Forever" recorded by Carey, Joe, and guest rapper Nas, was issued to urban markets instead of the original version.

not just

"Thank God I Found You" was the second single released from Mariah Carey's 9th album, Rainbow.

Doesn't have to be in those exact words, so long as the reader knows these facts before he/she reads the rest:

1. it's a Carey song
2. Joe and 98 Degrees are also on it
3. it was a number one hit
4. it was issued in 2000 on Columbia
5. there's a remix which covers "Make It Last Forever" which was sent to R&B radio and BET, with Nas instead of 98 Degrees on the record.

Often, people don't read articles; they read lead sections. Sometimes, if the lead hooks them, they will read the article. The lead should therefore summarize, as consisely as possible, what the article is about.

• Oh, and spelling words out ("ninth" instead of "9th", and "track number thirteen" instead of "track #13") always reads better for academic writing, unless it causes an issue with context, as it did for The Lion King.

And as far as consolidating sections, you don't have to. But sections can be nested so that the dividing lines at level 2 don't interrupt the visual flow of the page and make you have to concentrate harder just to read it. --FuriousFreddy 23:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First video single?

Hi there. You've made some great additions to Wikipedia so far, and the area of popular music is definitely one where we need more coverage. I did notice a small error in the video single article: Madonna's "Justify My Love" wasn't the first video single. The format goes back to the early 80s, when Sony called them "Video 45"s. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 30, 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Modern Rock Tracks (chart)

Hello,

I noticed you renamed the article from "Modern Rock Tracks chart" to "Modern Rock Tracks". When I created the article, I had debated using both names, but I felt that the former was a more accurate description (an article called "Modern Rock Tracks" seems to be about music). Nevertheless, I realize that the official title of the chart is simply "Modern Rock Tracks". I suppose I'm forced to wonder if it's worth having that loss of clairty (and the need to fix redirects) in order to gain the official title of the chart itself.

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 30 June 2005 06:25 (UTC)

On second thought, since you've standardised all the charts, perhaps we should use the official names. Thanks for working on the charts pages. It's one of my peculiar interests, and it's nice to see someone else at work on it. Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

Nanostubs

Hi! Were you planning on expanding these recent entries of yours? They're possibly too short for continued inclusion as is. Best, Lucky 6.9 7 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

• No prob. Just type {{stub}} under the article. You might wish to leave a message on the talk page stating that these are works in progress. Or, if you can add a bit of biographical information - like at Cheryl Lynn, for example - that'll really help. Have fun and don't hesitate to drop a line if I can be of help. - Lucky 6.9 7 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

Contents of Category:Mariah Carey Stubs

Hello OmegaWikipedian,

I see that you saved the contens of the Mariah Carey stub categories on your user page. A good idea. You haven't yet saved the contents of Category:Mariah Carey Stubs, however, and I'll start to recategorize them soon and delete the category as per WP:SFD. Here's a list of the articles currently in it, so that this information doesn't get lost:

• Around The World (Mariah Carey DVD)
• Ben Margulies
• Billie Frank
• Fantasy:Mariah Carey At Madison Square Garden
• Greatest Hits (Mariah Carey album)
• Here Is Mariah Carey
• Julian "Dice" Black
• List Of Remixes By Mariah Carey
• List Of Songs By Mariah Carey
• Number 1's (Mariah Carey DVD)
• Number 1's (Mariah Carey album)
• Rafael (Glitter Character)
• Sylk
• The First Vision
• The Remixes
• Timothy Walker

-- grm_wnr Esc 8 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)

Double album -> Double Album -> Double album.

I undid your page move of double album because Wikipedia's naming conventions say that we should only capitalize the first word of a title (unless it's somebody's name, or something like that). --Idont Havaname 21:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Crazy in Love

You've just copied the article to the redirect page, thus creating duplicate articles — one with the correct title, and your with the incorrect one. This isn't the first time that you've been told not to do this sort of thing; if you continue with this sort of behaviour, you may well find yourself blocked from editing for a period. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia naming conventions and the rules of correct English; words like "and" and "the", and prepositions, aren't capitalised in titles. Note also that the articles on Mariah carey and others are riddled with formatting errors (aside from the incorrect titles, there are lists producd by using the HTML "br" code, song titles with no quotation marks, with opening but no closing marks, and with opening and closing marks in different styles, people are referred to by their Christian names, section headings are capitalised, etc.); I've been cleaning up, but it really doesn't help when people who have appointed themselves owners of these articles resist the corrections.

With regard to the "The song" sections, I've seen only two people agree with them, both new editors whose work shows very little grasp of Wikipedia style. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I see that you're now reverting all my edits. this not only replaces many mistakes, poor formatting, non-Wikipedia style, etc., but often makes the article text inconsistent with the titles. If you don't stop this, I shall have to take steps to have you blocked from editing.

Look, it's good that you're prepared to add material to Wikipedia; we need people like you who have the knowledge and the willingness to create new articles and add material to old ones. What you mustn't do, though, is ignore the Wikipedia rules (policy, guidelines, conventions, etc.), and refuse to allow more experienced editors to correct your formatting. If you learn from what other editors do, instead of rejecting it out of hand, you could become a respected member of the Wikipedia community; if you insist on conflict, you'll just find that your time here is unpleasant, and probably short. We'd rather have you than lose you; which do you want? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "picking on you", nor "harassing" you; I've tried very hard to reason with you, to explain what the problems are. You're nevertheless insisting on being aggressive and stubborn, refusing to allow corrections that bring the articles into line with both standard English and Wikipedia style. This isn't an anarchy, but a community. You've just arrived, and you're acting as though everyone else has to conform to your ideas — that really isn't going to get you very far. I'm not "god-sent", but I am an experienced editor part of whose obligation is to improve Wikipedia and to edit it in accordance with Wikipedia style and guidelines; I'm also an administrator, which adds to my responsibilities in this regard. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

It seems there are major troubles going on regarding song titles. Let's put it this way: "Crazy in Love" is correct with a small "i" in "in". I myself now find "the song" acceptable. There is no reason it shouldn't be present in an article, because "writing credits" does not apply when talking about an interview (see "Cool"). Also there have been issues between Mel Etitis reverting text that is no longer applicable. "Cool" was to be released, and even though an anonymous editor changed it to "currently on radio", Mel reverted it saying that its English was awkward... can someone explain how this English is awkward? Reverting it back to "to be released" is unacceptable when the song has already been released. Plus, I'm sick and tired of all the bullshit when it comes to "Wikipedia" style. I don't give a damn if something is not in Wikipedia style, if you look at all the other articles (ESPECIALLY song lengths on practically every album and in some singles), there is none of this "sec.", but "sec". I really don't like seeing "4' 31"" in the Spice Girls "Too Much", but I cannot seem to change this (or even when it said "4 min, 31 sec") without having edits reverted. So Mel? STOP reverting edits you don't know of, or even if the English is incorrect. If the English is incorrect, change it to make it more suitable, don't just remove it like you did with the "Cool" article or when that anon. posted the extra information about the Spice Girls' "Tell Me Why" single that never generated. I am unbelievably sick and tired of all this nonsense. 64.231.113.125 15:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC) (DrippingInk signing off anonymously)

Unfortunately, we have to live with Mel's presence. Plus, I like "The song" section. Is it you who has been adding all of this wonderful material to the Mariah Carey, Gwen Stefani and Kelly Clarkson articles? (There may be more that I am unaware of.) If it is you, I congratulate you, because it must have taken a lot of time to find all of that information. DrippingInk 22:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your message

