Ultimate Star Wars Freak

Discussions

Latest comment: 19 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

Year In Music (UK)

You're doing some fantastic work on the "... in music (UK)" articles so thanks for that - I'll be creating the chart tables for the rest of the 1990s as and when I have the chance. I've also placed 1999 in music (UK) as a featured article candidate to see what other people think. Keep up the good work and if you need anything feel free to come and ask at my talk page. violet/riga (t) 22:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OW

Hey, thanks for your comments. I'll try to do that from now on.

OmegaWikipedia 06:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

OW2

Hey, thanks for the kind words again. You're doing a great job with the tables and thanks for helping me with these articles and your suport on O Holy Night.

As for the tables themselves, I'm wondering about some of the lines.

With Genre, are we going to put her down as Pop for everything or try to distinguish some of her singles as R&B? And a lot of her singles are ambigious on the thin line between Pop and R&B...or maybe just put her down as pop, because in general, she is considered a pop artist?
Also, I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't inlude the Recorded line? You seem to have left them as ?? for them and there is a line for single released anyway. Mariah seems to be a quick artist and usually records the song the same year the album is released or the year before. But if you want to keep that line in, it's cool.
For Format, are we talking in the USA or Internationally? I think if we listed the USA releases, we could see differences, but if we go international, we'll be seeing almost the same list of every format possible (CD Single, CD Maxi Single, Cassette, Casette Maxi Single, 7" Single, 12" Maxi Single, and for later releases also maybe (Video Single, DVD Single, Digital Dowload)). Also, I think 7" refers to a vinyl right? You have it listed as a cd single, but Im not sure. Also, if we go international, it might be a bit tricky to mention things with the USA releasing CD Singles and Maxis, but many other countries prefering to release simply two singles

I would like to do a system also to re-edit and add more to the articles. Do you want me to help you with the tables too or will you do the rest? I'm not sure about exact single release dates, but I can get definitely get debut positions of the singles on The Hot 100. What do you think about a complete Hot 100 Chart Run too of the singles? I can get that too, I think, but would that be a bit too much?

OW3

Chronologically, sounds good to me. Yeah, since you agree I think we can remove the Recorded aspect. Genre still seems a bit ambigious to me. I think after Daydream, she still had pop singles, but many of them after and even before still like are on the fine line. What do you consider Vision of Love? I've always thought was more of an R&B record. Maybe do Pop/R&B for the borderline singles?

OmegaWikipedia 21:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK

OmegaWikipedia 11:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking with the amount of chart data, we should split up the charts to deal with the Billboard ones, and one for the intenrational stats? Is that cool? OmegaWikipedia 08:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Image deleted

The image you uploaded, Image:Mariah Carey Album Cover 1 - Mariah Carey.jpg, has been deleted since you probably are not Mariah Careys record company. Thuresson 00:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

1997 in music (UK)

Hi there. Just thought you'd like to know that 1997 in music (UK) has now been created. It was originally just a un-formatted, un-wikified (apart from one link) copy of the albums chart, but it's now been expanded into the same format as all the other 'xxxx in music (UK)' pages. I've only written a very brief summary, so, when you have the time, feel free to add your usual in-depth one! Billy H 05:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Cool

Ok, it's been done. Tell me what you think. Thanks! OmegaWikipedia 10:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Songs recorded by more than one artist.

I replied to your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, but I felt that I should copy & paste my response so you can read it here as well:

The biggest issues I have with it are: (1) Why create two short seperate articles for one song, when it's the same exact song with nothing generally changed but the singers and (sometimes) the arrangement? (1a) Somesongs which have been perpetually covered, like "Something", would have at least five or six articles, as there are at least five or six major cover versions. (3) This was never an issue until you (this is not a personal attack, but stating facts) and the others began that Mariah Carey project, which, in the opinions of some, is spiriling out of control. Carey might be a top-seling artist, but no artist is special enough to deserve unique treatment for their articles, especialy when it comes to her covering songs that have been recorded, as major hits, for other artists. There was no reason her version of "Theme From Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To)" had a article before Diana Ross' original had. That's poor and biased planning and editing (as is identifying singles Carey by other artists Carey has appeared on as a guest artist as her songs; which is both biased and false as well), and heavily violates Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. R&B and soul music, because of Wikipedia's systematic bias, are already poorly covered here, and only a small few editors (me, BrothaTimothy, Volatile, and, when he's available, TUF-KAT) are helping to fix this problem (for reasons which both do and don't make sense at the same time, hip hop music is covered much more in depth). If you really want to hep the needs of the encyclopedia, help fix the discographies for the R&B artisls that do not yet have them, and help us expand article like Boyz II Men past the level of stubs. --FuriousFreddy 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inline citations on the Mariah Carey article

Please stop removing the inline citations I inserted on the Mariah Carey article! As you know, the factual accuracy of the article is in dispute, and references are needed to make sure that the article is correct. You may think I went overboard, but what I did obeys the guidelines at Wikipedia:Cite_sources. Please stop! Extraordinary Machine 9 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining! I won't revert the changes, and I'll sleuth sources to add to the article before inserting more inline citations. Extraordinary Machine 20:03, 9 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hey

