User talk:71.9.8.150

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To edit, please log in.

Editing by anonymous users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. Registered users, however, are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may email us using an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network.

In your email, please tell us your preferred username and an account will be created for you. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Contents

[edit] Apologize (song)

The article Apologize (song) discusses the song Apologize by OneRepublic. A popular version of this song is one produced by Timbaland. This also features in the article. These should not be two separate articles, for the simple fact that they are essentially the same song. However, as they are two versions of the song, it should be clearly identified in the text which version is being referred to. As the Timbaland remix was released as a single it also gets a separate chronology, this allows the Timbaland chronology to flow, uninterrupted from one single to the next. Please leave the article alone, as it stands now is fine. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, the charts being referenced do not differentiate between the version of the single featuring Timbaland and that which does not. Both are being tabulated as plays of the song. Therefore, singling out the Timbaland version as the one solely responsible for the chart success is factually insupportable. In the second place, in no other single's page, anywhere on Wikipedia, including several which featured Timbaland much more prominently than does Apologize, do I see a case in which the mixer is given (a) a full byline or (b) a link to their chronology, as though they were a co-author. Wikipedia's own definitions of authorship, under the article of the same name, do not support any reading in which a mixer is somehow a co-author of a piece. There is no rationale for it. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's divide this into two separate issues: The inclusion of a Timbaland chronology, and the specific wording of the article which identifies which song is being referred to.
  • Chronology. This is an easy one. A Timbaland chronology should clearly be included as he is credited as one of the artists on the single release (Timbaland presents OneRepublic). This allows a user to navigate through all of Timbaland's singles with ease, without having a gap where "Apologize" should be...
  • The specific is a little more complicated. However, as it is actually the Timbaland remix that is physically released as a single (regardless of what is played on the radio), then it is only right that it is made clear that chart performance relates to this version. As an encyclopedia, the article needs to be as acuurate as possible, and so it should be obvious which of the two versions of the song is being discussed.

I hope this has cleared things up for you, and trust that you will stop reverting the article. As a polite reminder, if you continue to revert the article then you may be blocked. I have already requested that the article be protected again. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Chronology: it's clearly convenient for you - but it is not Wikipedia practice. In NO OTHER CASE that I can find is the mixer's chronology listed. I have referred you to several other tracks mixed by Timbaland, including many in which his influence is much more obvious, and in no case is his chronology listed. Why have you decided that this is the exception? The single does not list Timbaland as the performer or author in the liner notes. Effectively, treating him as the author would be 'original research' (or pure speculation), and is contrary to established facts (ie, Ryan Tedder is the author and OneRepublic the performers). Three: stop threatening me...particularly since I note it's an empty threat...both Admins to whom you have appealed have indicated as much.

[edit] Dennis-from-accounts

Hello, to report a sock puppet, go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and fill out a report, or you can make a statement at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. 75.175.30.112 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologize (song)

I suggest you do not act as though such edits have been agreed upon. You have provided no valid reasons why the chronology should not be inlcuded. Furthermore, if you decide to leave the discussion, that is your decision, however you do not then gain the right to invoke your opinion on the article. If you leave the debate, you leave the article alone. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is not going to be any agreement. The burden of proof, in this case, is not on me to prove why we should suddenly break all precedent and include the remixers chronology. And I'm following Wikipedia guidelines - boldly. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I proposed a compromise. You rejected it. I am doing all I can to reach an agreement, but you insist you are right, despite being unable to provide any explanation. There is no precedent, as I have shown time and again. Just to clarify for me, is your problem with this the fact that timbaland only remixed the song and does not sing or play an instrument. So if he did sing or play an instrument he would be credited? I suggest you stop changing the page until discussion is complete, remember you are the one to withdraw from debate, not me. You cannot stop discussions and expect to get you own way....Nouse4aname (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Your "compromise" was unacceptable because it promoted a number of untruths. Truth is not something one "compromises" on. My problem is with the fact that Timbaland is not the author of the song. And I did not edit the page until you had begun doing so. You can hardly claim now that this is counter to acceptable behavior.
Wrong, it promoted no untruths. Timbaland is a co-creator of the remix version. You will notice I did not edit anything that was in dispute, you however decided it was somehow ok to begin the editb war, and now have withdrawn from any sensible discussion thus preventing anything actually being decided. \\You have proved once again your prejudice, because you have "a problem that timbaland is not the author". Well he is a co-creator of the remix. The remix is more notable, the remix gets an infobox. And for the last time, it is two songs, not one, and they are treated as such in the article. I suggest you stop this edit warring now and return to discussion. Would you credit timbaland if he played an instrument or sang on the song?--Nouse4aname (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
A remixer is nt a "co-creator." A remixer arranges existing material - he or she does not "create." And there was no "sensible deiscussion." You have an opinion at odds with the dictionary, with Wikipedian articles and precedent. I don't. My "prejudice" is a preference for the truth. And I'm not answering your loaded questions. Please refrain from posting on my talk page any more, as I do not find you a reasonable person. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Im not reasonable? Take a look at yourself first. Your quest for truth is failing.--Nouse4aname (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This is my second request that you stop posting to my talk page. I do not find you a reliable source of information or insight into either musicology, etymology, nor Wikipedian policy. You have, therefore, no rationale for continued harassment. Please refrain from posting. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I am attempting to maintain a discussion with you. One you seem adamant to continue, potentially as all of your arguments have failed. I have explained time and again why other remixes do not have chronologies. I have explained that as a remixer Timbaland is a creator. Stop pretending this is some legal trial. I am not asking leading questions. I am trying to understand your POV. If you are unwilling to explain then that is your decision. I invite you back to the article talk page to continue discussion. There are a number of questions there that you have left unanswered. --Nouse4aname (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Apologize (song), are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. STORMTRACKER 94 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Several different administrators have chimed in on this and declared that this is a content dispute, not vandalism. And I don't appreciate threats. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Your refusal to discuss things is disruptive. And in the past they did not say it was not vandalism, they said the vandalism didnt seem too bad. Sooner or later you must realize that you are the minority here....--Nouse4aname (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Whether I am in the minority amongst the other editors here is unclear. Of those who have spoken up on the issue on the talk page, there are those who you specifically canvassed to chime in to support your position and those who were asked openly for an opinion. The latter have actually supported my position that the material should be referenced in the article, not the infobox. Regardless, I am not in the minority in the world at large, where both the dictionary and other sources, as well as Wikipedian precedent, have clearly distinguished between authorship and re-arrangement. Your desire to redefine those terms as though they were synonymous is counter to fact and constitutes original research. Moreover, I have asked several times that you refrain from comment on this user page. Your continual ignoring of that request is directly contrary to Wikipedian policy, and is considered abusive. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This is what the talk page is for. Talking. I am trying to keep you involved in discussion. You cannot withdraw from discussion and expect to have your own way. Please explain your position more clearly by answering my questions on the article talk page, and I will stop posting here.--Nouse4aname (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not withdrawn from the talk page. I have, per Wikipedia's advice on edit wars, disengaged from talking with you, since you seem intent on turning every statement into a personal attack, veiled or otherwise. You are quite unapologetic about the fact. I do not find such behavior useful, welcoming, or likely to advance the understanding of the issues. I understand your opinion quite well, and have explained that it is contrary to both precedent and all published sources on what constitutes "authorship." You have declared that you do not care what the published sources say. I am interested in hearing other opinions on the topic, but so far few have been forthcoming. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not truned anything into a personal attack, and such accusations are certainly not helpful. I have also not stated that I "do not care what published sources say". There is no precedent, I have explained sufficiently why you cannot find any. Nothing else you have suggested is notable. This is. Please stop reverting the page until such opinions are made clear.Nouse4aname (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Much better. I think thats a compromise we can all live with. Thannks and merry Christmas. Nouse4aname (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Frank Gehry, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sincerely, Sir Intellegence - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
Sigh. Did yuo even LOOK at the change? Did you look at the request at the top of that section, BEGGING editors to take out the weasel words there?

No, of course you didn't.

[edit] Timbaland

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Bender235 (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits constitute a difference of opinion, and are consistent with WP:LEAD. Nice try though. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bender and 71.9.8.150, in the future, if you're in the middle of a discussion with another user, it is bad form to leave vandalism template messages on their talk page simply because you disagree with their edit. Please do not do it again. Rockstar (T/C) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* Yes, I know that. The one I left on Bender's page was supposed to let him know that. As always, sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet. I plead guilty to escalation, though my point remains - we are having a difference of opinion, not vandalism. Bender's decision to term it vandalism is inaccurate and, we might note, violates the 'assume good faith' policy. He's not unique. Plenty of editors charge "vandalism" just as people charge "troll" on any BBS...that is, to avoid actually having to defend their position, in an attempt to smear the person they disagree with. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I understood why you did it, I just think it could have been done with more tact. And yes, I do agree that Bender should not have left a template message for you in the first place; template messages don't promote discussion, and should only be used for clear vandalism violations. Given that the likelihood of you two resolving this dispute any time soon is close to none, I would suggest requesting a (hopefully) objective third opinion so that you both can move on. Rockstar (T/C) 03:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I had thought there were already three different editors who agreed that the Spector line didn't belong in the lead of the article. If that, the WP:LEAD guideline, and multiple attempts at compromise weren't sufficient to convince Bender, I'm not sure why one more opinion would do the trick. I'm more than willing, if you think there's someone he'll listen to. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wp:lead

Replied on illmatic talk ;) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buttrolling

Many, many people on the comments page of the "What What (In the Butt)" video (and other places on the internet) have been exclaiming they've been "buttrolled", which I think is an interesting, noteworthy, and rather hilarious development, especially concerning issues of memetics and pop culture. I agree with your decision to delete the "narrative" section and "controversy" section, but if I put the short "buttrolling" section back up, what would I need to do to make it more legitimate? Just a decent source, right? Thanks. 65.30.190.46 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's a notable internet meme, then yes, there should be some source to corroborate it. Simply declaring you've heard it referred to is, I happily admit, amusing as hell. But not quite encyclopedic. Try urban dictionaries or similar sources. If you can't find a credible source, that may be a sign the meme is too insignificant to merit coverage. Not every bit of pop-culture trivia can make it. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Your recent edit to Silent Hill (film) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong again, dumbass bot. Which is anothher arghu ment against bots. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Rosen

I have removed the {{prod}} that was added to the article Jay Rosen. It was not valid, according to the proposed deletion policy, as it had already been removed once. It has also been contested on the article talk page by another user, and I would have contested it, if it had not been done already. If you still think the article should be deleted it will have to be discussed at Articles for deletion (you will need to be logged in with an account for this, or ask another user, using the article's talk page). --Snigbrook (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. One note: the prod had NOT been contested at the time of my resubmission, but simply deleted without comment (by a user who apparently makes a habit of randomly "rescuing" articles proposed for deletion, without acyually assessing their merits. I will pursue the matter in the venues you suggest. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timbaland

If you look in the 2006-07 section, you can see that the two line section on the plagiarism case was moved into that section. I guess that was made to improve the prose. --JForget 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. However, given the large amount of discussion on this very topic, and the general concensus being that removal of the section was inappropriate, I don't suspect that this was an effort to "improve the prose" so much as it was an effort to improve Mr. Mozley's public image. I'll restore the more visible link 71.9.8.150 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)