1. One person responded to the RfC, said that she also thought that calling the section "The song" was wrong, but approved of the new material (saying nothing further about the heading). If you think that that's an inaccurate summary, please provide the diffs in refutation.
2. Your comments on numbers indicates not only that you're unaware of standard English usage, but also that you still haven't read the Wikiepdia Manual of style on the issue. Of course one doesn't write ".306" in full, or "1,456"; one does, however, write "first" and "three".
3. In fact no-one has calmly, unaggressively, non-belligerently explained why they think that my edits were mistaken; they've either merely reverted them or done so accompanied by near-hysterics. If there had been a genuine attempt to respond, then we might have achieved consensus instead of this mess.
4. Note, incidentally, that "currently on radio" means next to nothing to most people (including me; it reads like someone's personal observation about what they've heard, with no indication as to which country, etc.); these articles aren't meant to be understandable only to those familiar with the jargon of music journalism — they have to be understandable by anyone.
5. I've repeatedly tried to get you and Ultimate Star Wars Freak to engage in civilised, mature discussion, and the best that I've received in return is long accusations like the latest. I'm still prepared to discuss matters, but it takes two to have a conversation, and only one to rant. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Our respective comments are a matter of record.
2. I've answered your question about pi.
3. I've no doubt that other Wikipedia articles include mistakes and non-Wiki-style; that's why many, many editors spend a lot of their time correcting them.
4. "Currently on the radio" tells me little or nothing. Which radio? Where? What does "on the radio" tell me about the status of the single? What's wrong with saying (as I did in my correction) that the single had been released in July 2005?
5. I've corrected articles in line with correct English, encyclopædic style, and the Wikipedia MoS; you've repeatedly reverted my edits, usually without even an edit summary (even though other editors have intevened and pointed out that your actions are unreasonable). I'm not interested in olive branches, but in sensible, collaborative editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

My Reply

I understand what you mean, but not all tracks that debut on MuchMusic even make it to the top of the list: Eminem, Gwen Stefani, Destiny's Child, Simple Plan, sometimes even Good Charlotte cannot even debut in the top thirty. The United States has an official chart though that works consistently, along with the United Kingdom and Australia. However, the Canadian chart is extremely messed up. I don't know how this came to be, but that's just the way things seem to be working. And to answer your question, MuchMusic positions for songs are based on airplay, yes, but also on requests, and popularity. This would seem to make sense since the other three major music markets song positions are based on their airplay, requests and sales, which evidently, means popularity is shoved into that mix somewhere. So it's preferable to use MuchMusic and MuchMoreMusic. However, if a song peaks higher on the actual Canadian Singles Chart than the MM or MMM charts, you use that one. DrippingInk 18:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am Canadian, and that's why I understand this so well. The reason MuchMoreMusic is also used is because of songs that cannot chart on the MuchMusic chart. An example would be country and techno songs, or just lighter rock music, or varified pop music. That is when the MMM chart is used. But when a song jumps onto both charts, the peak position has to be averaged. For example, if a song reaches number two on MM and number four on MMM, the official position is number three. Now if a song reaches number one on one chart, but number six on the other chart, number one is the chart positon. I'm sorry if this is such a catastrophe, but no official Canadian chart is actually taken into place. If you have any other questions, go ahead and ask. And what kind of chart standards are you talking about? DrippingInk 23:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. If you look at other various articles, you will see that the positions are labelled "Music artist's country", followed by Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Australia. However, since their country comes first, example, Australia, it would be, Australia, Canada, US, UK. Just browse various articles (Spice Girls, Kelly Clarkson, Avril Lavigne) and you will see. DrippingInk 16:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It has been like that for the Spice Girls since May, and no one has changed it, which means that it doesn't have to be a really big problem, and with Kelly? Not sure. DrippingInk 17:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Billboard? What year did we stop using it? Good question, I'm not so sure myself. Let me investigate this. DrippingInk 19:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Madonna singles

Hi, thanks for making song length right on the pages, I'm tired to do it again and again because of Mel Etis. I think he can use his format on his pages. :) There is also What It Feels Like for a Girl Don't Tell Me (Madonna song) where the song length is not in right format, but i cannot do anything.

And about single format, i do have these cd singles so please don't remove them anymore. I write, about what i have or i'm sure to exist. OK. Thanks ) Beautifulstranger 10:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

List of number-one hits (United States)

I have warned you once; this is your last warning. Do not move articles by cutting and pasting. If you do it again, I shall block you from editing for vandalism. If you think that the article ought to be moved, then make your case at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

block

You have been blocked for 24 hours. Please adhere to our rules and conventions from now on. These include the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:Moving pages. Gamaliel 22:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that you'll use this break to rethink your approach, so that when you return we can co-operate instead of evert-warring. I've said before that I think that people who have the knowledge and interest in the subject are at the centre of Wikipedia, and your preence is crucial here — but you have to work within the bounds of the community consensus as expressed in the rules, policies, and guidelines. You might take the opportunity to read through Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of style, so that you can see why I've been making the changes that I have. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sneaky, very sneaky. You're guilty of just the same thing and that was sly of you to pull a trick like that when you were just as guilty. Anyone, unlike some people I dont bear grudges. You know very well, I have nothing against the grammar and that it was always a content disput, but you just used that to your advantage to get me in trouble even when you knew that was not my problem. And Mel, I have been trying to talk to you to co-operate, but all I ever get are your rants and tantrums - behavior I would hope that is above an admin. Like I said before, we need the remixes, the chart notation, and positions (and there are no rules against that in WP and you know it). Mel, a compromise is when two people meet in the middle, not when you get everything. I'm still willing to talk about it, but please grow up, and tone down the personal insults and temper tantrums. OmegaWikipedia 05:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

1. If you think that I was guilty, report my actions in the relevant place.
2. What count are actions, and your actions were to delete all my corrections to the articles, including corrections to links, Wikipedia style, etc. I note that on the expiration of your block you've gone back to doing the same.
3. Provide diffs of my so-called rants and tantrums; I'll even ignore the plural — just provide one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson articles

Hi there. For some reason, I seem to be able to see the infobox only when I use the format I had used. However now, I just tried viewing the same pages with the old format on another computer, and I can see the box. So it's something wrong with my computer or just some wrong settings, any ideas??? (and also it doesn't only apply to KC articles, but any article which used the old format as well) secfan 07:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I seem to have narrowed down my problem. I am using IE. But I don't think the problem is the browser, I think it is either browser or Wikipedia preferences, as when I view such pages (and indeed any page with "Contents" on it) when I am logged off, I can see the Infoboxes and Contents perfectly, but I can see neither when I'm logged on (note: if I copy the contents of the page however, and paste it somewhere else I am able to regain this "hidden text"). I will try and tweak some preferences to fix it. Thanks for your help. secfan 15:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

#

1. "We" are Wikipedia in this context, and we don't use "#". We do, however, spell out numbers (definitely below ten, and preferably below 100). I had hoped that your block would have taught you something about collaboration.
2. Your silly references above and elsewhere to my "tantrums", etc. (please supply one diff, just one, to back up your assertions) don't help your case either.
3. Why do you not concentrate on doing what you know – adding material about pop music – and leave formatting, grammar, style, and Wikipedia coding alone until you've gained more experience of it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Temp:Mariah Carey2

Mariah Carey in this template you created, links to Mariah Carey. Please mend this. Its a very useful template and makes navigation easy when editing these articles. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 10:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"Vision of Love"

Hey! Just thought I'd say, I nominated "Vision of Love" for Peer Review to get an idea of whether we are anywhere near to FAC status. It may help clear some debates surrounding the article also. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 11:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Please stop changing Double degree to U.S English for no good reason. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Learn about about the differences betwen U.S. and British English.
2. Read what the MoS says about their use.
3. Stop changing the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If you've read the MoS on these issues, then you'll know it is only acceptable to change the English to another variant if the article is relevant to one variant. This article isn't; it was first written in British English, and by persistently changing just one spellng you're not only engaging in disruptive editing against policy, you're also making the article's English inconsistent.

I notice, incidentally, that you've begun seeking out articles that I've started (including this one) in order to engage in petty disruptive editing. If that continues, I shall take steps to stop you.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit?

In this edit to I Don't Wanna Cry, you have entered an edit summary of "Revert vandalism to last version by USWF". Yet the edit you were reverted consisted of making the second occurrence of Narada Michael Walden not a link (which is perfectly correct and proper according to Wikipedia's manual of style, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)), and adding one more subheading, which you may or may not agree with but is clearly not vandalism.