What's going on? Sorry, I replied to your email late. Did you get a chance to see it yet? Anyway, if you could email me back, I'd appreciate it, I want to ask you about some things concerning the articles. OmegaWikipedia 21:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Editing

The problem is that you and OmegaWikipedia are reverting all my changes, so arguing that some are OK but some aren't doesn't ring true.
In any case, Wikipedia prefers not to use abbreviations if possible, and certainly not non-standard ones. music magazines and the like use abbreviations like "#1" because they're restricted by their print format; we're not. Moreover, "#" isn't universally or even very commonly used for "number". The Wikipedia Manual of style states that numbers under ten must be spelt out in full; in most style manuals, numbers under 100 are to be spelt out in words, which is permitted in Wikipedia, and there's currently discussion going on as to whether it should become part of the MoS.
Music articles aren't special; they're just articles in Wikipedia like any other, and should conform to Wikipedia (as well as to normal English – I don't mean journalistic) style. There aren't any exceptions, and statements like DrippinInk's that he doesn't care about Wikipedia style aren't designed to win him firends here.
When editors respond calmly and reasonably, ask why changes have been made, explain their position, and so, compromises can sometimes be made and consensus reached; I've done that with hundreds of other editors. You and OmegaWikipedia have behaved in a way that has made compromise impossible; it's certainly not too late to change that, and I hope that you will. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Your edit summary says: "Mel you do realise, there is no point constantly reverting when we are not breaking official rules and you are outnumbered in your opinions on the page." First, I'm not outnumbered, as nobody has bothered to argue their case; there are a few people reverting my edits, mostly without even the courtesy (and Wikipedia-policy requirement) of an edit summary. Secondly, your reversions do include breaches of the Wikipedia:Manual of style, which is a a Wikipedia guideline. The standard view of this is that there's no requirement for editors to follow the guidelines when writing articles, but that other editors should make corrections to style when they find them. To insist on non-Wikipedia style by constant reverting without proper (or any) discussion isn't acceptable. Some of your reverts replace good with poor English, which adds to the problem. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

3RR warnings

Your reversions of my edits (including corrections of Wikipedia internal links, bringing articles into line with correct English and Wikipedia style, etc.) have violated the 3RR. This is a formal warning that if you violate the rule again I shall report it, and you will be blocked from editing for 24 hours. Note that I have received support that my edits aren't covered by the rule, as I'm reverting your vandalism. For your own sake, I strongly suggest that you don't disregard this warning. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't referred to your edits as vandalism, but that was the judgement of other admins. You're changing correct Wikilinks to incorrect ones (Cassette Single, 7" Single, etc.), and correct style to incorrect ("number two" to "#2", etc.). It's difficult to see why you're insisting on doing this, but as there's no disagreement concerning content – you're just reverting proper, Wikipedia-style – it comes close enough to Wikipedia:Vandalism for the purposed of the 3RR-exemption.

In any case, it would be better all round if you concentrated on adding content, and stopped wasting so much time (for both of us) on this battle that you can't hope to win — because Wikipedia policy is on my side. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Vision of Love

Before you revert my "vandalism", please check:

my versions of the Wikilinks and yours (hint: the difference between red and blue should indicate one problem);
my version of the English and yours (a decent guide to English grammar and style might be useful here);
Wikipedia:Manual of style. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Peer review doesn't demand that other editors give up their responsibility. You've changed my correct Wiki-links to incorrect ones (I mean, just look at 7" single — where does it take you?), you've linked a whole sprinkiling of irrelevant words (check the MoS for when you should and shouldn't use links)... Make substantive edits, by all measn — add information, and so on; just don't cchange the Wikipedia style until you're familiar enough with it to do it properly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Edit summaries & explanations

All I knew was that the information was being removed; that was because the move to tables wasn't mentioned in edit summaries or on Talk pages; most of your edits, and those of OmegaWikipedia, either have no edit summary or abusive and inaccurate ones aimed at me. When edits are explained, other editors are much less likely to revert them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm engaged in defending a huge number of articles against vandalistic reverts; I'm afraid that – however hard I try – I sometimes miss important information. While my comments above are generally correct, I apologise for those occasions when you do give edit summaries and I miss their import. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Born to Make You Happy

Now that you've explained to me one chronological problem, could you take a look at Born to Make You Happy? user:Triggy keeps altering the chronology, but has so far refused to explain why. Perhaps you could check to see if his change is correct or not. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Spice Girls singles

Your improvements on the first three Spice Girls singles is quite the treat to add to the site. Could you upgrade the other singles released by the group as well? 64.231.119.198 19:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Edits to Vision of Love reverted

I rolled back your edits to the lead section of Vision of Love, but don't take offense! It's just that articles about songs are supposed to start with "SONG NAME is...", not "SONG NAME was...". Also, following a very short paragraph with a much longer one seemed a little strange to me. On a slightly unrelated note, Wikipedia:Minor edit says that major edits (as major as those you just made to Vision of Love) should not be marked as minor edits. If you think I shouldn't have reverted, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 20:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply