Misplaced Pages

Wow, I wasn't expecting that...thank you so much! Coincidentially enough, I was listening to "Vision of Love" when I read your message. Once again, thank you! Extraordinary Machine 18:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

I, Extraordinary Machine, hereby present The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar to Hall Monitor, for his/her honourable dedication to catching and revert article vandalism within minutes (and sometimes even less). You have gone to great lengths to preserve the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and you should be applauded for your efforts. Extraordinary Machine 23:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the barnstar. I now need to reconfigure my user page a bit.  :) Hall Monitor 21:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Here are some reasons why using template infoboxes is more helpful than using raw syntax directly into the article (click here and here for more information). I already explained some of these at Talk:We Belong Together, but I thought I should go into more detail:

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

The syntax is not confusing at all, since its been adopted by most single articles. Personally, that infobox looks like a mess and is more confusing. I think your point in point 3 gives exactly the reason why we don't want to use a template. Not every article wants to have every section mentioned. How is that template I'm using not following MoS? The music guidelines never said anything about chart positions having their own spot until some random person edited it in a week ago! How, does the action of one person become official policy? OmegaWikipedia 12:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The syntax is not confusing, your box is. And many people have used this template, so it cant be that confusing at all. And I have already explained how that would only be problematic. Looking at my edits? So you're going to stalk me now? I don't agree with this policy. I could just go that page and change it. Just because one person changed it, doesnt suddenly make if official policy. The USA positions should generally be listed first. That person who disagreed with me, even agreed that. In any case, you've presented an extremely weak argument that has no basis or logic or any official policy on why your template should stay. The articles need to go back to the way they were. OmegaWikipedia 12:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply #2

{{Single infobox2 |
| Name = Shake It Off
| Cover = Mariahcareysingle_sio.jpg
| Artist = ]
| from Album = ]
| Released = ]
| Format = ]
| Recorded = ???
| Genre = ]/]
| Length = 3:52
| Label = ]
| Writer = Mariah Carey <br>] <br>] <br>]
| Producer = Mariah Carey <br>Jermaine Dupri <br>Bryan Michael Cox
| Video director = ]
| Certification = N/A
| Chart position = <ul><li>'''#2''' (])</li></ul> <ul><li>TBA (])</li></ul>
| Reviews = 
* ???
| Last single = "]" <br />(])
| This single = "Shake It Off" <br />(])
| Next single = "]" <br />(])
}}

{| id="toc" style="width:20em; margin:0 0 0.5em 1em; float:right;"
!align="center" bgcolor="yellow" colspan="3"|"Shake It Off"
|-
|align="center" colspan="3"|]
|-
!align="center" bgcolor="yellow" colspan="3"|Single by ]
|-
!align="center" colspan="3"|From the album '']''
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|Released
|colspan="2" valign="top"|]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|Format
|colspan="2" valign="top"|]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|]/]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|Length
|colspan="2" valign="top"|3:52
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|Mariah Carey<br>]<br>]<br>]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|Mariah Carey<br>Jermaine Dupri<br>Bryan Michael Cox<br>
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|]
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|n/a
|-
!align="left" valign="top"|]
|colspan="2" valign="top"|#2 (USA)<br>tba (UK)
|-
!align="center" bgcolor="yellow" colspan="3"|Mariah Carey singles chronology
|-align="center"
|valign="top"|<small>"]"<br />]</small>
|valign="top"|<small>"Shake It Off"<br />]</small>
|valign="top"|<small>"]"<br />]</small>
|}

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

The 2nd one is easier and much flexible to navigate. Taking the shortcuts in life only bring you down later and gives no freedom. And no, dont give me that nonsense about systematic bias. The USA charts are considered the most relevent charts. Same with the Billboard charts, they are listed by hierachy. If we to do it another way, it would look like a hot mess. And um, no, I've heard your reasons and examined them: they have no merit. You on the other apparently havent' been listening to mine. Besides, if that single template is the offiical template, yours is actually the second template and far from official policy. Then any random who wants to can suddenly create anything! OmegaWikipedia 12:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply #3

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

Excuse me? I found your response quite hypocritical and ironic, since you aren't following the own rule you campaign so furiously for. Who said I had a probelm with with parentheses in years? Ummmm, I never had an issue with that. Please stop making up information, just because you have a weak case. OmegaWikipedia 15:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC) Maybe we could talk about this calmly and stop going around in circles, if you could stop being so hostile and talk in a mature normal fashion. Do you want to try? OmegaWikipedia 15:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply #4

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

EM, thanks for responding maturely, but that's exactly my point. The Wikiproject songs never had any policy stating that chart positions needed their own box. If you look at the history, one week ago Moochocoogle decides to change things. There wasnt even a discussion on the matter. He/She just changed it! I hope one person does not make that policy suddenly official. Just like you don't like how I changed the policy, I don't see how one person who change the policy suddenly made it OK to get rid of single boxes that have been in use for months. OmegaWikipedia 16:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Your reply to Mel

EM, I don't think it was fair for you to contact Mel Etitis in this edit war. You said you read my edits, so you know we've been in our own debate over something, and if you want to get someone else as a third opinion, you should get a 3rd party who doesn't have anything against me.

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

Ok, I see. If we do get a 3rd party, I hope we could get someone else besides him though. Recently, another person who I was in a disagreement with contacted Mel, knowing that Mel had power and a bias against me.

And I'm glad we're talking this over more calmly now, but I'm just wondering if you could could answer this question, which you haven't really addressed in your replies. (Or if you have it must have been indirect cause I don't see anything about it, except a slight reference). One person changed the WikiSongs standards. How did that suddenly become official policy? You saw how you reacted when I "changed" the policy (to show you an example). Not suprisingly, imagine how I would feel when I see somebody changed it. If there had been some type of discussion or vote or anything on the policy, that would be reasonable, but it was just one random poster who edited it. OmegaWikipedia 00:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia replies

EM, one last thing about Mel, he is in a debate over another article similar to the problem you have with the live performance section, so I think his reaction, or I know his reaction will be biased. And I've made some edits to compromise on some things. Please see the talk pages for details, but please dont revert, otherwises we will have a revert war, and I think for the sake of fairness, I've tried to accomodate to both our needs, and if you have an issue, please talk it over it on the talk page....but no edit wars please, they're retarded and then we both lose. OmegaWikipedia 01:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Courteney Cox in November.jpg has been listed for deletion

thanks for the barnstar

Means a lot :). Unfortunately we didn't get either of the Ashlee Simpson articles through :(. Oh well.... maybe it'll be easier next month :). Ryan Norton 05:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Shake It Off image

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

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to do that. I had wanted to restore the image to the original one uploaded by Journalist to include the one with the black bars. I didn't know that would only remove the copyright tag, and not revert the image to its original state with the bars OmegaWikipedia 03:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hero

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

How am I reverting you into submission? You made an edit that I disagree with, so I restored it. Am I not allowed to do that? And isn't there a thing against threatening people on Misplaced Pages? Maybe I'll file one against you too. I've read those pages, so stop acting so snide. We've been over this time and again, but you still don't get it about your singlebox. A week before you started editing these articles, Moochoogle decided to edit the article. He didn't consult anyone, and there was no discussion before he did it. You suddenly decided that his edit suddenly became official Misplaced Pages policy. I asked you how this worked? Without you answering, I figured that anyone could edit it, so I did, which you reverted because suddenly it didn't work out for you anymore. Even Mel agreed with me when he said there should be a dicussion about this policy. OmegaWikipedia 21:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Again, it's hard to talk to you, when you constantly get rude and snide. I saw your four points, but I disagree with them too.

"You're not supposed to change the guidelines after somebody has created one, at least not :without a discussion first."

The guideline was there before Moochoogle edited it in. Even if no one has complained, that doesnt justify his edit as the bottom line. If I had edited the article a day before Moochoogle, would you accept my edit? Again, what's up with the personal attacks? Isn't that against Misplaced Pages policy too? You shouldn't accusse me of this so called "U.S.-centric systhemic bias" all the time without evidence, and who are you to say who or what is "common sense"? You're probably the first person who had a major problem with it. I've been speaking to other Non US people, and they agree with it, and I even agree with them on articles concering Canadian singers and UK singers. The Spice Girls' chart positions should have the UK come first and I believe they do.

As WikiProject Songs states, "This project is not yet fully defined. Feel free to add stuff to make things clearer." Which at the end of the day means, your singlebox carries no weight. What this comes down to is a dispute over content. So please stop accusing me of all these false accusations. Like you accused me of violating Misplaced Pages's caption change, when I made a mistake and apoligized. It seems like you're looking for reasons to get me in trouble on flimsy reasons, because you want to get rid of me, and edit the article like you own it. That isnt what Misplaced Pages is. Its about people coming together and trying to work together (instead of you who seems to think you own the article) OmegaWikipedia 21:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Explainations please

How am I violating those policies? I even told you in my last reply to you that I made a mistake about the caption! I think it's a little pathethic for you to try to bring me down, when I acknowledged my mistake on the matter. About NPOV, AWT, CITE, and NOR, if you look at the history of "Shake It Off", Mel was able to edit the article in a fashion that I agreed with his second to last edit and I agreed with it. That's all I was asking for - Thankfully, Mel was a better editor than you were and he was able to express the gist of what I was going for to make it seem more NPOV to you. So I'm happy with the way the Shake It Off chart performance section reads now, so I wont revert that. See, EM, thats all you have to do. Reach somewhere in the middle. Compromise with people. Dont get all angry and irrational and accus people of false things.

When did I do WP:Point? If you're talking about the Wikiproject songs thing, then Moochoogle is just as guilty, and I guess you'd get in troubel too. And the thing about Fancruft talks about fiction with Star Trek and Japanese robots. It doesnt mention anything about live performances.

The only thing you could possibly accusse me of is Ownership, which you have also violated. And how did I start the edit war? If you look at our discussions, you made an edit, I disagreed, and asked to talk about it, but then you blew up and refused to discuss. I'd think the Rfc people would look down at you more, as I actually tried to talk about it calmly while you blew up like a volcano.

Now, can we talk about this matter civily, please? OmegaWikipedia 22:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You're the only one slandering me. I've said time and again, that many of those edits were in mistake, such as the one with the captions, so I'm not sure why you keep accusing me of that OmegaWikipedia 23:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine/temp

May I request a speedy delete of Talk:Extraordinary Machine/temp and its associated redirect? I believe it has fulfilled its usefulness. --maclean25 01:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

OSD and IKWYW

Ok, Ive added a source to the OSD image to make you happy. I dont mind using your IKWYW image, but could you please crop it to avoid the extra space to focus and Mariah and Busta RhymeS? OmegaWikipedia 15:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

User:OmegaWikipedia

OmegaWikipedia complained to me that his image Image:WMAWBTMariahCarey.jpg was deleted before 7 days had passed in Category:Images with unknown source. He's right, and furthermore, images shouldn't be speedied if there is a claimed source, however disputed and unlikely it may be. Those can go through WP:IFD. I'm letting you know because though you didn't speedy it, you tagged it {{no source}}. Superm401 | Talk 17:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Peace

Anyway, take care and peace.

PS:Im currently running for RFA. If you would like, you can vote. Dont worry, you can vote Oppose or neutral if you think Im not ready for it, no hard feelings what-so-ever. Journalist | huh?