Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:02, 20 March 2006

Talk archives

Archive 1

Re: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together

I think that it is okay, as long as you mention that you worked on the article. Extraordinary Machine 18:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Journalist, are there any other objections that you believe require full attention and should be addressed? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think they all require full attention. If we can't find the personnel, maybe we can just remove it, but let's search for a couple of days. Ive asked one of her fansites, and I'm currently awaiting reply.

That "strong object" was so weird, wasn't it? I can't help but feel that there is some other motive. Monicasdude and I have never been the best of friends. We had a 'huge' disagreement on the Celine Dion fac, when this guy had the nerve to accuse me of plagiarism and copyright vio. Ofcource, it was a lie, but it still made people oppose on the grounds of wanting to be "safe", and it made me look really bad. Anyway, it was all resolved after much debate, when the FAc director promoted the article and told him that there are no plagiarism or cyvio whatsoever.

Sorry for rambling. I reiterate, all objections should be addressed (except, for the most part, Geogre's, who wants us to delete important info). I think we should focus on prose, not content. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree on both comments concerning Monicasdude and Geogre. No worries on rambling, I do it as well. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Eternal, I just noted your posting on the FAC that you are stopping contributions for the We Belong Together article. I apologize that this particular nomination has been frustrating, as all of my initial objections have been addressed (and only a song sample should be added, in my opinion). I can't speak for the others -- I'm fairly new to Wiki in the grand scheme of things -- but honestly, most of the music articles should be as detailed with sales, chart history, and award information as this article, and as I suggested on a couple of the video game articles you have on peer review, more detail should be into this kind of thing. No matter the results of the WBT vote, I hope that you continue to contribute to the FA process and hopefully some of those video game articles will have better success. Best of luck. --Ataricodfish 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed that you asked how to convert MP3's to .ogg files on the FAC review. I only learned recently for the Phil Collins article, so there might be a faster or easier way, but I downloaded a program called "Audacity", which Wiki I believe recommended. I opened the MP3 file using Audacity, selected a decent 30 second portion, cut and pasted that to a new listing, and saved it as a .ogg file. I then uploaded the sound sample the same way you upload an image. I would do it myself, but I don't own a copy of the song to be able to work on it. Hope that helped. --Ataricodfish 01:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to lift my mood. Perhaps I'll return when the bedrock is broken and the second FAC commences. I'm also fairly new to Misplaced Pages so receiving this gulp of medicine three weeks in is sort of... brutal. Thanks for the ".OGG" tip, I'll get around to downloading and processing the files eventually! See you for now. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for the frustration that actions (mine included) have caused. Now you get a taste of the brutality of the FAC process. Believe me, though, that is just half of it; I've had someone call my work "vomit inducing" lol. Anyway, I hope that you can occassionally lend a hand with prose; your contributions have been impressive and invaluable, and I'm truly grateful. I really can't understand why some people are so overbearing in the FAC process. They seem to want the article to be a perfect reflection of their taste, and it's very mind-numbing for the writer. Anyway, take care, and thanks for the "good luck". Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not your fault, and I appreciate all that you've done for the article. It's not easy writing a song article, especially when one doesn't even like "We Belong Together" (I find it so unrealistic — I only helped with it because its airplay records were notable). I don't even like Mariah Carey very much. The only song of hers that I like is the mid-1990s hit "Always Be My Baby". Anyway, I'll help with the prose of the article following this message if I feel like it. Yeah, so thank you. See you later! —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I saw, and frankly I thought it was rediculous but hey, they can make any objection they want. If the article does not succeed it this time, it will make it the other time(s) around. Many great articles (like Kylie Minogue for instance) was successful on its fourth attempt. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario 64

