Talk:Ashlee Simpson/Archive 1

message: The music section is awfully large and, at the rate of your prodigious editing, only going to grow further. I'd keep Awards separate. (Also, she could concievably get a nomination or award for her reality show or acting, or some sort of Razzie-type award for the SNL incident, or some Most Beautiful Person nod from a major publication, or so on...) Samaritan 14:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and Music sections 

message: No fair use justification is given for this image, and it's not a screen shot.  I'm going to make an actual screen grab from Leno to replace this.  This photo can always go back later if an adequate justification can be made. iMeowbot~Mw 22:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, couldn't get a decent frame from the Leno broadcast (cameras only zoomed in when the mic was covering her face) but found a reasonable pose from the beginning of the Shadow video.  We have a consistent policy for screen caps, so this should be okay. iMeowbot~Mw 01:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Tv jay leno guest ashley simpson.jpg]] 

message: If you're looking for more quotes to add to the article, here's a good one from today's paper:
:In a column in the Spokesman-Review on ghost hunting, Doug Clark ponders the popularity of Ashlee among the deceased: "Is Ashlee Simpson as annoying and talent-impared to the dead as she is to the living?"
--Carnildo 03:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a whole encyclopedia here to work on. I'm sure you can find something better to do than taking jabs at me. Everyking 03:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an insult to Ashlee Simpson constitutes a direct insult to you. Besides, there has been a higher incidence of anti-Ashlee quotes in the media of late; just yesterday I saw one (I think it was in the USA Today) that was even nastier than this. There may have to be a Backlash section before too long. Madame Sosostris 06:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, come on. It was obviously intended to irritate me. Everyking 10:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Ashlee.jpg is a home-made picture.  The text isn't properly anti-aliased, and it's Courier rather than the standard dot matrix logo. iMeowbot~Mw 12:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Everyking, with this edit you appear to be removing facts and information.  Your edit summary says 'trim some cruft'.  Isn't this contrary to everything you've been arguing for?  Or does your position only apply to things that you think make Simpson look better? Worldtraveller 19:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's consistent. My position has always been that there are some things that are too trivial or irrelevant for inclusion, and I think that level of detail about a trollish internet petition is excessive, at least for a biographical article on Ashlee Simpson. The fact of the petition is still recorded, but I placed it into better context. Everyking 20:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ha 

message: The result of the VfD on Ashlee Simpson on SNL was that it should be merged.  The incident appears to me to already be thoroughly covered in the article, so I haven't added anything from Ashlee Simpson on SNL.  dbenbenn | talk 00:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The idea behind having that article was to enable more detail to be written. Now we're stuck with what we've got. Everyking 00:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Ashlee Simpson on SNL]] 

message: The references to a 'backing tape' in all of these articles need to be changed.  Simpson's camp claims it was a backing tape she was going to sing along with; others claim it was a full-volume vocal track that she was going to lip-sync to (and that she was visibly miming during her first number).  Calling it a 'backing tape' means supporting the former view (which seems to be the minority view among media commentators).  68.118.61.219 05:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have it your way, then. You would know about neutrality better than me, after all: "Dpbsmith should put his findings on the Ashlee Simpson page in a paragraph on her declining reputation." Everyking 05:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fair, considering that is exactly what Dpbsmith's findings showed. -- Chuq 07:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has all been analyzed to death.  She did (try to) sing in the first song segment.  There were two distinct copies of the lead vocal audible for the first several seconds, recorded and live. After that, the live vocal is cut off and it's only the recorded vocal (straight from the album). One of the channels had to go, because the two sounded bizarre, and the recording won. iMeowbot~Mw 08:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Everyking's point about including the petition figure. IMO, not only are internet petitions pointless (and occasionally deceptive), but this is clearly POV (to me, anyway). I'd be willing to remove this paragraph not based on my knowledge of Ashlee Simpson, but simply based on my belief that internet petitions are pointless. --Deathphoenix 14:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: In fact, I decided to be bold and deleted the text above. I thought briefly about including the petition in the external links, but I don't think it's needed. Internet petitions are pointless anyways (or did I say that already?). --Deathphoenix 15:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to be bold and stuck it back in.  I figure that any time people get worked up enough to collect 300,000 valid email addresses, it's worth mentioning. --Carnildo 19:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree (but I won't be bold and remove it again (-:). It's very easy for people to bomb a petition with throwaway addresses. Being able to collect 300,000 valid email addresses could mean anything from 300,000 individual people actually signing the petition to one person signing 300,000 times under different identities. Of course, the answer is somewhere in between. But because of the wide variety of possible meanings, I don't see how including this piece of data is appropriate for an (online) encyclopedia. Strong reactions about Ashlee's singing? sure. But I don't see how an internet petition is a reliable source of information that can be used to demonstrate a point, because it can mean anything. --Deathphoenix 20:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Seems to me it's worth mentioning, if it was one of the most popular on-line polls, but the number itself is not very important for the reasons Deathphoenix outlines.  How about something like In January, an Internet petition at www.petitiononline.com  complaining about Simpson's singing was among the most active of the site's petitions. ? Worldtraveller 21:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to either wording, but a link to the petition and the news article which mentions it should remain for verification purposes. I think having a number attached just requires us to keep updating it as the # of signatures increases. But simply based on the volume of signers (even if some of the entries are mickey mouse/donald duck/heywood jablome/etc...) Its much more likely that the real number of signers is going to outweigh the fakes, and as it did make the news its a noteworthy event.  ALKIVAR™ 23:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I prefer Worldtraveller's version. "Most active of the site's petitions" is a good way to word it accurately. --Deathphoenix 01:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. --Carnildo 05:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the text to Worldtraveller's version. --Deathphoenix 18:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Backing tape" in the SNL incident 

message: The "astroturfing" claim needs to be removed. There is apparently no evidence for it, and even if there was, it'd still be nonnotable. Everyking 06:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. It is notable, and a few websites have linked to it and made a comment on it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. A few websites linking to something does not make it notable. And I repeat that there appears to be no evidence. Everyking 07:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A few? You must be kidding. Try a google search of that phrase. Seems pretty damning to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: The evidence seems pretty damning to me.  Fifteen identical posts on message forums by the same username, said username only having the one post on each board?  The same person making the exact same typo fifteen times? --Carnildo 07:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even Boing Boing has reported on it.  ALKIVAR™ 09:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Want proof, here's proof... the posts in question were traced back to the firm responsible by IP on several of the message boards, and up until the story broke on CNN (yes Guerilla advertising and this company in particular did hit CNN Headline News on Feb 7th) they proudly displayed that Geffen Records and Vivendi were customers. As of this moment in time they no longer show their connection.  ALKIVAR™ 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a reference for this? --Carnildo 08:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For which part?  ALKIVAR™ 08:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP trace.  If there's an older version of the guerillapr.com page on the Internet Archive showing that Vivendi and Geffen were custormers, that would be nice as well. --Carnildo 08:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astroturfing 

message: I object to this edit: . It was changed from "Ashlee Simpson also later stated that she had acid reflux and her voice was apparently in such poor condition just hours before she was scheduled to perform—she may have had little choice but to rely heavily on the backing track." to "On the other hand, with her voice in such poor condition and given the importance of the show, she may have had little choice but to rely heavily on the backing track in that situation." I refuse to allow us to make Ashlee Simpson look better. That is not the point of an article: we state facts and we don't try to make people look better than they are. Hence I've rolled back and made an edit to fixup some text I was going to copyedit anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rollback is designed to be used against vandalism, not in content disputes. Everyking 12:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. It won't happen again. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: That was your edit? I didn't know that when I edited the article. I merely removed some weasel words (some people called her a hypocrite - who exactly?) and some text that appears to try to position Wikipedia into a justification of the whole incident. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I agree with your edit of putting it into 2005. Works better with the flow. I wouldn't oppose you if you put it back the way it was. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I would also agree with this. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its two different formats, I think its acceptable to have 2 links in this case. Its not a matter of being overly anti ashlee in this case.  ALKIVAR™ 10:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I wasn't aware of this. In that case, I agree with Alkivar. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: When the videos are related to the topic, it is perfectly fine to have links to the clips. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is advertising for lipsync.us. Tell you what. We can have the clips linked in the ext. links section, not in the text, but in exchange we get to remove the main lipsync.us link. Everyking 13:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with using lipsync.us, find the video in the alternative formats and post a link to them instead. The only steady easy to find versions I found were the ones on lipsync.  ALKIVAR™ 14:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They will all be gone in a few months anyway. I try to think of Wikipedia over the long term. Everyking 14:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I, whenever Jimbo gets off his butt and picks a definative video format for commons, I will get someone to reencode this (since LipSync.US has given permission) and upload it there.  ALKIVAR™ 14:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well permission for their copy anyway, its still a fair use since SNL owns the actual copyright.  ALKIVAR™ 14:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that would be fair use any more than all her other TV appearances would be fair use in video form. Everyking 16:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fair use because it is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research", its presentation on Wikipedia is of a non-commercial, educational nature, the portion excerpted is small relative to the original work (i.e. the entire SNL broadcast that night), and there is no effect on the market value of the original work.  (That episode of SNL is *not* available for purchase, to my knowledge.)  Skyraider 17:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It could.  It really depends on how they're used.  (Fair warning:IANAL.)  Skyraider 19:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think that's right. Everyking 19:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any copyrighted work *could* be used in a "fair use" manner in a subsequent work.  Whether a specific use constitutes fair use is determined by the courts, but the law lays out explicitly what factors are to be considered in making that determination.  The nature of the original and subsequent works and the manner of use are key factors.  (Fair use is an excellent article, IMO.)  Skyraider 20:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to make Ashlee Simpson look better is most definitely NOT npov 

message: Everyking's recent edit summary: summarize a little...we deleted the article on the tour and this is not 1% as notable as that.  Everyking, you only ever want to 'summarise' or 'trim' things that are not favourable to Simpson.  It's really irritating to see such flagrant pushing of a POV.  The VfD on the tour article does not entitle you to some kind of quid pro quo removal of information which casts her in a bad light.  Pop groups tour all the time - underhand publicity techniques are somewhat less common, so what makes you think a tour is 100 times as notable? Worldtraveller 23:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, is this about the BBS spamming thing?  It's extremely common nowadays, used for virtually all new major label acts.  That's part of the so-called viral marketing that companies like Fanscape, Fanpimp etc. perform in addition to the more visible "street team" stuff. --iMb~Mw 00:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also usually a violation of "terms of use" agreements on the forums where it occurs.  24.195.17.40 17:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, then an article about the marketing practice might be useful, or perhaps a discussion of it under one of the existing spam articles.  To dig up the relevant postings bring it up in the article for each and every current music act would be serious overkill, bordering on spam itself, though. --iMb~Mw 23:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing 

message: I'm sure there are plenty of good photographs for the article. However I removed this one for the moment since 1) we already have a photo from her tv show 2) this sorta clutters up the section around the discography since there is already another photo there. I personally recommend not readding this one, but thats up to a consensus.  ALKIVAR™ 06:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It could do with a better caption if it is re-inserted. Mike H 07:00, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Presumably the section will grow and then it can be readded? Everyking 07:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to another photo in that section once its expanded, however I personally would prefer a different image not a 2nd image from her TV show (just for varieties sake).  ALKIVAR™ 07:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think screenshots are considered free from copyright issues, whereas most everything else isn't. Everyking 07:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No screenshots are not "free from copyright issues", however they are "fair use", the problem of course becomes that  Jimbo eventually plans on removing "fair use" images, and that "fair use" images arent commercially useable which goes against the whole GFDL'd encyclopedia concept.  ALKIVAR™ 07:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about all those legal matters, but the point stands that screenshots can apparently be used before most other things can. Everyking 07:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Queue 

message: Is this:
:As a guest on a European television show she participated in a "Keepin' it Real" segment where she was tested on common knowledge. She was unable to state the cost of a carton of milk, nor could she name the capital of Spain or what the employment position of Condoleeza Rice was. This was featured in episode eight of season two of The Ashlee Simpson Show.
...notable enough for inclusion? I think it could be worth a mention in the article on the reality show, but not here. If you agree, feel free to remove it, because I'm not allowed to. Everyking 12:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia sections in general are frowned upon, we're supposed to find a way to work it into the article itself. Perhaps this would be decent comparison material versus her "intelligent" chicken of the sea sister?  ALKIVAR™ 15:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't really see how it has any place in the article at all. Everyking 16:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats because you never see a reason to include any negative information.  ALKIVAR™ 16:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on the show; if it was so negative, I don't suppose they would've shown it on the show. My only point is that it's too trivial for this article, but might have a place on the TASS article. Everyking 17:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was the person who added it, I guess I'll defend it. Considering that she has accomplished relatively little in terms of famous entertainers, I'd be hard pressed to understand how this information is any more or less trivial than any of the other minutea mentioned within the article. Ashlee simpson, by and large, is hardly a person of great accomplishment. That being said, I think the information is important in establishing exactly what kind of a person Ashlee Simpson is; IE, one who is relatively removed from "real life," and not very educated. There is no reason why a person who is successful enough to be in the public eye should not have achieved enough of a level of education or personal knowledge to know who Condoleeza Rice is. It speaks volumes about who Ashlee Simpson is as a person. I fully support removal of a "trivia" section, but I don't think it would be appropriate to remove the information completely. Pacian 06:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the trivia omitted by Everyking because I believe that it is "informative, interesting and presented in an NPOV fashion."  Furthermore, this sort of information fairly demonstrates how well in touch Simpson is with real world politics and current events.      If someone disagrees with me I will not revert their changes but wanted this to be discussed further.  Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)
I tell you, if I tried to add some comparable level of trivia, it'd be removed within an hour. But I wouldn't even want to. Everyking 13:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Image poison vandalism... the album cover was changed to Goatse guy. It's been reverted.  ALKIVAR™ 15:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should be more specific, someone renamed it to the same as the album cover and uploaded it in its place, they did not alter the article itself.  ALKIVAR™ 15:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I always lack imagination when I try to figure out vandals. Everyking 17:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Keeping' it Real" trivia 

message: It's generally difficult to find out a place of birth definitively, short of a statement by the person him/herself. Jessica's place of birth was given wrongly for years; it's even stated wrongly on her own website. For that reason I've never added a place of birth to this article, no matter if there's a statement from the label on the website or not. My personal preference would be not to include it without something more conclusive. Coming at the very beginning of the article makes it very important to get it right. Everyking 16:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the Simpson press kits and releases have all been consistent about this detail, it can stand, unless all information that has been released through Geffen is to be retracted as suspect. --iMb~Meow 16:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather wait to hear her mention her birthplace, or one of her family, since I'm a stickler for accuracy above all else. But if you disagree, of course I am powerless to do anything about it, so I guess that's that. Everyking 17:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like her birthplace was either Dallas or Waco.  Given the history of Waco, my guess is she would say Dallas regardless.  I guess it doesn't really matter either way.  You could say "in or near Dallas" if it matters that much.  -- BRIAN0918  17:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the only hospital I can find in Waco (via google search) is a Veterans Affairs hospital, unless she was born via Midwife at home, she was likely born in one of the 14 hospitals in the Dallas Metro area (a mere hours drive away.)  ALKIVAR™ 18:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the change to from Waco to Dallas. Her IMDB profile indicates that to be her birthplace, and sites like this and this agree. I've seen some that state her birthplace as Waco, but from what I can see, a lot of them are actually Wikipedia mirrors. --Deathphoenix 05:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining place of birth 

message: :On April 09, 2005, The Smoking Gun posted one of Simpson's concert riders. In it she demands that either Dentyne or Orbit gum be provided at her venue. This has caused a conflict with her paid commercial endorsement of Liquid Ice mints and gum, part of the Ice Breakers mint and gum line. Ice Breakers are a product of Hershey corporation, while Dentyne is made by Cadbury and Orbit is made by Wrigley. Aligning herself in any fashion with mint or gum products made by the competitors of the company for whom she is a paid commercial endorser is cause for major legal action, though whether anything will come of it remains to be seen. Also of note in this report is a mention of "pre-recorded sequences" which could potentially include vocals, something Simpson claims to have stopped using as recently as April 8 in a Sun-Sentinel.com interview by Jon Bream regarding her Florida tour leg: "'There will be no backing vocal tracks at all,' Ashlee Simpson said of her current tour". 
Without a cite for a lawsuit or threat thereof, this paragraph feels like original research.  If you wish to re-insert it, please provide a citation.  And please stop editing this page so fast -- I can't get a word in endwise! --Carnildo 07:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with it.  Alkivar now says he may have been wrong about the lawsuit. --brian0918 07:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Done. I've removed the sentence and link to the "Save Ashlee" petition. --Deathphoenix 19:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed speculation 

message: I'd like to see the removal of the vocal range section. It's unsourced, uncited. Pure original research. One person says one thing and one person says another. Everyking 04:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, well, nobody is objecting, so I'll wait a little while longer for an objection and if there's none then I'll remove it. Everyking 08:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick check and wasn't able to verify it. If someone else can, feel free to note it here. --Deathphoenix 12:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree--if it isn't coming from an authoritative source, it doesn't belong in the article. Skyraider 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The Vocal Profile subsection has been removed in its entirety.  This appears to be a widespread problem amongst vocalist articles on Wikipedia.  Hall Monitor 16:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocal profile 

message: I would like to talk about strengthening "claimed she needed" in the intro to "apparently needed". I say this because "claimed" seems to cast doubt on it—she claimed it, nothing more—whereas in fact the evidence is overwhelming that she was in fact sick. The 60 Minutes bit alone is almost rock solid. Then there's the footage from the reality show, and the fact that we already knew months before that she had this ailment which sometimes affected her voice. Everyking 04:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not consider the reality show to be a reliable reference: more along the lines of historical fiction than biography, and thus good for general outlines, but not specific details. --Carnildo 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, ha. Well, it's footage. They don't call it a reality show for nothing. But still, there's the 60 Minutes segment. Everyking 07:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't dispute that she was sick, but to state as fact that the only response to her illness was to proceed with a backing vocal presupposes that there were no other options.  SNL could have proceeded with an alternate musical guest (On any given night in New York, there are plenty of world class musicians who would be available for a last-minute substitution).  Or the show could have proceeded with no musical performance at all.  (SNL prepares 2 hours of material per show, of which the best 90 minutes sees broadcast.  They could easily have resurrected some of the material they dropped after dress rehearsal to fill time).--Skyraider 21:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a weird thing to say, because I am not proposing that was their only option. In any case it's well known they commonly use backing tracks on the show (even the week afterward Eminem was caught, albeit far less obviously, apparently using a track), so your opinion that you're going on about is off-base. But that's beside the point. Explain to me how saying that she apparently used the track because she was sick presupposes that there were no other options. It seems simple to me, but let's try an analogy. Say I have a cold but I go to work anyway. If, later on, I mention to someone that I went into work even though I had a cold, that person isn't going to think that I'm claiming, from a theoretical perspective, that there were no other options available, such as calling in sick and staying home, or for that matter driving my car off a bridge. Rather they will implicitly understand that there were other options, but I chose not to take them. Everyking 04:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: We're having this argument just because of the word "needed"? Good lord, I don't care if it says "needed" or "used". If it says "used", then will you agree to the change? Everyking 19:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes? No? Everyking 18:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the sentence is fine as it is. As per worldtraveller, it is more NPOV to use "she claimed she needed". --Mrfixter 19:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already explained why it's inadequate. Read above. Everyking 21:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Fraid not, it is adequate. Read above. --Mrfixter 23:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent claims 

message: Surely there is no question that she was lip synching?  If she was 'using a pre-recorded vocal track' what else can you call it?  I'm not sure why this was described as POV vandalism. Worldtraveller 23:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've explained this to you already. One can use a backing track to enhance one's vocals while still singing. Lip-syncing means just moving the lips. Everyking 23:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lip synching 

message: The footnotes here seem to be completely misaligned; in addition, there are 33, and only 32 referenced in the article. Anyone have the time to go through and fix this? Odysseyandoracle 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it probably needs work. The problem with setting things up that way is that it becomes very complicated and hard to change. Everyking 06:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes?