Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Archive 4

message: You have now reverted this article more than three times. I am going to request that you are blocked under the policy. Pretending in the editing summary that you are making minor edits is particularly bad behaviour. I am willing to give you one last chance to work with me on this article but if you continue to revert it to your preferred version I'm going to consider putting in an RfC on your behaviour. Dr Zen 04:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't reverted three times, only two, and I was nice enough to remove the ET review from the table to free up a little space. That's about the best I can do. And I let you have your way with the intro for the time being. You won't be laying down ultimatums to me, but at the same time I won't let myself be provoked here. Calm, productive editing; I won't let things degenerate into name-calling, at least not on my end. Everyking 04:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Zen, all you're doing is deleting half the article. Everyking 05:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know how to respond to that. When I look at your edit, I see half of the article deleted. I don't know how you can pose as a victim when all you are doing is deleting massive amounts of content. Nobody yet has tried to remove anywhere near that much in all the battles this article has gone through. Everyking 05:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: And, if I may point this out, if you weren't removing information, what do you think I'm objecting to about your edits? Everyking 05:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is informative. I think most people would agree on that. People come to Wikipedia to find information like that. Why is it that dialogue from your side is always peppered with insults and threats? I'm not going to revert your every edit, I just ask that your edits be constructive, or that at the very least you discuss deleting info before you actually do it. Everyking 05:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What you think "most people" would agree on is a comment only on the state of your thinking, not in the least on whether information is wasted by omitting the week-by-week chart position of a minor album by one of popular music's less interesting footnotes. I have not insulted you or threatened you. I suggested that you deserve to be blocked for breaching the 3RR and for preventing me from editing this article. That remains my opinion and will do so until you cease to revert every edit I and others make.Dr Zen 06:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Really, let's shift the focus of this to constructive discussion. Before, on peer review, you made a good suggestion about the Pink/Avril comparison. And I implemented your suggestion. That was a good, constructive point that helped us improve the article. Why don't we carry on more discussion on points like that? Everyking 06:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Huh? Didn't do what? Everyking 06:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did not "implement" my suggestion. In fact, you argued with it, and when I implemented it myself, you reverted it.Dr Zen 06:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert warrior

message: For my own reference: JP:8/25?;8/17? DE:10/25?;POM:9/13? FR:10/4?;10/5?;POM1:11/23?;POM2:1/4? AUS:8/23?-POM:CH#DEB14?PEAK7?END30? 11/14:24;11/21:30...12/5:55;12/12:66-SHA:11/21:31...12/5:45;12/12:52 UK:SHA:12/13?LALA c.1/17 TOTP:LALA:1/7;CDUK:1/8;TOTPS:1/15;POPW:1/16 SP:10/8
Added about as much Australian chart data as I think is important enough to warrant inclusion (POM peaked at #7 for two weeks), other data can go in Pieces of Me, some already has. Maybe add Shadow peak here too. Confirming this stuff to the extent that I feel comfortable with tends to be difficult and time-consuming, but I'm going to keep working at it. Everyking 18:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: When are we going to have some information on the chord structures of the songs on this album? I just don't feel this article is going to be truly complete without them. At least which chords the songs use will be factual.Dr Zen 06:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved it to another article! It was too much detail, you know that. But it's great for the Pieces of Me article. I don't understand what you say about not being able to use them. Does that mean they're wrong and I need to delete them from POM? If so, why'd you add them? Everyking 06:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a work in progress, man. I checked further into it and decided the particular structure I was using was not satisfactory. And hey, whatever happened to your desire for information?Dr Zen 06:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Why does it matter to an nonYank? It's enough to know in the intro that it debuted at number one in sales in the U.S. That's the really important info. The chart can go later. One shouldn't bog a reader down with detail in an intro. The Billboard 200 is an album sales chart. The comparison thing is not bogus at all. Tons of sources say that—I've already given two in the article—so why in the world should we not mention it? Everyking 07:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Chord changes

message: It seems my changes to the chart and sales tables don't render correctly.  I suggest reverting to an earlier version and I'll fix it on my sandbox and get feedback prior to updating.  If anybody else can fix it, feel free to join me there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you! I really appreciate the help, I don't know much about formats myself, and I appreciate it even if you do think it's fancruft! Everyking 00:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Busted tables on [[Autobiography (album)]]

message: I must say I don't understand why some of my changes were reverted:
*a hit in many countries in mid to late 2004 -- why is the time period necessary?  The paragraph already says when the album was released, so we already know the approximate time-frame.  If anybody is interested in more specificity, there are links to the appropriate articles with that info.
**The lead is relatively short and the time context "mid to late 2004" is useful, in my opinion. It also helps broaden the intro to a broader international context—it was a hit in most countries somewhat later than it was in the U.S.
*she has described the process as being similar to keeping a diary -- this is followed by a direct, sourced quote which imparts the same info to the reader; keeping both is redudant, and the diary comparison is neither direct nor sourced.
**I think the "diary" thing helps the reader to understand things better. She has said that before, at least on the Capital FM radio interview I cite elsewhere, but I'm unsure what the best way to go about citing radio interviews is.
*I write non-stop... It's a great way for me to express (my feelings) vs "I write non-stop from my house or in the studio or wherever I can write. It's a great way for me to express it and get it all out  What info is added by using the whole quote?
**I worried that the more concise version was taking too much liberty with what she said, and it looked kind of clumsy to me.
*When asked to describe the music on Autobiography, Simpson said: "I think my music is rock/pop. [When recording], I didn't try for a certain sound. I just wanted the music to sound like me and to be an expression of myself." vs Just before the album's release, when asked to describe the music on Autobiography, Simpson called it "rock/pop", but she said that she did not focus on making the music conform to a certain genre: "I just wanted the music to sound like me and to be an expression of myself."  Why note when this quote came from?  Has her opinion changed?  Why give an interpretation, even (especially) an obvious one -- she explains herself pretty concisely in the quote?
**I thought my version explained things better, more clearly, and I don't like doing things to quotes like putting in [when recording] if it can be avoided. I also think giving the time context is better, because it makes what I've written timeless.
*"I felt that [the album] was my baby and I wanted to be hands-on vs I was extremely involved in everything cos I felt that it was my baby and I wanted to be hands-on.  Given that the rest of the para already goes on about how she was involved, what purpose do those extra words serve?
**The rest of the paragraph goes on about the other people she worked with, not about her. It's important to note the degree of involvement she had, or at least that she says she had if she's the only source we have.
*half the album ... feels self indulgent and lacks substance"—but that "in between the formulaic, innocuous songs are a smattering of catchy pop-rock tracks." vs half the album ... feels self indulgent and lacks substance"—but it conceded that "in between the formulaic, innocuous songs are a smattering of catchy pop-rock tracks." NPOV -- that claim of the review doesn't really feel like a "concession" to me, and calling it such implies that catchy pop-rock tracks are de facto a good thing, to be contrasted with the self-indulgent and formulaic bits.  I am sure I am not alone in feeling that Simpson's ability to make "catchy pop-rock tracks" is anything better (or indeed, different) than self-indulgent and substance-lacking tracks.
**The tone of the review suggests it is a concession—generally we don't like it, but there are these few tracks... But OK, it's just one word, I'll "concede" the point.
* it is rock-flavored pop (or pop-flavored rock) sung by young women who incorporate rebellion and independence into their images. vs  it is similarly styled rock-flavored pop (or pop-flavored rock) sung by young women who incorporate rebellion or at least independence into their images.  What does "similarly styled" mean in this context?  This seems to be concluding for the reader that there are stylistic similarities here.  This is a reasonable conclusion, but one which the text already gives enough info to reach; let the reader make his own conclusion.  Why add "at least"?  Does anyone dispute that both rebellion and independence are an important part of all three artists' image?  I admit that I am only passingly familiar with Pink and have never heard any of the others' music, but from what little I do know of all three, this seems uncontroversial. 
**I think it's useful to say it's similarly styled, and I went on to cite quotes supporting that. Rebellion isn't necessarily independence, or vice versa. An independent woman may not need to rebel, she may not have anything to rebel against. So it would have to be rebellion or independence, and adding "at least" shows that it is a matter of degree and that therefore they can possibly go together.
* The New York Times review said that vs The New York Times, in its review of the album, said that  Aside from the second version being longer, what is the difference?
**I just think it's more clear. I like to be as clear as possible.
* self-titled 2004 release) This format is not allowed according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music.  That it is self-titled and a release is obvious, and the year is not relevant here.  The name of the album is Hilary Duff, and it should be called precisely that.
**What, I have to obey the music project's decrees? I thought it looked awkward. You're saying "Hilary Duff" twice in a row.
*Courtney Love's 2004 album America's Sweetheart, which "is tragic and blasted... vs  Courtney Love's 2004 album America's Sweetheart: Love's solo debut "is tragic and blasted  What is wrong with cutting off two extraneous words?  Is it relevant that America's Sweetheart is her solo debut?  Would the quote be less relevant if it was a Hole album, or her second solo album?
**No reason except that I thought it flowed better in the context of the quote.
*"Pieces of Me", the first single (which preceded the album's release), is  Why put the parenthetical here?  The single's release date is already given elsewhere, and has nothing to do with her relationship with Cabrera or the song's upbeatness.
**OK, I'll concede this point. There may be a need for a degree of reworking along these lines—maybe the singles section should just describe the songs and accompanying videos, and the other info should go in "promotion" or somewhere else.
*The song's lyrics  Since it's already clear from the context which song is being referred to, what is the point of this word?
**OK, "its lyrics" or something like that.
*comfort and happiness she finds with him  I had changed this to the past tense, since they are apparently broken up and she presumably no longer finds comfort and happiness with him.  Even if they have gotten back together, or she otherwise continues to find comfort and happiness with him, it still should not be in the present tense: The song's lyrics describe is quite appropriately in the present, since the lyrics continue to do so, but those lyrics do not describe comfort and happiness she felt some time after the song was released (i.e., in the present).
**Yeah, you're right there.
*Although the song has somewhat dark and melancholy lyrics vs Although the song is noted for having somewhat dark and melancholy lyrics  Who notes this?  Why?  It's hardly the first song to have such lyrics, nor does it seem to be particularly notable in this regard.
**The reason is that the song got a lot of people talking about how dark it was—people asking her about her relationship with her sister, etc. I'm flexible on this point.
*has a positive message, as Simpson sings that "everything's cool now" and "the past is in the past" vs it has a positive message, and towards the end of the song Simpson sings that "everything's cool now" and "the past is in the past".  Why does it matter when in the song these lyrics appear?  The important part is that they do appear, and impart a positive message.
**OK, truth be told it's really more like the middle of the song anyway. 
*In the video, which includes considerable symbolism, Simpson plays  This is just bad English, especially since no symbolism is explained (some is implied, but encyclopedia articles shouldn't imply).  In what way is the symbolism considerable?
**It says symbolism, and then it goes on to explain it: she plays different versions of herself living side by side, etc.
*arguably the album's most rock-oriented and energetic vs arguably the album's most rock-oriented song, which has been described as "energetic"  That it has been described energetic is already supported by the link, where it is thusly described.  Why add those extraneous words?
**The link says it's energetic, but not that's it's the most rock-oriented.
*Simpson has described them as tongue-in-cheek: "every silly thing that was sexual... I put into the song." vs Simpson has described them as tongue-in-cheek: "It was one of those songs where every silly thing that was sexual that I could think of I put into the song."  Aside from adding eleven words, what do the additional bits of the quote do for the reader?  Are we concerned our readers will think she added silly things that she couldn't think of?  Do our readers need to know that she apparently has a class of songs in which every silly little sexual thing was added?  The important part of the quote is that she added every silly little thing that was sexual into the song.  The rest is just verbosity.
**It's important to say "that she could think of". Not every silly sexual thing went into the song, only the ones she could think of.
*Simpson said light-heartedly that "you can take ("La La") how you wanna take it. vs Simpson said light-heartedly about the song that "you can take it how you wanna take it."  Why make it longer?  Again the important part is that you can take "La La" how you want to take it -- both versions impart this info, but one is shorter.
**I just don't like chopping up the quote like that. I think it's clumsy and bad writing.
*The music video for "La La", which debuted in late November, features Simpson and her friends hanging around a suburban town vs The music video for "La La", which debuted a few days after Simpson's November TRL appearance, takes place in a suburban setting; it features Simpson and her friends hanging around town  Why does it matter that the video debuted a few days after she said the above quote?  What useful information is lost by changing "takes place in a suburban setting; it features Simpson and her friends hanging around town" to "features Simpson and her friends hanging around a suburban town"?  The long version takes five extra words to impart the info that the town is suburban.
**I like "suburban setting". It seems to say something that "suburban town" doesn't.
*serves to introduce Simpson, who says she has "got stains on my t-shirt, and I'm the biggest flirt". vs serves to introduce Simpson at the beginning of the album: "Got stains on my t-shirt, and I'm the biggest flirt," she sings.  That it is the beginning of the album is already explained (because it's the first song).  The rest is just more verbosity.  It doesn't matter that she sings those lyrics (as opposed to rapping them, or speaking them), because the important part is the info they relate to the audience.
**Does it already say it's the first song? If it does, it's not such a big deal.
*she responds to people talking about her by singing vs she responds to people talking about her—"you think you know me"—by singing  What purpose does "You think you know me" serve?
**More detail, more context.
*about emotional turmoil and conflict in a relationship, but Simpson concludes that "I'm over the drama of you. vs about conflict in a relationship and the emotional turmoil that comes with it, but it concludes with Simpson singing that "I'm over the drama of you."  Do we need to tell the reader that emotional turmoil comes with conflict in a relationship?  It is neutral to claim that emotional turmoil aways comes from conflict?  Is it worth the extra words?  it concludes with Simpson singing -- this bit is unnecessary, since the important part is that Simpson concludes something.  In addition it is ambiguous, and does not clearly refer to the song.  It should only be used if the noun it refers to is the previous noun used, and the previous nouns are turmoil, relationship, conflict and then, finally, track.
**Maybe we can find something in between our two versions, then. Suggestion?
*She explained the song's meaning in an interview: "I was at the stage where I got really sick of my ex-boyfriend's dramas and this song says it all. At the end, you know I've reached the point where I've had enough of these dramas; I'm finished with him."  Does it matter that she said this in an interview?  (keep in mind that the quote is referenced for anyone who cares when and where she said it)  The important part is that she said it.  The least important part is "at the end, you know", which is vague -- I honestly have no idea what she means -- at the end of the song, or the relationship, or the stage in her life?  Ultimately, does it matter?  The important part of the quote is that the song refers to her lack of patience with her boyfriend's dramas.  We don't need Simpson's ambiguous asides.
**Sure we do. She means at the end of the song.
*she recorded the song just after their breakup, and although it took her a little while to get over her ex-boyfriend, by the time she finished recording "Undiscovered", she was over him  Once again, the important part is that she recorded the song to get over her ex.  That this took "a little while" is already explained, and so vague as to be useless ("a little while" could be a few days, a few weeks or even a few months).
**Well, she said it; I think it's useful.
*I think... it's very true to my emotion... people like to hear when somebody's being real, and you can (tell) if they're being real or not..." vs "I think that it's an album that's, like, very true to my emotion; I think that, you know, people like to hear when somebody's being real, and you can, like, tell, if you listen to an album, if they're being real or not...  Surely this is self-explanatory...  We don't need to repeat that these are her thoughts (we don't even need to include it at all, since it's a quote, but more than once is totally unnecessary).  Words like like and you know are just wasted space.  Why not cut them out?
**Well, maybe. I just didn't like chopping up the quote.
*"I was in the car. I just finished a show, and my dad called me, and he was like, "Guess what, baby?" I was like, "What?" He was like, "Your album went number one!" So I was freaking out. It was awesome!"  Who cares that she was in a car when her dad told her the album was #1?  Who cares that he was vaguely coy about it before telling her?  The whole quote could be removed, as far as I'm concerned, but we certainly don't need all this.
**Well, I think it's important. I'm not going to deprive the reader of this information.
*Simpson has said vs For her part, Simpson said  Aside from the length, what is the difference?
**Clarity and eloquence, I guess.
*she did not want to meet with Jessica's record label (Columbia): "I wanted to be signed because of my music". She eventually signed with Geffen instead.  At the beginning of The Ashlee Simpson Show, Simpson is shown signing the record deal. vs he eventually signed with Geffen instead: "You find the people who believe in you—and it works."  At the beginning of The Ashlee Simpson Show, Simpson is shown signing the record deal (which also occurred about three months before November 2003, according to the Late Late Show interview).  What does the first quote mean?  If she meant that the people at Geffen believe in her, say that; what is it that "works"?  If you must give a date for the signing of the record deal, why not "about August 2003" instead of "about three months before November"?  That's just silly...  And since the date of the record deal is not so important, nor controversial, why cite it to a specific interview?
**I'm reluctant to go beyond her own words. If she said three months before, I prefer that to August, because it seems safer. It could've really been July, or September, who knows? This is our only source.
I really do think this article is ready to be featured, but it won't happen unless it is considerably shorter.  It may be wrong of people to demand a shorter article, but...  In any case, terser prose is always better (assuming neutrality, informativeness and clarity are not sacrificed), so the article should be shortened as much as possible.  Arbitrarily and capriciously snip ever other adverb and all that... Tuf-Kat 00:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm thinking about splitting things up into subarticles, but I'm not sure. If I do that, I can probably shorten the article considerably and also open room for a great deal of future expansion. It would be good to get Autobiography album design through VfU first as a precedent. Another thing: those are way too many points to cover at once. It wore me out. I prefer to work in baby steps, resolve a few of them, then move on to the next. Can we continue discussion that way? Everyking 08:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tightening

message: You have yet again reverted an edit.  This makes four reverts in about four hours.   --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't edited the article at all, Tony. Everyking 16:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth revert

message: Everyking, this is a list of edits you have performed on the article in the past fifteen minutes.  You ask why people do not discuss edits prior to performing them.  Could you please explain why you do not follow your own prescription?
 (cur) (last)  15:04, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking (→Sales and chart success)
 (cur) (last) 15:02, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking (→Sales and chart success)
 (cur) (last) 15:01, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking m (→Sales and chart success)
 (cur) (last) 15:01, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking (→Sales and chart success)
 (cur) (last) 14:58, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking m (→Sales and chart success - space)
 (cur) (last) 14:57, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking (→Sales and chart success)
 (cur) (last) 14:55, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking (→Sales and chart success)
 (cur) (last) 14:54, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking (→Sales and chart success)
 (cur) (last) 14:52, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking (→Sales and chart success - let's remove the first table, it's in the subarticle still)
 (cur) (last) 14:51, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking m (→Sales and chart success - ugh, i'm getting some table overlap now...moved image down a bit)
 (cur) (last) 14:49, 24 Dec 2004 Everyking (→Sales and chart success - first stage of shortening the content)
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussing edits

message: I want to suggest a form of truce.  I undertake to make no edits to this article.  Instead I will work on Autobiography (album)/Truce and I will encourage edits by other users.  I propose that the terms for editing this article are that no material reverts are to occur except in the case of simple vandalism (that's when someone writes "Ashlee is a poopyface" in the article, that kind of thing).
Then you can see the effect of editing without these constant reverts, and maybe you will find that it's as bad as you think it will be, or maybe you will see that it isn't such a big deal to just let other people edit as you do. Either way, you won't have me editing the main article and I won't have you reverting my edits.  Win win, eh?
What do you say, Everyking? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I have no objection whatsoever to the substance of your request, in fact I think it's a very good idea, but I utterly reject the tone. Please do not continue to accuse me of ignoring others' opinions, unreasonably reverting, or trying to "own" the article. I do not consider that civil. Everyking 03:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I deny that I am not letting people edit as I do. I am just another editor; if I revert, that doesn't stop anybody. I have no special authority. A revert is a way of expressing my opposition and trying to improve the article. Others can do the same thing. It does not mean I am ignoring anybody's opinion. I want you to agree to stop making those kinds of claims about me, and then we can work on the truce version. Everyking 13:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Don't you think it's rather telling that my only stipulation was that you not continue saying unkind things about me, and that's apparently too much for you to accept? Everyking 23:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A truce proposal

message: What are you up to, Everyking? Do you not see that this is extremely unreasonable behavior? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: And yet another one.