I see that you decided to include the much-required references for Super Mario 64. Good job! I admire your devotion. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. No one seemed to be doing it, so I figured I might as well step in. Are we getting any closer to you accepting featured status? I think there's some things you can strike from your original objections now. --Pagrashtak 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've stricken some of my objections. Anyway, are you going to be enhancing the article in any other way? I've noticed that very little information regarding the development is featured. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I might, but wouldn't count on it; I've been too busy lately to do everything I've wanted to on Misplaced Pages. I think you can strike The references in the article are not formatted correctly and The spoiler warning is quite lengthy. I believe you can also strike Furthermore, there are no references concerning other aspects of the game. Example: Shifting Sand Land is somewhat reminiscent of Super Mario Bros. 3's Desert Land. Citation?, as I've just rewritten this to not sound like a opinion. It's now backed up by primary source material and doesn't require a reference. --Pagrashtak 19:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi, Eternal Equinox. I see that you haven't specified a valid e-mail address for this account. I would rather like to e-mail you, in reference to a matter you might prefer not to discuss in public, so I'd appreciate it if you'd message me via my own "E-mail this user" option, or else put your address openly somewhere where I can see it. I believe you'd have to at least briefly enable an e-mail for your own account to be technically able to message me, btw, and I hope that's not too inconvenient. Please do not be concerned, I've no wish to pester or bother you, and of course feel free to not give me your address. If you prefer not to, I'll just let the matter rest. (Well, unless it develops into a bad situation.) Regards, Bishonen | 美少年 18:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

EE, for some reason, you scared me. I do have an e-mail. to email me, all you have to do is go to my user-page, look to the left in the Misplaced Pages "toolbox" (underneath "search"), and you'll see "E-mail this user." Access it and e-mail me. I haven't received any message yet. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Everytime I try to e-mail, it says "dilivery failed". I think its invalid. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

EE, don't worry so much, but try to find me a working address to use. I e-mailed you just now at the hotmail address, and also got a failure notice, so there does seem to be something wrong with it. I don't understand the MSN thing, I've never used it. Journalist, please note EE can't use your wikipedia e-mail link without *himself* having specified a valid wiki e-mail address, as I point out in my top post above. Bishonen | 美少年 20:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

I've fixed the error. It will work now, I hope. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed to go through this time, you should have gotten it. Bishonen | 美少年 21:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

I've responded. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's of You and I

What exactly does the title refer to? I can't see at the moment what justification there could be for capitalising "of" against all the normal rules, but perhaps there's something in the subject that makes a difference. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I had pondered the thought myself, but there is nothing special about the title. It simply refers to two people (unoriginally known as "You" and "I"), which, had they possessed names, could have been: "It's of Eternal Equinox and Mel Etitis". Otherwise, I don't believe there is anything within the subject that should allow the use of a capital "o" in "of". —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case I don't understand why your professor thinks that it should be capitalised; according to almost every manual of style it shouldn't be. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your help, professor. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Sandbox page

Hello EE-- I've deleted the categories from your sandbox page. Categories there create redundancy. That is, the following shows up as an article in every category: "User:Eternal Equinox/Sandbox". Please do not chage this back if you do not understand the problem; instead, ask another wikipedian if you don't catch me via my talk page. Cheers, Djbaniel 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit to my sandbox. Yes, I understand the problem that could occur, and my sandbox is most definitely not from Texas! So I appreciate your initiative! Thanks once again! —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To the uploader...

Please see Image talk:06 02 08 03 l.jpg. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

R u crazy watch Madonna's new video "Sorry", once again you're making me angry--Hotwiki 13:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also becoming frustrated. You are supposed to respond on my talk page unless I state otherwise. Please see Misplaced Pages:Civility. You did not address my concern on Image talk:06 02 08 03 l.jpg, and if you fail to answer the questions, I am going to have to redirect the image. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that you still don't know everything at this site,

1. First, would you stop copy/paste my replies in ur questions in my talk page to your talk page. You just want to make your talk page longer.
2. Second, I don't undestand what your questions is?, if you're talking about the title of the image so what as long as the image is free to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs)

No, I do not copy and paste my questions and/or comments to my talk page so that it appears lengthier; I do this so that I do not forget what I had previously asked another user. I am talking about the image which is titled "06 02 08 03 1". Is there any specific reason why it is named this? If there is not, it should be moved to an article with a name that is more appropriate, such as "Sorry music video image" or "Madonna in Sorry". Otherwise, other users will not be aware of the link to the page because of its absurd title. Please respond on my talk page. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Number 1 (song)

