Talk:Song Fight!/Archive 1

message: The point of that information was to say: Song Fight is a living Web site whose administrators like to do cool stuff, like holiday themes, current-event-related titles, or anything else that seems like a good idea at the time. Also, Song Fight isn't just a Web site, but a community, and you can participate in any number of ways, such as a, b, c. 
If you want to call that chatty puff, then fine, but I think your attitude leaves something to be desired. It would have taken you about 2 minutes to rewrite that into something drier and "more acceptable" to you.
I'd think having the "subject of the article" contribute up-to-date information on an article would be desireable, especially since the current article basically misinterprets the history of Song Fight and the decisions made by the Fightmasters over time. This leaves me with the impression of wikipedia editors as narrow-minded jerks looking for specific style instead of accurate information.
:We are looking for specific style.  This isn't Wikilotsofinfo, it is Wikipedia.  We get enough flak in the press when our articles are about subjects that don't seem like usual encyclopedia subjects.  We get even more flak when articles don't read like encyclopedia entries, but like press releases from the subject of the article, completely with fawning self-praise such as "Thanks to the tireless efforts of Jr. and Sr." (that text being added by Jr.), cutesieness such as "known only to the uninitiated as" and POVisms such as "another nifty event" and "cybersquatting scum".  Would you write a term paper for college in that style?  Would you write a legal document in that style?  Did you give any thought at all to the idea that entries for "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia" should maybe be written in the style of an encyclopedia??
:I dunno why it is that people can't seem to grasp the difference between "Oh, Wikipedia, I can edit pages there to contribute to their group effort" and "Oh, Wikipedia, I can edit pages there any way that pleases me."  You don't like my "heavy-handed editing"?  Well, Jesus, maybe you should have put a little more thought into not writing with such heavy-handed bias that someone would need to use "heavy-handed editing" to remove it!  Jesus Christ, you wouldn't stand for that shit if you opened up your website for public editing so that people could make a better Song Fight and they used it instead to make a generic music fanzine site talking about how "nifty" the "tireless efforts" of their own band have made their latest MP3; why does it come as such a shock that when Wikipedia is open to make a free encyclopedia, and people come in and try to make it a glowing review for themselves, that it gets edited?  Seriously, where is the shock there?
:If "the current article basically misinterprets the history of Song Fight and the decisions made by the Fightmasters over time" then why didn't you correct any of that information?  Why whisk back months later and whine that "eewwwwwwww, I see inaccuracies and despite the fact that I did jack shit to call them to your attention, I'm just going to call you lazy for not knowing everything that I know; meanwhile, I'm gonna weep about how mean you are for toning down my fawning over myself and my site"?" 
:So, yeah, I'm just sorry all to hell that you get the impression of Wikipedia editors as "narrow-minded jerks" because they didn't fall to their knees and show you the proper slobbering welcome that your "tireless efforts" so clearly deserve.  Geez, how could we possibly have been so blinded!  I think I'm just gonna go off and hang myself in shame.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'll leave it to someone whose interest has not been cancelled by the jerk behavior of the article's subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, I must be mishearing.  The person who opened this discussion with personal attacks of "narrow-minded jerks", directed at the people who, contrary to your repeated lies, did indeed put in work to improve the article, most of it cleaning up after someone who, in violation of Wikipedia policy was writing promotionally for his own website, and continues to do so -- this is the person who's lecturing me about Wikipedia policy?  I cleaned up after you, when you did something you weren't supposed to be doing in the first place -- something that you are still doing -- but because I didn't clean up all of your mess, you labelled me a "narrow-minded jerk" but now you want to lecture me about dispute resolution?   Well, gosh, I guess you have no choice in the face of such grievous provocation but to file an RfAr against me -- oh, wait, you would have to have gone so far as to get a username to do that.  Gosh, I wonder why someone who knows Wikipedia so awfully well that he can lecture others upon it -- someone who certainly isn't just exploiting Wikipedia as an avenue for self-promotion -- hasn't gotten a username?  it's a puzzler... -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  FightMaster Jr. 

message: Halloween 2004 introduces another nifty event, with the premier of a Halloween theme for the site: SONG FRIGHT!
The Fightmasters continue to look for new ways to be creative with the Song Fight Web site, and new ways to encourage others to use their creative urges to the fullest, whether by submitting songs, cover art, or just joining the Song Fight community via the Song Fight forums and songfight.net.
Can someone add this information back to the article in a form other than "chatty puff piece written by the subject of the article"?  -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral descriptions 

message: I am not sure if it is accurate to say that MC Frontalot has never lost. It is true that his solo songs have never lost, but MC Frontalot is also the lead singer of Duboce Triangle, and some of their songs have lost.
:Nil lost the fight this week, so there are now no Songfighters that have never lost. That is, unless MC Frontalot still counts. --Mikeaitch 21:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked the Song Fight community, and they said don't change it. --mikeaitch 18:32, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) (Hahaha, I'm responding to my own comment.)
The NiL loss isn't considered a loss because it wasn't particularly fair for their old song to be reentered into a modern fight with higher standards.
A statement like that would demand that the article be updated as soon as Mr. Front loses a fight. Probably a bad idea. Fearwig 19:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MC Frontalot