User talk:17Drew/Archive 3

Candyman Page

Hey ShadowHalo! I really think the picture of Christina Aguilera as the Andrew Sisters will represent the page of the single "Candyman" better. I uploaded it some time before, but if you don't like it you can upload it yourself. I won't be opposed to it. Also, sorry for removing the important information about references. I just thought it was a little disorganized, but I guess it is really important to have it. Also, about the cover of the single, I know someone proved that the cover currently posted in Wikipedia is the real one, but I think it's just for the UK. I went to BestBuy to buy the single myself, but it won't be out in a CD until April 10th, 2007. If it ends up being the blue colored cover, I will scan it and upload it. Finally, do you think you could post the rest of the music video information, like the woman Christina Aguilera is representing in the Milkshake Bar? Here is the link to the summary of "Candyman" and the music video itself. "http://www.mansized.co.uk/reviews/review.phtml/540/667/" I just couldn't figure out anyway to reword the summary under "We Say". But you are an expert, I think you can do it.

Bull Borgnine 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Drew,

I noticed you just got one, but I had to come here and give you a barnstar...

Thanks for making the barnstar stereo!  I've been away a couple of days, so sorry not to've sent this earlier. {{·}} seems to work best on the handful of screens and printers I've seen it on; ideally, though, I reckon there could be a "set separator character" preference option (which also uses the   formatting). A couple of people said it was tricky to input, which I guess is true if you're not keen on pasting, macros or key combinations, but the "middot" character seemed appropriate for a short template name. Anyway, happy to know some folk like it!  Best wishes, David (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lauryn Hill

Why did you change the pic back please? This one is not nearly as good. SmokeyTheCat 09:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that that photo of Lauryn Hill was copyright please? SmokeyTheCat 14:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Black Parade GA

Hello, recently I have been editing The Black Parade article to improve it based on the suggestions given from the first GA failed attempt and the second failed GA attempt. I was wondering if I could get your opinion as you failed the article the second time. I would like to know if you think the article is improved enough to possibly submit for a third time and this time possibly succeed. If it is not can I please have some suggestions as to where I can go from here when editing the article? Should more information be added, and if so what? As I freqeuntly edit the article it'd be nice to have someone else come in and take a look at it and comment on it. Thank you!  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article La Camisa Negra, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Smallville image

I took care of it. I didn't realize that I had left out the source. Thanks for letting me know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Including Mediabase/R&R peaks for songs

I think that, if it's not getting out of hand, including the R&R or Mediabase peaks for a song is fine (unless way too many other charts are listed along with it). I've found so many cases where the R&R peak for a country song has been placed under "Hot Country Songs" because people fail to realize that, until last year, R&R and Billboard were separate entities. I had to split Jamie O'Neal's table into Billboard vs. R&R because someone changed the peaks. Twice. TenPoundHammer 01:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with Photo

Hi. I found a public photo on flickr for Clay Aiken but I'm not sure it would satisfy the requirements for Wikipedia. I need your advice and help please. http://www.flickr.com/photos/unicef_upclose/375760906/ - Maria202 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad I asked first. Maria202 21:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl

The article you linked to doesn't say "Pop rap." It says..."most spectacularly so on the gloriously dumb marching-band rap of "Hollaback Girl."" The reviewer mischaracterizes the song as "rap" (the song has no rapping in it) and probably isn't even a reliable source. But if you were to cite him, you'd have to put simply "rap" as the genre. Do you honestly consider that accurate? Crumbsucker 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"If you'd like me to provide a statement that it's pop, I can" The song obviously has pop elements; the issue is characterizing it's genre specifically as "pop rap" (the source you cited didn't call it "pop rap"). The song has hip hop elements (slang, beat structure, and some styles/dances in the video), but "hip hop" and "rap" aren't synonymous. Most R&B songs from the 90's-on have hip hop elements, but aren't "rap" songs. "Also note that pop rap does not always contain traditional rap but rather rapping the lyrics as opposed to actually singing them." First, the pop rap article is largely unsourced and tagged as possible original research. Second, Hollaback Girl is mostly sang. There's chanting in the bridge and chorus that I wouldn't exactly characterize as rapping (remember, the song is mimicking marching band stylings); It's similar to some of the chant elements of Toni Basel's Mickey. Either way, it's a stretch to call HBG a rap song when Gwen is mostly singing. "Considering the song's performance on the Pop 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, I think it's pretty accurate to say that it's a pop rap song." To use that as evidence that the song is "pop rap" would be original research. Particularly because Pop 100 isn't a pop music genre chart. It leans less R&B/Rhythmic than Hot 100, but any genre of music can be on it and there are plenty of non-pop songs on it. Crumbsucker 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Could you explain how exactly hip hop music and rap music are different?" Rapping is a technique within hip hop, but "hip hop" more broadly describes culture/style. A song can be hip hop based/influenced with little or no rapping. Examples are TLC, Montel Jordan, SWV, Adina Howard, and Joe Public. They use many hip hop elements like samples, "hard edged" beats, baggy clothes, swagger, slang, etc. But they sing most of the time (with occasional rapped bridges) and definitely wouldn't have their genres described as "rap." "...as the sources state it contains a lot of hip hop elements and falls in the intersection between pop and hip hop (which is called pop rap)" It would be inaccurate and kinda silly to describe a song with no rapping in it as "rap." And again, the pop rap article is unsourced and possibly original research. Some of the artist examples they give are laughable (first time i've ever seen Cassie described as "rap" or Jay-Z described as "pop"). Crumbsucker 00:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm aware that rapping and hip hop are different, but rap music and hip hop music are for all intents and purposes the same things." I've already demonstrated that that is false. None of the songs I linked to are rap songs, but they are hip hop songs. The terms aren't synonymous. "I'm also a little confused as to why you keep saying that there is no rap when the sources disagree." Maybe because there's no rap? Do you consider Toni Basil's Mickey a rap song? It has similar chant vocals. "This review at All Music Guide, one of the most comprehensive and reliable music sites, refers to it as a "marching-band rap"" A site that calls a song with no rapping in it "rap" is unreliable. In fact, in another review from that author, he calls Rammstein "Gothic Metal," "Black Metal," and "Prog Metal," which is laughably incorrect. "and OMH Media's review calls it "rap-pop"." On musicomh's about page it says..."We're always looking for enthusiastic music, film, opera and theatre fans who would like to write - regardless of age or location." The site is made up of user submitted content and therefore isn't a reliable source for wikipedia. Crumbsucker 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Looking at the two reviews by Erlewine, I can't find any that uses all those terms." here you go. "And OMH isn't user-submitted. The page clearly states that they hire their writers but are encouraging readers to apply, the equivalent of a "help wanted"." Thus making the site an unrelible source for defining genres. "How about asking for a third opinion since this doesn't appear to be getting us very far? " Ok. Crumbsucker 02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

If the genre really is in dispute by reliable sources, or different sources call it different things, we don't decide who's right. Rather, the fact that the dispute exists should be noted, and the various positions noted in the prose ("Whatever Magazine describes the genre as rap-pop^[1], while Something Weekly disagrees, stating that no rap elements are present.^[2].) Of course, if one position is strongly in the majority, this should be noted and that position treated with the most weight. Also, please discuss articles on the article's talk, so that other editors may get involved as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Ok, I will use the sandbox next time. How did you find my vandalism so fast? I want to help stop vandalism too. ||FrozenFood|| 23:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Eyes of the Insane

Hello ShadowHalo, I was greatly appreciative of your feedback during GAC which improved the article, so now I'm wondering if you could (in light of your decent work on song articles, our table dispute aside) take another look at the article and tell me what would need improvisation for a possibly successful FAC nomination. Much thanks in advance. LuciferMorgan 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Single entry track list

Why are you removing the track listings from usages of {{Single entry}}? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I checked the template's talk page for discussion and couldn't find any. Thanks for pointing me to it. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

i'm sorry, i didnt know that it did. i'll make sure no one else puts it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ratizi1 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

RE: MCQ

Thanks ShadowHalo for your reply. Just a quick follow up clarification, does "Creative Commons ShareAlike 1.0 License" qualify? CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, answered my own question. Thanks though. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

If editors explain what they're doing, and don't introduce hosts of formatting errors in with their genuine (if any) edits, then there'll be no problem. I might add that in your first example I was reverting violations of the redirect policy; there is no article U.S., nor UK, for example. I have no idea how you think that I was violating Wikipedia:Redirect. I was also reverting a huge number of changes to information for which no explanation or sources were given. I don't see why you're so concerned about that; it's what we're all supposed to do. (I later reinserted one section that was sourced, though badly formatted.)

I don't revert simply because no edit summary is used; not using one is bad manners, but I revert only when the lack of an edit summary goes along with an edit that has no source, or whose purpose and result is either clearly or wrong or completely unclear. My Watchlist is full of edits with no edit summaries that, after checking, I leave; they're irritating, but that's not grounds for interference (beyond sometimes reminding editors to use them).

You and I are generally on the same side in a constant battle against vandals and disruptors; it's surely unwise, at least, to get involved in baseess attacks on each other. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel it necessary to keep this up. Your position seems to be that, because part of my editing was unnecessary (though not wrong — what I did certainly doesn't violate anything), it's OK to revert it. Incidentally, the source to which you linked points out that such edits take up more resources than they save — but that's only, of course, if the edit was made purely to change the link. Your insistence on changing to a link to a redirect instead of a piped link (as if it's actually wrong to use a piped link) is, frankly, obssessive and absurd.

It's also depressing, after a lot of time defending an article (in whose subject I have no Earthly interest), to be accused or wanting to own it; I'd be perfectly happy to see it gone, and I have no problems with people editing it according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. My actions are performed wholly out of concern for those guidelines and policies.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it; I've removed it from my watchlist, and you can play games with it to your heart's content. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Project for Pride in Living

Could you help me delete Project for Pride in Living's article i put on wikipedia? I need to delete that as well as the user page. I do not want it to be searchable on the web either. Please help me out! Thanks RebeccaC21

Images

Hi, could you please explain what is going on with all the images you are tagging. Also what is the correct tag for the images? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When are they allowed? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the legal rationale for this? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean what is the legal reasoning behind interpreting fair use in this way? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 19:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Project for Pride in Living User talk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Project_for_Pride_in_Living

Here's the User Talk page I hope you can delete. Thanks RebeccaC21 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)