Extraordinary Machine
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Welcome!
Welcome!
Hello, 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:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --JYolkowski // talk 15:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I have actually been contributing to Wikipedia for several weeks (under my IP address), but anyway, thanks! I know I'm certainly not the best or most frequent contributor, but I try to help out where and when I can. Extraordinary Machine 15:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, I had to revert your changes you made to the Hilary Duff article today. Firstly, you made a statement - "obviously enhanced (e.g. her climactic solo has her voice electronicly layered) vocals" - without citing a source or reference. It is important for Wikipedia to be able to verify their information, and because of this, you must always cite your sources, especially with "hot" topics such as whether Duff's vocals are enhanced by computers or not. I added a quote from a film critic and a link to the review from said critic, but I can't keep track of everything, so you must get in the habit of adding references as well, even if that means just a URL in square brackets at the end of the sentence, like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page], which would appear in the article as this: [1]. Secondly, you marked your edit as "minor". Edits should only be marked as "minor" when they are correcting spelling, or making small alterations to formatting, or rearranging (but not adding, deleting or changing) portions of text. See Editing:Minor edits for more information on this. Once again, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 22:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate you pointing out that I did not source the text regarding Hilary Duff's voice-enhancement. I went back and added three more references, as I should have done in the beginning. Now I know how to do footnotes correctly! Thank you for taking the time to let me know. RJSampson 23:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...and thanks for helping me clean up the notations. Much better now! btw - I like HD too! RJSampson 08:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you very much for writing the I Dream article. I meant to do it myself, but I thought there wasn't enough info for a seperate article. Maybe you could add a section for the cast too (or copy the table from S Club 8? - Mgm|(talk) 13:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't really like I Dream (and have never been mad on S Club 8), so that's why I didn't write too much on it. But, by all means, feel free to improve it yourself if you want to (a lot of the article was originally written by you, after all!). You can find episode guides at TV.com, although the main cast list on that site is inaccurate: as you probably know, the members of S Club 8 weren't playing themselves. For that, I'd suggest consulting the IMDb entry, which I am working to improve (but ignore the "lead writer" writing credit for Paul Dornan, he only received episode-specific credits). Extraordinary Machine 17:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
About KaDee Strickland article. Thanks!
Thank you very much for writing the KaDee Strickland article. By the way, you did a really great article. Congratulations! -- Carioca 15:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words about my work on the KaDee Strickland article! It's nice to know that somebody out there has read it, no matter how "unknown" she is as an actress. Once again, thanks! Extraordinary Machine 21:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did you know?
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article KaDee Strickland, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
J-Horror
I transferred the J-Horror link you included on the Ringu article to the "See also" section, as it means people won't have to go to another page just to see what "J-Horror" is. Extraordinary Machine 18:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ah, no problem. I did think a link like that right at the beginning of the article could confuse some people. Better this way, I think. Thanks for informing. By the way, if you have any interesting contributions to add to the J-Horror article, that would be nice. It's still just a stub.
See you.--Kaonashi 20:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apologies & New System
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)
Sorry, I didn't mean to completely ruin it, just wasn't really paying attention while doing a re-write. Can I ask you to not add references to all sections and just wait until one section is fully complete before you begin the next. Currently only the early life and family section has references, so please find references for that and just add them until you move on. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 9 July 2005 19:25 (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)
what?
Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 01:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
And what, may I ask, did I vandalise? Journalist 01:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- You removed the entire reference section on the Mariah Carey article, and deleted all inline citations within the article. Additionally, while NPOV violation does not count as vandalism, you added POV words such as "expansive" and "impeccable". Extraordinary Machine 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Another thing: Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. Extraordinary Machine 01:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that. The only reason why I did that was because I believed that we had all come to the consensus that so much references were not needed. (see the talk page). If I did anything wrong, that was not my intention. Furthurmore, how is 'expansive" POV? I only wrote it because:
- It true;
- That was how her voice was described in the 'diva' article.
Journalist 01:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- It was concluded that citations at the end of each sentence weren't needed; however, that doesn't mean that all citations should be removed. Additionally, you removed a reference which wasn't an inline citation. And just because something is said on one article does not mean it can be said on others; the Diva article is POV-ridden, and should not be referred to in this case. A five-octave range is, by definition, "expansive", so instead of adding "expansive" to the section, you could simply provide a few references in the references section verifying claims that Mariah has a five-octave range. And, to reiterate, "impeccable" is a POV word. Extraordinary Machine 01:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Mariah Carey
Hello, Extraordinary Machine. I have left a note on Journalist's page and would also like to ask that you acted a little more calmly on this matter. I do not mean that you are wrong, but perhaps you should use a little more patience in your approach. I am sure that both you and him share interest for the article's subject, but it benefits no one if this becomes an edit war. Thank you for your attention. --Sn0wflake 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your note on my talk page. I'm sure you'll agree that sometimes it can get hot in here, but believe me, I try to keep my cool whenever possible. It's just hard to do this when somebody says things like "Why don't you fools stop getting your panties in a bunch over nothing and let the article be!" (in reference to the Mariah Carey article). Extraordinary Machine 23:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Trust me, that's a feeling most of us share, but you know how things work around here. We try to be as neutral as possible for a long as possible. I do hope you all can reach a consensus regarding information on the article, since it has potential to actually become featured some day. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 00:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Ago gratias!
I, Extraordinary Machine, hereby present The Featured Article Medal to PedanticallySpeaking, for his/her outstanding contributions to Featured Articles. Your work is of the highest quality and you are a model Wikipedian. This is long overdue! Extraordinary Machine 13:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Salve, Extraordinary!
I am delighted by your commendation. I've promoted several articles as FACs. I've won a few (e.g. Julia Stiles, Warren County Canal, Dawson's Creek), lost a few (e.g. Mark Felt, Katie Holmes). It's been my frustrations with FAC's that led to by irritated post on my home page ("Nihil nisi malum"). Your remarks lessen my stress, if just a little.
From your home page, I see you too work on pop culture topics. If I can help in your areas or you want me to look over an article, let me know. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 14:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Mariah Images
In reference to Image:Cry.jpg, Image:Sing.jpg and Image:MariahCarey4-05 300x298.jpg, please do not upload images to Wikipedia without providing information on their source or copyright status. I'm glad that you want the Mariah Carey article to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible, but I must stress that according to Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Fair use, all images uploaded to and used in Wikipedia must be fair use, and have sufficient information on their source and copyright status. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 23:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi. With reference to the pics, I have found the source. I forget to write the info at times.
- Image:Cry.jpg, was found at [2]. Its a German site, but if you scroll down you will find it.
- Image:Sing.jpg found at [3]. It is a screenshot of the single 'through the rain'
- Image:MariahCarey4-05 300x298.jpg, -the link is present on the page. The pic is under fair use as it is the photo on the album. Its practically the same pic as the one that currently heads her bio.
Unblocked
Sorry about the collateral damage. You're released (unlike the real Extraordinary Machine). Heh. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
GNAA FAC
Yes, I have answered the copyright questions about the image you were refering to. I first released it as GFDL, which was a no-no, because I used Internet Explorer to make a screen shot. Another user cropped the IE stuff out, but I was told it could not be GFDL, because a press release is copyrighted. So, I put the copyright information on the image page and the person who objected to the image status retracted his claim. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Working on a new section for Blade Runner. Wanted to know what you think... I was also going to include the Online Fanbase section, but I don't think its terribly notable/useful considering the external links... which I plan to reorganize and elaborate on just a touch anyway. - RoyBoy 800 00:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it reads fine, and I'm sure it will make a great addition to the Blade Runner article. Additionally, it's great that you are keeping those who commented on the recent peer review up to date on the article's development. Once again, keep up the good work! Extraordinary Machine 16:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Reply
I noticed that you have created filmographies on several articles for actors and actresses, such as Taryn Manning and Terrence Dashon Howard. However, many of the wikilinks you inserted lead to disambiguation pages, or in some cases the wrong articles completely. Please check where the links you inserted lead to, disambiguate them if they lead to the wrong place (for example, Dandelion instead of Dandelion, which leads to the flower), and check if the film isn't already listed under a different name. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links for more information. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 19:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your message, often times I'm so busy trying to get in the filmography I don't stop and check the links, I defiently will for future times. I see you also have an interest in pop culture, very cool :) Well, take care. Courtkittie 21:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Southland Tales
I'm sorry, but was the casting comment POV?
A number of Richard Kelly fans at the linked forum and previous Donnie Darko fans (at a non-kelly-centered site) expressed surprise at the casting choices... And the point wasn't to suggest that somehow these weren't as credible as the other crew and staff (pardon if the "mainstream" word suggested otherwise) but that the nature of their work and success differed from that of others involved, which had surprised some (Kelly fans in particular) as to their inclusion.
Is this point completely invalid? I admit that it might be better placed somewhere else in the text, more carefully phrased, but I dunno, maybe I'm blind as to this, but again, is it really POV?Zeppocity 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- You know what? I've checked around a bit and screw it, it WAS POV, in that I'm starting to think that I felt that what I took for the general impression as to the casting was the existing impression, and I'm finding no solid back-up for that, besides a passing comment on the board as to it having some teen-movie stars or somesuch, and on another board something about the movie sounding utter wank due to the cast and etc. Neither of which are noteworthy. So I'll admit that it was most likely a matter of me retroactively reading things the way I expected them to be read by others, or somesuch idiotic process. Really sorry about that; it's fine as it is and it's as it should be. Zeppocity 18:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, i ve been categorising people in the Greater Toronto area as Toronto people. would you say i should not? People i ve met from Mississauga or Scarborough have introduced themselves as being from Toronto - i supposed people from anywhere in Greater To. considered themselved Torontonians. maybe people from outside Toronto city but within Greater To. should be put in both catergories? appreciate the input, -Mayumashu 13:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- okay. yeah, it would be best to get the opinion of some wiki user from the area - like you, i m not from the area. in the meantime, i ll see that Clark's page has both cats on it. good talking to you, -Mayumashu 05:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar
You might want to move this to your user-page:)
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 Wikipedia, 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
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 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
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
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
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.
- 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
| An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Courteney Cox in November.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. |
Thuresson 03:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
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 T | @ | C 05:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Shake It Off image
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)