Please do not revert other editors' work as "vandalism" when it is clearly no such thing. —Stormie 10:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Problems

Hi Omega, I've been contacted about some editing problems in articles you're dealing with. Looking at your contribs, I can see quite a bit of reverting to versions with either stylistic or spelling mistakes. We have a house style at WP which all editors are asked to stick to, so if someone is correcting those for you, you really shouldn't revert them. Can you let me know what your view of this is, please, and what I can do to help? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Omega. First, it would be a good idea to stop reverting, because in so doing, you're reverting good edits (and one you don't disagree with), with the result that spelling mistakes are being left in the articles. Perhaps instead you could just edit out the specific points you don't like. Also, Mel is a good editor, and well respected; definitely not in any sense a vandal, so I think this is probably just a misunderstanding between you. Could you send me a couple of diffs to the edits you feel are problematic, and we can take it from there? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

For example, I've just noticed this revert of yours [5], where I can see quite a few problems. Can you say which edits exactly caused you to revert? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Feedback

• He keeps changing headers from "the song" to "song information". Most WP singles articles have "the song" listed. He may not like it, but most articles have "song information".

Didn't follow this - most articles have song information, or the song?

• He keeps removing headers from single articles.

Can you give me an example of an article where he's removed the headers?

• A remix is treated just as if it were part of the song, so if the remix is called "Heartbreaker (Junior's Mix) it's needs to stay like that, not Heartbreaker (Junior's mix).

I looked through my CD collection and the relevant ones are written in all caps, so I can't tell. Do you have links showing that Junior's Mix is the industry standard?

• Chart notation. The MOS allows us to use numbers written out to talk about chart information.

Where does the MoS allow this?

Here are the issues I see with your latest revert:

• Too much capitalization in the infobox: Single Released, Single Format, Song Length. No need for the second word to be capitalized, because they're not titles.
• Too much capitalization in headers: References to Other Songs - it should be "other songs."
• "Last line of which," you changed to "latter line of which," which sounds odd. Last line is better.
• You deleted an n dash, and changed it to - but it should be n dash.
• You changed "occasions" to "occassions," which is wrong.
• You changed "because of" to "due to" - "because of" is always better.
• In the same sentence, you reinsert the word "songs" for the second time, which makes the sentence read badly.
• You changed the punctuation to the U.S. style, with the period inside the quote marks. While I agree with you on this, and use that style myself, our house style is period and comma outside quote marks (or it was when I last checked the MoS).
• You changed Carey to Mariah. We can't call her Mariah. House style is surnames.
• Same sentence: you changed eight to 8. House style is to write out one - nine or ten (I forget which: I do it to ten), then 11, 12, 13 and so on. There may be an exception for chart lists; if there is let me know, or suggest one for the MoS. But this sentence isn't a list, just an ordinary sentence, so eight is correct.
• You reinserted "this single seems to prove she hasn't quite lost the radio magic within her," which is POV and unencyclopedic. We have to write about these things in a disinterested tone.
• "The only artist in contention to surpass X" is odd writing.
• Your "71 total weeks" means the same as 71 weeks. "Total" sounds a bit breathless.
• You wrote "Besides The Hot 100," which looks strange, but then you write "the Hot 100 Airplay". Which is it?
• " ... making "We Belong Together" the most heard song (in a week) on American radio stations ever." Adding ever is redundant and, again, a little breathless.
• You changed until to till: till isn't good.

I'm starting to feel bad about this list because it's so long, so I'm going to stop, but there are other issues in your edit like the above. Mel is a good writer, so it might be an idea to take his advice about these points. The main thing for you is the numbers, right? Can I help you to reach a compromise on that? What exactly do you want to be able to write when it comes to numbers? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)

Triggy, I'm all for including singles when it comes to single chronologies, but is including "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)" a bit too much? The most it got to be being a single was when iTunes offered it as a download. It did pretty well for a download, but thats about it. OmegaWikipedia 01:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely. I didn't create that page, someone else did. I think that Megamix page should go, too. I mean, someone even created a page about a Phillipines-only release... I don't think things need to go that far. Triggy 03:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the Megamix page is Ok, because it actually had a video and there were some alternative versions. But yeah, that page for "That's Where You Take Me" is even worse than the other two. Any idea on how to handle it? Just unlink them or what? And no offense to whoever created the page either: Maybe there could be some section on the obscure singles (seperated from the main chronology?) OmegaWikipedia 03:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I took them out, but the person who created them, Kageorge, insists on putting them back. There was a similar situation occuring a few days ago with the two versions of the "Overprotected" single; I messaged him/her about it, but they didn't respond... I think that unlinking the pages is easiest, though. Triggy 03:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Feedback (2)

• He keeps changing headers from "the song" to "song information". Most WP singles articles have "the song" listed. He may not like it, but most articles have "song information".

Oops, I meant the song. Mel claims otherwises on your page that they are equally divided between the two concering the pages in dispute. Please don't listen him. That is a lie. And I should know, since I created those articles or added the headers.

I don't follow, sorry. SlimVirgin ^{<fontcolor="Purple">(talk)} 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mel said that the single articles were divided between two headers, but they all said "the song" before he changed many of them to "song information".

• He keeps removing headers from single articles.

Can you give me an example of an article where he's removed the headers?

Low (song) and The Trouble With Love Is

It does look odd with a header called "The Song" when the article is about the song. I'd say Mel is right about that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't song information just as bad though? Because when I think of "the song", I think of the song aspect of it. But when of think of "song information" it seems odd, because the whole article is about information of the song.

• If you look at www.jenniferlopez.com, you can see the remix notation

No, I couldn't see it. You need to provide sources showing you have a reason to go against WP house style, so could you provide links please (several of them, not just to one website) show that this is the industry style (link to specific pages, not the home page of a website). Without providing sources, you can't keep changing the house style. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Industry sources: Official Billboard Charts [6]

and ASCAP information [7]

• Chart notation. The MOS allows us to use numbers written out to talk about chart information.

Where does the MoS allow this?

"Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article."

I need a link please to the page and section. But my guess is that if you concentrate on that one issue with Mel, he may agree to compromise. All I know is that most publishers (and editors here) write one to nine or ten, and thereafter 11, 12, etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been concentrating on that since Day 1, since its my main issue, but he doesnt want to budge. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Section 3, subsection 3.

• Too much capitalization in the infobox: Single Released, Single Format, Song Length. No need for the second word to be capitalized, because they're not titles.

Well, this is not a major issue, but I can, I'd like to see if we could keep it some extent or work on some compromise. When the tables were put in, I was told they were offficial WikiMusic single tables or something like that. And Ive seen them on other articles.

It goes against house style, and it doesn't look good. Ask Mel on the talk pages of the articles whether he's prepared to compromise on that, but don't revert because of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think in some aspects it does look good, like if you look at the pages where it says "Video director" it looks very odd. Well, is there any way to help this debate? Considering he wont even change things when the MoS says when can, I know this is going to be a hard time convinving him, even though his edits make things look horrible. He's already changed most of the infobox, which I don't agree with, but I'm just asking for a small points there.

• Too much capitalization in headers: References to Other Songs - it should be "other songs."

Well the main part fo that part was the references in that song. So if something has to go, reference should stay

The issue is whether to write Other Songs or Other songs in headers. It should be the latter. When it doubt, don't capitalize (that goes for everything, not just headers). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, like Ive told Mel constatnly, I have no issues with grammar. These just happened to get reverted back. Which is not a good thing, but Mel is guilty of doing the same. Like he just removed a whole section from that same article! Whenever he rolls back he gets rid of so much info.

Okay, but you have to stop deleting his improvements to the grammar. If you keep doing it, it will count as disruption, which is blockable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell him to do the same too? He always reverts things wholesale, and often removes information; like I just had to restore some more information to some article he reverted. He removed chart information for no good reason, and often when he reverts he always get rid of a lot of information.

• The main things for me are chart information, header changes, and remix notation. I have some other issues too, but for now if we can focus on those and compromise, I think that would help OmegaWikipedia 08:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. He's right about the headers. He's right about the Remix/remix issue as far as house style is concerned, but if you can find sources to back you up, fair enough. I still don't get the chart information thing, and you need to refer me to a specific section of the MoS for the numbers, or explain exactly what you want to Mel, and look for a compromise position. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Until it's sorted, please don't revert him any more. The issue of general grammar and spelling is more important than whether to write Remix or remix, so that's what we need to concentrate on first. If you continue reverting, it will lead to pages being protected, it may lead to you being blocked for disruption, and it may also lead to an RfC, and it's definitely not worth the hassle for you. Try to compromise and stick to house style. If you have a specific article with a particular dispute, please post a note on my talk page, and I'll come and look at it for you. Does that sound fair?

Well, I think the header aspect is even worse in the other way, but indeed, sounds fair. Can you ask him not to revert everything also? I just made some edits (which I dont think were wholesale reverts), and I bet he is going to cause another edit war. Whenever he reverts, he often gets rid of info (like I just had to restore something right now, cause he didnt even look to see what he reverted) Tell him to stop reverting me too. If he a problem with them, he should let us know on the talk page. Can you watch out for him too, and tell him to stop it? But yes, I agree with you, revert wars go nowhere and leave everyone screwed.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

This [8] is good, because it shows an effort to compromise. Thank you. One small point though: she's not Mariah or Miss Carey (or even — better still — Ms. Carey), but Carey, as much as it may pain you. ;-) Oh, and it should be the Mel E remix (testin'). ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hah LOL. Yeah, I've been told that Miss Carey is not the best option, but is Ms. Carey OK? I was told that Ms. Carey is a better from as opposed to Miss Carey. Is Ms. Carey prohibited in the MoS? OmegaWikipedia 13:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Billboard number-one singles

They deleted the category without the hyphen. I only reinstated it so that I could depopulate it. The one wit the hyphen appeared to be the biggest; there should be one category. I don't care whether it has a hypeh or not, but someone needs to set some consistency. You should go to CfD and get a consensus there. As for right now, I'm going ot organize everything int othe one wit hthe hyphen because (1) I'm almost done and (b) we need one category, not two.--FuriousFreddy 18:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, never mind. Looks like you've already undid all my work. Fine then; we'll do it your way. --FuriousFreddy 19:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. This should help. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 21:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

block

You have again, for the second time, illictly moved categories, without going through CfD, the first time in clear violation of the naming conventions. As I'm involved with your persistent vandalising of articles by reverting to incorrect links and non-MoS style, I can't and shouldn't block you for that, but this is a different matter. If you believe that the block is not justified, please e-mail me or another admin and make your case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

R&B

I have made a compromise version. I'd like it if you would avoid making any changes to the article without bringing it up on the talk page first. As you saw, Freddy asked me to protect the page, which I won't do because I think both of you earnestly want to make an excellent article, and neither of you are trying to force a bias on this article. In my compromise, some of the changes you made, such as the bit in the box, and the reference to "We Belong Together" and a genre section for dirty pop, have been kept. I have reverted some of your other changes because I can't find any verification of them. If you have sources to cite, please bring them to the talk page. Tuf-Kat 02:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like he asked one person (besides me) to lock it, before I posted my compromise. since Mel hasn't done so yet, I'd be surprised if he did, especially since my attempt at a compromise is currently the top revision. The only thing that can be done to prevent a lock is for you and Freddy to avoid getting into an edit war. So, discuss changes on the talk page first and avoid even the appearance of a revert, and the page shouldn't be locked. Tuf-Kat 03:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pop rivalries

I put this article up at Articles for deletion, not because I don't think there should be such an article, but because there is no content. The article would be quite useful if it were filled (although Music industry rivalies should probably be created as a base for it, hip hop rivalries, and any other similar articles. As long as the article has content inserted into it, I won't vote for its deletion. As a tip, you can user your userspace to create note pages where you can work on articles until they're ready to be fully posted. Just go to your main page, type something like [[/mynotes]], and you can click the link and edit. --FuriousFreddy 23:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

AfDs take seven days, so you've probably got about four or so left. As far as "overviews", any heading you add to an article needs to have content. I saw a few pages where you added an "overview" heading with nothing in it, and those were (properly) reverted. Since articles are always easily accessible, you have to have something that at least looks complete for the public to see. If you need time to develop something, again, you can use a personal note page to perfect it. It especially helps with doing big overhuals or tables. --FuriousFreddy 14:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)