I'm not sure of the chart position, but I can look it up. I'm also in the process of trying to find other Goldfrapp charts as well. Underneath-it-All 02:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be rewarding. I was also wondering if you could investigate the UK dance chart position. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I like looking up chart histories. Underneath-it-All 03:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On a non-encyclopedic topic, what are your favourite Goldfrapp songs and what do you think of their style of electronica? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My favourite Goldfrapp songs are "Lovely Head", "Strict Machine", "Satin Chic", "Ride A White Horse" and "Black Cherry". I really like their form of electronica, its different from what's out there now. I remember first listening to Felt Mountain and being blown away. I'm was not a real fan of electronica music, but through Goldfrapp I decided to open up to it and now enjoy it. How do you feel about their music? Underneath-it-All 00:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually listening to "Strict Machine" right now. My favourites include this song, "Lovely 2 C U", "Let It Take You", "Deep Honey", "Number 1", and "Utopia". I own both Black Cherry and Supernature but have never listened to Felt Mountain; I have it heard that it is a good record though. Before hearing about Goldfrapp, my interest in electronica was very limited, but while on vacation in Hungary during the past summer, I heard "Ooh La La" on MTV Europe. I remembered the song when I returned and downloaded it. Eventually, I decided to just purchase Supernature, which, surprisingly, was released up here in Canada shortly after its UK release. I feel that their style is amazingly solid, because it is not similar or different to that of Eiffel 65 or Kylie Minogue. It is very unique and takes me in. The synth guitars are frequently pleasant. Oh, by the way, I enjoy "Satin Chic" as well! —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Harry Potter and the Gold Fires

User:Harry Potter and the Gold Fires (talk) is a reincarnation of exactly how many accounts? Are you aware of the number? Please respond on my talk page. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've no real idea. I've personally blocked at least 20. But who knows? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I'm not an administrator, so I cannot help with blocking the reincarnation accounts, however, if I ever appear to come across an account that seems suspicious, I will notify you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm online, I'll have noticed him myself. If I'm not, WP:VIP is the best place to report it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, I see. Whatever the situation may be, I'll keep a close-eye on the several vandalism pages, and as I've mentioned, your page. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks much for the barn star! : ) —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit history

Sent to User:Thegingerone:

If you examine the edit history of Geri Halliwell, I noticed that you wrote a derogatory statement in your edit summary: Don't be such an edit nazi. In the future, refrain from using the word "nazi" went attempting to communicate a thought — it is extremely negative and may be registered as a personal attack. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply from thegingerone:

Sorry hope I put this in the right place. My dear if you cant take a simple comment as it is and not as 'derogatory' without threatning things then you really are no person Id like to be in contact with. So please quit slandering that article and threatining me. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thegingerone (talk • contribs) 22:29, February 28, 2006 (UTC)

Referring to one as a "nazi" is extremely inappropriate. Making one edit is not considered "slandering" the article. Please refrain from posting such confusing comments. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson image Image:Kelly Award.jpg

WAS 4.250 removed the image in concern from the Kelly Clarkson article because it does not qualify as fair use in its current state. Please do not replace it without the proper criteria, and as several users have noted on your talk page, it may be deleted. Your edit summary perplexes me: Image is fair use screenshot and should not be removed for copyright reasons, if you think there's a copyright problem get an admin to sort it out.)? It should not be removed for copyright reasons? I don't understand this at all. Nonetheless, please do not replace it in the article. The other images will also be removed as per Misplaced Pages:Images and Misplaced Pages:Fair use. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me how my image is any different then any of the images listen in this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Screenshots_of_movies_and_television Those are all screenshots with the same tag I put on my image? Don't dodge the question like you always do .. explain to me why these images fall under fair use and the image that I downloaded doesn't? And 'because I said so' isn't a good enough reason. HeyNow10029 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

When someone sends you a message, unless they specify so, please respond on their talk page. Anyway, I did not state that "I said so". The majority of those images do not include fair use rationale, and are basically the exact same as the ones you uploaded. All images require fair use rationale in order to be placed on Misplaced Pages unless it has been released to the public domain. Respond on my talk page, please. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jordanhill railway station

Sorry about the accidental revert - I was trying to restore the logo. Cheers! Johntex\ 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Peace! —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson copyvio

Red Dragon FM wrote this first! --Jodie26 21:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the page where he/she made the edit? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's out of public view, sadly. Moved 25/02/05. --Jodie26 21:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:IBT.jpg

