User talk:Get2nomey: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:26, 17 March 2006

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello Get2nomey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Extraordinary Machine 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mariahvibe.jpg

Hi. I noticed that you uploaded Image:Mariahvibe.jpg and tagged it as {{GFDL-self}}. However, the copyright for that image actually belong to the Associated Press (see here). Also, the image that was already being used on the Mariah Carey article is public domain. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

The copyright holder, and
The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

The copyright holder gets the best protection of his work by licencing their work under an open content license like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. The GNU Free Documentation License is another choice for licencing one's work. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag: {{GFDL}}.

The copyright holder can also release his work into the public domain, see here for images released into the public domain.

- Images from certain sources are automatically release into the Public Domain. This is true for most governments like the federal United States government. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments) However not all governments release their work into the public domain, such as the UK government (See here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.

Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of Fair Use. To see if this image qualifies and then how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For any other sources of for more information see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that if you don't tag your images, they will be deleted.

P.S. If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the image on the Mariah Carey article: I must inform you that Wikipedia does not tend to encourage users to insert copyrighted "fair use" images in articles when suitable public domain or free license images have been located for the subject of that article. See Wikipedia:Fair use. Another thing: Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." Extraordinary Machine 17:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're still marking non-"minor" edits as minor. Please do not do this, as it is misleading to other editors. Also, please remember to provide edit summaries. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 00:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mariahvibe.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Mariahvibe.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Extraordinary Machine 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marking edits as minor

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." Extraordinary Machine 17:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts of my edits to Don't Forget About Us

See Talk:Don't Forget About Us. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted again, without any explanation whatsoever. This is considered impolite and unproductive, and may lead to punitive action against you. Please discuss the matter at Talk:Don't Forget About Us. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 20:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100

Hi there, I noticed you updated the Feb. 4 #1... normally Billboard does not publish new charts until Thursday. Was jsut wondering where you got the early info and if there is a source you can point to in order to confirm it? You did not put a comment on your edit. Thanks. -- eo 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey

Do not use misleading edit summaries, label non-vandalism edits as vandalism, merge three adequately-sized paragraphs into one (see the manual of style) and perform point-of-view edits such as saying she has a "sexy image". Also, the sentence "her voice and lyrics are the subjects of frequent criticism" is completely accurate; the article has entire paragraphs dedicated to summarising criticisms of her work. Extraordinary Machine 22:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently those comments about her do have significant importance in the greater scheme of things; I did the research, negative critical appraisals of her work came up very frequently, and I have reflected this in the article. To not mention this in its lead section, which is supposed to summarize the most important points of the article (and criticisms of her work are given enough coverage in the article to qualify as an "important point"), is a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which all users are expected to abide by. It's unwise not to "worry about things other than objectivity", since maintaining objectivity is one of Wikipedia's key policies. Most of the time her voice is not criticised because it is "damaged", it is criticised because she uses lots of melisma. Same with "sexy image"; it's the same as saying "he/she's sexy", it's just personal opinion ("sexual" is a better and more NPOV word, and is used in the article instead). Per Wikipedia:Guide to layout, "paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length", and Wikipedia:Lead section states that articles consisting of 30,000+ characters should have lead sections at least three paragraphs long.

Saying that Billboard magazine states Carey is tied with Elvis Presley for the most number-one hits is also POV; their own statician credits him with an eighteenth (for good reason), and this has been discussed extensively at Talk:Mariah Carey. Extraordinary Machine 22:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Please sign your comments by placing four tildes after each posts like this: ~~~~ . Thank you. Also, while this is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have certain policies and guidelines that you have to follow if we are to be productive here. (Please familiarise yourself with NPOV, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:policies and guidelines) If you break these guidelines and procedures, then ofcourse others will try to correct them. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from Wikipedia for a week for repeatedly threatening leagl action against a user(s). That is in a direct violation of No personal attacks policy, which I have told you to read. If you feel that the block is unjustified, then you can make your case right here. You are lucky I didn't institute a longer block. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that you'd talk with me here, instead of trying to open a new account. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious to me that you are just taking up for extraordinary machine, a fellow admin, and blocking me unnecessarily. It is not right for admins to use their positions to impose their will on others. If I was an admin and extraordinary machine was just an editor I would not use my admin position, or my admin friends, to settle an editing dispute.

How can we bring damage to her reputation? Its not like we are out to get her. Look at all the crap in the media that repeatedly post scathing remarks about her, especially in the Glitter era. Did anyone make a fus as you are? And if you continue with your legal threat, you face being permanently banned from Wikipedia. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that extraordinary machine's interpretation of Mariah Carey's chart record is the most utterly stupid thing I have ever heard. It is laughable to me. What makes him or you more qualified than me as a researcher to review this issue and settle what the text should be on that point? Just because you were persistent in editing pages and became an admin does not mean that you or he are more qualified than anyone else to do research or that you actually write very well or know how to best organize the text that you have written. I am appalled. I teach 18 year old's how to write and you mean to tell me that you and a buddy get to make the final decision about substantive edits on a page because you happen to be an admin. What are the qualifications for being an admin? College degree? Master's degree? Extensive journalism experience? This makes no sense. There are no qualifications and that's Wikipedia's problem. You just have to have free time and be persistent. You have not blocked anyone as long as me except someone who made racist comments. I think you exercised poor judgment in issuing that outragiously long block for what I did. What I did was tell someone, who I believe is vandalising a page about Ms. Carey, that I would refer the problem to Island Def Jam's legal department. I am well aware that this is not a fan site but no one has the right to publish false and misleading information.

I am afraid that I have already referred the Mariah Carey matter to Island Def Jam's legal department because I believe very strongly that Ms. Carey has a legal right not to have someone publish false and misleading information about her in a public forum. It is not a criminal matter, it is a civil matter by the way. Wikipedia can be sued for damages, I'm afraid. Legal does not mean criminal. Nowhere does it say specifically in the Wikipedia policy that it is against policy to assert rights. Mariah is a public figure but publishing false and misleading information about her is not allowed. Wikipedia has recently received negative publicity for allowing misleading information to be published on this site regarding JFK's assassination, if you recall. I think you as an admin would do good to take seriously concerns about accuracy. Don't assume that because someone is an admin that he or she knows best what text belongs on a particular page no matter how well they claim to know Wikipedia policy.

I was unaware that extraordinary machine was an admin, but that is besides the point really. I view his constant reverts on the Mariah Carey site as vandalism. He says that it is not but that is what it appears to be to me. As an admin why doesn't he leave it to the editors to edit the Mariah Carey site rather than using his admin authority to assert his views and when they cause such controversy on that particular page. Why doesn't he let a different admin monitor that page since he is the source of such great conflict with other editors all the time? That would be the responsible thing to do.

I am also convinced that you violated the Wikipedia policy by banning me for an unreasonably long time for a minor infraction that occured once. It was in retaliation for my disagreement with Extraordinary Machine. I highly doubt that you would have banned me had I said the same thing to an ordinary editor who vandalised a page. You used your authority to take sides in an editing dispute and banned me. You took sides because you decided that extraodinary machine is not vandalising Mariah Carey's website. That's why you banned me. I think that is a shame and it does little to enhance Wikipedia's already sullied reputation. Get2nomey 01:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)get2nomey[reply]

Let me sum something up:

1)I did not became an admin simply because I persistently edited. If so, everyone who stayed here would be admins.(Here are my qualifications). FYI, Extraordinary Machine is not an Admin (though I belive he is more than qualified--though that's beside the point.) And yes, I would have blocked you had you threatened any other editor — its against the policies.

2)"I think you exercised poor judgment in issuing that outragiously long block for what I did". Its funny how you think that I was wrong, but you feel that you have every right to repeatedly threaten someone (after being told to stop). You have not apologised. In fact, even after the block, you have not let up —you threatened us in your above post, and you have returned to Talk:Mariah Carey with your silly threats from that IP address. Even if I was going to shorten your block to 48 (or 72) hours, do you really believe that I would do it now?

3)This is an encyclopedic entry of a pop singer. According to the policies, we are supposed to write neutral and unbiased articles about them. That includes taking the good with the bad. Nowhere have we slandered Carey, nowhere have we called her derogotory names, nowhere have we incited any hatred for Carey or her reputation (and I dare you to prove how we have done so).

4)No one is more qualified to make edits to a page than another. With that said, if an editor who is oblivious to the policies knowingly (or unknowingly) breaks these conventions, then other editors are supposed to correct them. Plain and simple.

5)Lastly, I understand where you are coming from. Even though you may not believe, I am the biggest fan of Mariah Carey (it says so on my userpage). When I first came here, I wanted to control the article too. I wouldn't let anyone write anything bad. I was actually in a huge fight with another editor over the article, then an admin stepped in (like I have). Then I actually took the time to read the policies (WP:NPOV), and I realised that I cannot allow any bias to interfere with my edits. And more importantly, whether we praise or trash Carey, it will not diminish her success or popularity in any way. Come on. The girl is the bomb; she survived Glitter and all the backlash and derision, didnt she?

I hope that this block will give you the time to reevaluate your stance. You were clearly out of line with your threat, and I hope that you realise that. When it expires, you are welcome to continue your great contributions to Wikipedia—providing that you behave yourself.

PS: I reiterate; this is not Mariah Carey's website. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not returned to the Mariah Talk page and made any additional "threats", as you call them, whatsoever. That is a lie. The first time, I said that I would refer the matter to Island Def Jam's legal department and then, only minutes thereafer, I said that this conflict seems like it will be resolved only through legal action. It was the same infraction. You warned me not to make threats and perhaps our posts crossed because by the time I said "I think this will be resolved only through legal action" I looked up and I was blocked. There was no warning. I have not posted anything regarding legal action other than that on the Mariah Carey Talk page. I don't know what you are talking about. You continue to accuse me of creating a new account or something like that. I have one account and I have not attempted to edit anything because you blocked me. If I have clicked on any edit links, it has been inadvertent but I am certainly aware that any attempt to edit will not be successful since I have been blocked. Stop accusing me. I am not so desperate to post here that I would create another account. I am not requesting that you reduce the block. I still think the length of the block was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. You asked me to discuss the block here and I am telling you what I think of your decision to block me.

You continue to call asserting legal rights to be threats. They are not threats. In the last message, I told you what I did. There is no threat. I spoke to an attorney that I know at Island Def Jam and he will monitor the situation. He has the right to monitor what is said about Ms. Carey on a website that many people view. There is no threat there. I said what I said about Wikipedia being sued in response to the absurd comments someone wrote on the Mariah Talk page about people going to jail. I can't post there so I responded to it here. It is just the facts. There's no threat. You shouldn't feel threatened, but if you do that is no fault of mine.

If that guy is not a vandal then I do not know what is. He continues to switch edits back and forth immediately, as though he owns the site. It is outragious. He has no right to do that. He should let others tinker with edits and reach a consensus naturally. That's not what he does. As soon I post something, two minutes later, he has changed it back to what he wants it to say. That's bullying and it's outragious conduct because it destroys the freedom for others to have input and for others to build on that input. You sanctioned it by freezing the page in the form in which he wants it to be.

Wikipedia's viewpoint neutral policy does not mean distorting the truth and does not mean going out of one's way to find something negative to say about Ms. Carey or anyone else, just because something positive has been said. Encylopedia's are not written that way. I have been reading encylopedia articles since 1985. I am not used to seeing what I see here. I am not as much a fan of Mariah Carey as you are, I'm afraid, but I am disgusted by the efforts of some malicious posters to discredit her achievements by spinning them in a negative way.

"We Belong Together was a smash in America but failed to become a smash in other countries." That's an example of negative spin. That's the type of thing politicians do when they create negative attack ads. Why can't you see that? That sentence is not viewpoint neutral. It's distortion. That's the kind of sentence extraodinary machine would write and then he hides behind the "wikipedia's viewpoint neutral policy" to get away with it and then you come in and take his side.

I am well aware that this not a Mariah Carey fansite. Please stop with the semantics. It is Mariah Carey's page in the sense that it discusses her. I wouldn't want someone vandalising George W. Bush's page, or Hillary Rodham Clinton's page. That's the point. I know this is not a fansite. Get2nomey 17:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)get2nomey[reply]