It doesn't work that way. A "blanket" fair use claim can't be made for every single article the image is used on (unless the circumstances are identical for both); different things apply for different articles. In particular, point 4 of the rationale of fair use on Mariah Carey is completely unrelated to the use of the image on I'll Be There. See Misplaced Pages:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale and Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria for more information. Extraordinary Machine 23:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already taken the time to read both guidelines and don't recognize my error anywhere in the text. However, you have been a Wikipedian for a much longer significant amount of time than I have, so I'll refrain from editing the image for now. I would like it if fair use rationale was applied for all of the articles it appears in though; this would make Misplaced Pages look like it is in order of its priorities. Perhaps when the Mariah Carey article reaches featured article status, we could fix up the rationale for both articles. Until then, I understand your concern. Thanks! Take care! —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Eternal Equinox/Sandbox

I like the article now, good work. Just a few things:

1. Introducing her as a "Grammy-winning singer-songwriter" is POV, in my opinion (the Grammy bit, I mean), and also repetitive as later in the lead it mentions Clarkson's Grammys again.
2. "Without You" is originally by Badfinger, not Mariah Carey.
3. "The song's music video was filmed in an abandoned theatre and incorporated short scenes of Clarkson performing on Idol." - excess detail that should be left for the single article.
4. "When released as a single in October 2002, it set a still-standing record on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart when it rose from number fifty-two to number one." - again this is a little detailed; you could instead say "it set a still-standing record for the largest jump to number one on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart" as precise numbers aren't needed.
5. Exact release dates of albums, awards certifications etc. are unnecessary.
6. " earned Clarkson a 2004 Grammy Award nomination for "Best Female Pop Vocal Performance". She failed to win the award though." - this is already implied by the previous sentence saying only that she was nominated.
7. " was unable to make the top fifty of the U.S. chart." - I'd change this to top forty, since that's usually what is considered the border between a hit and a flop.
8. ""Behind These Hazel Eyes" and "Because of You" also followed with success. Although neither had attained Grammy Award nominations..." - this implies that they were expected to receive nominations or deserved them, which is POV if unsourced.
9. Across the entire article there seems to be an odd abundance of Canadian chart information. Now, if there's a good reason for it then leave it in, but right now it's apparent to me. Is Clarkson of Canadian descent or something? Also, from what I've heard Canada is a relatively small market in terms of record sales, and is also suggested by the fact that an album needs only to ship 100,000 copies for it to be certified platinum.
10. Same with the Indonesian chart positions in the table...is Indonesia a significant market?

Hope this helped. Extraordinary Machine 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to fix up a handful of the errors you've noted, and yes, I should have been able to catch these, but it can be a bit irritating once you begin reading the same words day after day. However, I will answer a few questions:

1. I'm not sure about the Indonesian singles market. It's not very important, from what I've heard, but it is being included because of all the number-ones Clarkson garnered from Breakaway. Is that special enough? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
2. Canada is a major music market. The only reason an album needs to ship 100,000 copies to be certified platinum is because of the population: 33 million, which differs greatly from the U.S. population of 275 million. Australia has a population of 20 million and needs to ship a mere 75 000 copies to be certified platinum and is considered a major music market. It's unusual how the system works.
3. "Low" reaching the top forty instead of top fifty? I disagree with you, however, in the end you are correct. I'll change it.

—Eternal Equinox | talk 14:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if an unimportant market (Indonesia) is being included just because all of Clarkson's last few singles went to number one there, then that's POV as well as misleading. Also, the way the article is written now really does give the impression that Clarkson is at least half-Canadian. Anyway, about my sandbox...I'm going to start the article on "A Thousand Miles" after I have finished rewriting the Mariah Carey article, so thank you but I do not need the image just yet (also, non-free images should only be displayed in articles). In response to a previous comment of yours: it's certainly not a case of when the Carey article reaches featured status, but if. I mean, I'll probably nominate it at FAC after I send it to peer review, but even if it fails everybody who worked on it should be happy with it as it's better than most articles about contemporary celebrities. Extraordinary Machine 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the Mariah Carey article. It is impressive. Anyway, on the topic of Clarkson, most of her singles reached fairly high positions in Canada. Also, from what I've heard, an American musician's releases normally perform strongest in Canada because of how close the nations are. The same situation occurred with Carey, correct? Her singles performed strongest in Canada for the first decade of her career. They were never successful in the UK for a significant amount of time; this also happened to Clarkson. All in all, I'm going to attempt to promote the article to a standard similar to Carey's. However, there are major image issues occurring right now — it may be sometime before consensus is met. However, time will tell, and thanks for your help! Good luck with both articles. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We Belong Together FAC

All talk concerning the FAC for We Belong Together should be placed under this section

Journalist, I am going to be resubmitting the article to FAC on Friday night. I'd like it if it passed this time, but do you believe that a sound sample is really required? If we can retrieve one, then that is excellent, but if we don't, would that affect the status of the article? I'm also considering inserting the chart trajectories within the boundaries of an image. Do you have a program that can create graphs? Sadly, since this is a library computer, I am not allowed to access the catalogue bases. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A sound sample would be really great, so I think that it might affect the status. Most featured articles regarding music have samples. I might have the program to make the charts, but sadly, I have no idea how to make them. I also have a ton of assignments (from English and Writers' Craft) that bearly allows me time to breathe (I only made like 5 edits to Misplaced Pages in the last couple days). I might find some time inbetween assignments and work, but I don't know if it will be enough.

On a final note, I think the article's great. However, make sure that you think that it's great before you submit it. Try reading it aloud a couple times; that's the best way to spot "the arkward prose" that other objected on the last time. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'll add a sample as you requested. No problem, but I might not have time to do it for a day or so. User:Journalist is right though, most (if not all) of the recently promoted music related articles have a sample and if you don't include one, there is sure to be at least one person who objects. cheers Rossrs 16:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Anytime is good, don't rush yourself. Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a sample. I took the very end of the chorus along with the verses that reference Bobby Womack and Babyface. As those lyrics were discussed in the article I thought that would be the best section to use, plus it gives a good indication of the musical and vocal style. I hope you like it. I wasn't sure where in the article to put it, so I added it after the discussion of the song itself, before the peripheral info such as chart stats. But of course, it's easy enough to move if you don't think it should go there. Rossrs 02:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's quite excellent. And I'm glad you chose that portion of the song, which I had also been thinking. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt really rushed, but it probably could have spent a day or two at a second peer review. In any case, I think that its even better now, and i want to thank and congratulate you on a job well done. If it does not make it this time around, then we submit is for a third time (I'm very resilient). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 15:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Eternal, I got your note regarding the status of the article. As you remember, I had held back support the first go round until a sound sample was added. Rossrs added a very appropriate portion of the song, so I've offered my support as all my issues have been resolved from the prior FAC, and the song is no longer a "current event" (i.e., a Top 100 song). There are no standards as to where in the article a song should be, but I perfer toward the bottom with its own heading so that it shows up in the above Table of Contents. I did this in the Phil Collins article, which was modeled after the FA Marilyn Manson, although I note that other editors place it differently, so it comes down to your preference. No matter, my support is given, and I wish you the best on your future articles. --Ataricodfish 20:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Good luck to you as well! —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Ive removed the image from the awards section. While it would be good to keep it, my experience with other editors regarding fair use images tells me that if the image is not vital to the article, and the article can prove its objective without the image, then it should be omitted. In this case, Image:WBTRMA.jpg does not say anything that the editors cannot write in the article. Its inclusion is therefore unnecessary, and would certainly hold off anymore objection on the grounds of "abusing fair use/pictures for decoration". Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but according to the official policy at Misplaced Pages:fair use criteria "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose". I know that it will "lack colour", but we have to compromise to meet the standards of others — especially when they have valid grounds to object (such as this). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With that said, I'm not gonna remove it again — its up to you now. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response on my source issue! I still have a bit of a problem with it, please see the FAC. Staxringold 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed to full support, thanks! Staxringold 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Actually that might be better. As long as the info's there, it's fine with me. Everyking 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One last "image" plea

There have been like 3 or 4 objections based on the images in the article, and we cannot ignore them any longer. The purpose of an FAC is to review your article and see if its ready to be called one of the best. Now, if 4 editors have issues with the images, then that means that we should really look into it, and as the FAC guideline says "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised".

The wikipolicies on fair use says that screenshots are to be used not for identification only, but for "critical commentary and discussion" on the issue. The last image at "award" is not even mentioned in the article —it serves no purpose than to decorate, and your assertion that it "adds colour to the article" proves this. I recently spoke to User:Ta bu shi da yu who is like the expert here on image use policy, and he gave me the go ahead on the single cover and the first two. The last image at "awards" is unnecessary, and is an abuse of the policy. Image:Mariah Carey We Belong Together chart trajectories.jpg has been added, and I think that this is colourful enough. If we remove this image at awards, then opposers might strike out their vote. If they don't, then we can assert that the images are used sparingly, and they add significantly to the content—after all, we can't discuss the music video without including a screencapture of it. I know its against your will, but please think about it. The process is all about compromising, and if we don't, we might find ourself with another failed nomination. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A copyright vio has been placed on the image description page of Image:Mariah Carey at the Teen Choice Awards, 2005.jpg, and the policy states that it has to be removed from the article until all is resolved. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

trajectories

Perhaps you are right, but I am still reluctant to accepting the terms. Do you by chance own a program that is capable of creating a line graph such as the one in Cool (song)? —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have Microsoft Excel. CG 19:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible if you created a few chart trajectories on a line graph to insert into the article as an image? —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the Image:Mariah Carey We Belong Together chart trajectories.jpg, but I just added the US and UK chart trajectories being a lot more significant than the New Zeland which you only gave me a 16-weeks numbers. As for the 0 number I'll fix it know. CG 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the We Belong Together article. I was just wondering if you could make a few minor touches to the image? A single cannot reach "0" on a chart, so it should be removed. Also, I'd appreciate it if you included the New Zealand chart trajectory. Otherwise, excellent. You deserve a barnstar. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that New Zealand is not a significant music market, but Misplaced Pages is supposed to summarize the facts. If someone is interested in the chart trajectory of the New Zealand market, and because we have the numbers, it should be included in the image. Nonetheless, thanks. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If you give me more numbers about NZ's chart, but with only 13 weeks, it will look like a small line next to the US trajectory. CG 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, done, and thank you for the barnstar. Just one question, where do you get these numbers and charts details? CG 08:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The information comes from RIANZ itself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, but who's RIANZ? CG 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Since You've Been Gone.jpg

At the moment I'd say no. What is going in the image and how does it demonstate whatever point is trying to be made. Once that is in the article the claim for fair use will rather more solid.Geni 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and I'm sorry for pestering you. Please refrain from removing the image for now, I am going to attempt to incorporate more aspects of the single's music video in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the fair use stronger now? I've made changes to the appropriate section in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty good. A screenshot that better fits with the text would probably be better but it is a lot more solid than many of our other fair use claims.Geni 03:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep you on alert if I ever require any image/screenshot help. Again, thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just butting in here--Geni's quite right that the fair use claim is much stronger. I've advised HeyNow10029 to do something similar with his images (see my comments at his talk page--he posted at mine asking for advice). You're absolutely right to be raising questions about fair use, as I said at the noticeboard, but if you could work with HeyNow on this it would help diffuse the situation. Several of his images could be fair use, though they aren't right now. By the way, thanks very much for your comments at the FAC for Eric A. Havelock--I really appreciate it. Chick Bowen 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just curious to know

Could you tell me what program you used in order to create Image:Autobiography-weekly-performance.png? Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the graph using OpenOffice 2, then inverted the Y-axis labels using the GIMP. --Carnildo 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. Is it possible if you could convert chart trajectories at an article into a graph? —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Barn star!

I hereby award Bunchofgrapes a barnstar for erasing the vandalism left by the many IPs on my user profile page. Thank you! —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It will go nicely to replace one I lost a while back! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You lost a barnstar? Is that possible? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, you-know-who (I believe you may edit from the same library) gave me one once, then a while later decided it wasn't to be mine after all, which I suppose was her perogative. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "prerogative"? I believe that you are referring to Hollow Wilerding? She no longer edits using the library references because of her impudence; it may have been her although it may not have been. Either way, congrats! —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Johnson

Greetings, Eternal!
You were kind enough to support the FAC candidacy of my article on Katie Holmes, for which I am grateful. I've put forward another nomination, Ohio's lieutenant goveror Bruce Johnson, and I would appreciate your comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson. PedanticallySpeaking 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done some work on this article per your comments on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson. PedanticallySpeaking 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Mariah_Carey_at_the_Teen_Choice_Awards,_2005.jpg

HeyNow10029 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Name of the Rose

Thank you for your support vote at AID, but sadly no one else seems to be interested :-( Perhaps the book was too obscure for the AID nomination.

Perhaps next time I should nominate Teletubbies! :-D --BorgQueen 06:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, as I do believe that the article has potential. Perhaps you could resubmit it to AID someday, or, as you noted, nominate Teletubbies! —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD

I was impressed by how you diffused things nicely here . Kudos for your cool attitude. -- Samir (the scope) 02:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Senators are totally going to get creamed... well, no. The Leafs will! We're terrible! Good luck to your team too! :P —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your guys played great against TB, Richardson was a good addition. Here's hoping for the playoffs. Cheers -- Samir (the scope) 04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2005-2006 Washington Redskins Season

I have made a comment to merge the content, can you change your vote please. Thanks --Jaranda 03:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

2005-2006 Washington Redskins Season

You originally voted to keep but then changed to merge. Could I ask you to consider to reverting to keep in the light of the new arguments put forward? There are currently three standing keep votes at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2005-2006 Washington Redskins Season Hawkestone 02:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

Actually I could use some help with the article I expanded about Australian actress Miranda Otto, I would really like to see it reach featured article status and am quite proud of it right now. Thanks for the help. Underneath-it-All 04:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Havent spoken to you in a while; I've been thoroughly focussed on developing "We Belong together". I've read all the drama between you and the others, and frankly, I think it's pointless. Just ignore them, and keep your distance —that's the best way to keep things from escalating. Right now, just focus on bring WBT, KC and ABMB to featured status. If you need any help, you know I'm always available. BTW, even if WBT doesn't make it this time, there's always a third time, so I hope you won't be the least bit discouraged — I know I won't. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're very encouraging! And yes, I am just going to ignore them — it certainly is pointless. I'm going to try to get ABMB up to featured status following WBT. Could you help a bit if you're not too busy? (Although I'm sure it will be difficult to find an example such as a sheet of music to consistently explain the structure.) Anyway, good luck to you as well! I'm online from the catalogue for the rest of the week at various times, I'll try to see if you've also accessed the WWW. See you for now! —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sheet music image. Actually, after searching, only two articles have turned up with sheet music images in them. What makes them fair use, however, is that they are released into the public domain— they are from Wikicommons eg: Image:My Belarusy instr.jpg. This is too risky, I think, especially because the source i got it from was selling the product. Also, other people will object on that ground. It's getting real hard trying to please everyone, though.Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire

Hi there. Thank you so much for your support. Which images you think are not complying with their Fair use tags ? Amir85 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

None of the images are violating Misplaced Pages:Fair use, my comment was mainly concerning the number being displayed within the article: usually an article (even a lengthy article) has between two–ten images, but this one exceeds the limit. You should remove the ones you find most irrelevant. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mariah Carey

Do you need any help with the Mariah Carey article? I see that there's clearly an edit war occurring right now. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, many users including user:Get2nomey keep removing the sentence "However, her voice and lyrics are the subjects of frequent criticism" from the lead, when if you'd read the article you'd know that there are whole paragraphs dedicated to summarising criticisms of her work. Also, Billboard magazine's current methodology retroactively nullifies one of Elvis Presley's chart-toppers (see Talk:Mariah Carey for more on this), so to state that "she is tied with him for the most number-ones by a solo artist" is really misleading. Note: this message is only meant to explain the situation, I do not want you to "take sides" or become embroiled in an edit war, nor do I want you to feel you have to; I'm simply trying to maintain NPOV on the article. P.S. Thanks for removing the logo on the "Don't Forget About Us" screencap! I was meaning to do it myself but forgot. Extraordinary Machine 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, after editing We Belong Together for so long, I believe The Emancipation of Mimi is Carey's ninth and not tenth studio album? I'm not quite sure which article is accurate, however. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I read some reviews where Mimi is considered her tenth studio album, I'm guessing they count Merry Christmas among those. The studio album article doesn't say a whole lot, though. Extraordinary Machine 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll give the article a quick read-through. I am not going to be taking sides considering I have a limited interest in Carey and am merely here to provide elucidation, but only if it is required. Anyway, you're welcome regarding the screenshot. By the way, Journalist would like to know if you want him to semi-protect the page? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another P.S. - as you know, an anon by the IP address 128.xxx... (it changes slightly every day) keeps adding to the lead a mention of how many Grammy Awards Carey has won, when it's misleading (the number she has won is not record-breaking or notable in any way) and POV. Again, just letting you know. Extraordinary Machine 23:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Similar to a previous request

I'm having another conflict with one of my professors. He states that the word "it" should not be capitalized within titles of stories, reports, etcetra. I am, once again, on the opposing end and do believe that "it" should be capitalized within titles. Please, could you clear the situation for me? I would appreciate it. Thanks. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the Manual of Style, but normally yes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Another collaboration?

Are there any other articles you'd like to collaborate on following the eventual (that being tomorrow or next year!) featured article status of We Belong Together? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course!! I was thinking one of your choice (Kelly Clarkson, "ABMB" etc), though I have my eye on "Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song)". Any suggestions? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Crazy in Love (Beyoncé song). has been extensively-written, why don't we go ahead and fix it up? After that, we can do Always Be My Baby, if you want to. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the random barnstar, which is better than no barnstar. I am intrigued as to what path you followed to get to my user/talk page? Colin Harkness° 16:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have Finlay McWalter's user and talk page on my watchlist, and when I went to check up on it, you were the last to make an edit to his talk. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert Tsavage comment in "We Belong..."

I restored the addition to my comment...under my username. I afterwards glanced at the History, saw the IP # and realized you probably thought it was someone else helpfully expanding on my objection. Well, in fact that was me. I keep getting logged out lately, and didn't notice. Please ignore the edit summary comment (it was unexcitingly polite anyway...). --Tsavage 00:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Except that I didn't think they were expanding on your objection. I thought it was an IP address including vandalism which then I reverted the edit as established by Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Miranda Otto

Hey, no I think your fair use rationale is well written. When I went to go check on the image today I realized someone had re-uploaded the image and had removed its original fair use write up. I agree the article should include some more information on her performances and what critics said. I'll try to find some articles on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underneath-it-All (talk • contribs)

When I have the time, I will continue tidying the article and improving the writing. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. It's much appreciated. — Underneath-it-All 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A Thousand Miles

Do not add material to an article or create an article without crediting the users who worked on the original material. Also, per WP:MUSIC/SONG guidelines, very short song articles shouldn't be created, especially when the album article is short as well. Extraordinary Machine 22:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Without crediting the users who worked on the original material" — unfortunately, this line confuses me. Also, there are several other articles on Misplaced Pages presented with limited information. The principle reason for creating the article was that the image of the CD single wasn't deleted without warning. I haven't read the Music/Song guidelines, so I'm unaware of the notes within. I know that you will be writing and expanding "A Thousand Miles" eventually but I took the initiative of creating the article and, unless I'm wrong or haven't read a specific policy, anyone is allowed to create an article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can create an article, yes. However, nobody can contribute to an article or create an article using material from elsewhere on Misplaced Pages without crediting the original authors by mentioning in the edit summary where it came from. That is a violation of the GFDL license under which all Misplaced Pages contributions fall; as the article was technically a copyright violation at the state of its creation, it qualified for speedy deletion. "It was co-produced and co-arranged by Carlton and Ron Fair and was one of the most popular songs of the year. The music of the song is supported by a full orchestral arrangement and its lyrics reflect the protagonist who pines for her lover, whom she has separated from." - this material, which you started the article with, was taken almost word-for-word from the edit history of my sandbox area here. If you had started the article with something you had written yourself then I wouldn't have a problem, but instead you chose to plagiarise my work. Extraordinary Machine 15:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You've been banned from WP:FAC for three weeks

Crossposted to Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates
I'm banning User:Eternal Equinox from WP:FAC for three weeks from today for bad behavior and bullying of voters on the"We Belong Together" discussion. EE, "banned" means that you mustn't nominate pages nor take part in discussions of pages you have contributed to. If you do, you can be blocked by any admin, first for 24 hours and then progressively for longer. But I hope you won't. Please instead learn something from this about the culture the community wants on FAC. Don't, when you return, try again to force articles through FAC by wearing down the opposition. You'll be welcome back if you resolve to be courteous to Oppose voters, and above all, if you change your mindset to trying to fix, and learn from, objections, rather than trying to argue them into the ground.

Remember that you'll be free to work on improving articles during those three weeks. If you wish, you may also vote support or oppose on other FACs, that you have not edited, but please make sure you don't abuse this concession in any way. If you use it to post disruptively or in bad faith on FAC, you'll be blocked. Oh, and if you try to get round any of this by using sockpuppets, you'll be in real trouble. Bishonen | ノート 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC).