Talk:Me, Myself and I (Beyoncé song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Me, Myself and I (Beyoncé song) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is part of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, an ongoing effort to improve articles related to rhythm and blues, soul music, and their related cultures. The goal of the project is to bring this article, along with all others to featured status. If you have any questions, concerns or wish to participate you can visit the main project page here.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Good article Me, Myself and I (Beyoncé song) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 3, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

[edit] Untitled

With regard to the formatting of the table, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. As for the final entry for "Naughty Girl", the only mention of that in the article is in the singles chronology, where it appears as her next single — so why should it be included in the table for this article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Mel, Im not going to revert this for now, but I think we should stop this reverting back and forth, otherwises someone will probably file another RFC against you again for bad behavior. I wont revert this, but at the same time, dont try merging more articles - otherwises we end up with a revert war where no one wins. First of all, Crazy in Love almost became an FA before the chart merging became an issue. If it had become an FA, Im pretty sure you would still protest it anyway. Besides you keep changing the remix capitalziation on Crazy in Love - and Cool has its remixes capitalized. OmegaWikipedia 11:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've given my reasons for my edits; you've not replied to them. I've also opened an RfC on a sample of articles, and the above-mentioned page at the Wikiproject (to which you haven't bothered to contribute). All you've done is revert, usually without even an edit summary. I've been doing my best to find consensus, and to discuss the issues, you've simply stuck to your reverting.
Threatening me with RfCs is pretty feeble; the last one was overwhelmingly supportive of me (to a degree that I found surprising and touching), and included some pretty damning comments about the behaviour of you and others. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That was not even a threat or anything close to it. And I'd suggest you re-read the comments about your behavior especially the most recent one. Anyway, thats not the point, I'm very much willing to discuss this matter here if you're intrested. OmegaWikipedia 11:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I've given my reasons at the top of this page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. If you have responses to them, a discussion can begin. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced

On BET's Access Granted, additional scenes were shot that were to be crucial for the video. They featured Beyoncé performing in front of many different colored backgrounds. Those scenes eventually did not make the cut. --Efe (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 26, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  • The article needs a solid copyediting. The errors are minor but too many to pass. Reading the article out loud may help you catch some errors. Some offending passages include:
    • "Beyoncé tried on solo career and worked for her debut solo album"
      • Remove the solo career thing. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Several incorrect usage of a semicolon. When a semicolon is used, on either side of the semicolon should be a complete sentence. If not, you either need to make them complete sentences or separate them with a comma or a conjunction.
      • Fixed. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "following the success if "Crazy in Love""
    • Fixed. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • spelling errors, like "in a moderarely slow manner"
      • Spelled correctly. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • There are other errors too. You might want to run this by the league of extraordinary copyeditors.
  • This sentence is redundant: "The video is played in reverse, therefore, all the events happen in the reverse order."
    • Reworded. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "for forty-one days" - this should not be spelled out
    • Changed to 41. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The second and third paragraphs in the lead should be combined; they cover the same topic.
    • My point is, the former speaks of the song itself, the production and content, while the latter is the release and success, the last para is how it was recognized. If you believe my idea is wrong, just tell me, or if you have time, please merge it. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate?:
  • Songs are not written in paragraphs. Try stanzas or verses
    • Verse. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?:
  • Beyonce's quote is too long. Too much information from the artist (which is typically positive) over represents their own opinion of their work. It's a problem because it's conflict of interest and POV. Reduce the quote to just the most essential statement (maybe two) and then briefly summarize the rest. This, honestly, should not exceed two healthy sentences.
    • Cleaned up.
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Image:MeMyselfAndISample.ogg doesn't contain copyright information. See the music sample Image:Hot Hot Heat - Rehab.ogg‎ for a good example.
    • Thanks for the link. Its now properly supplied with copyright information. Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm anticipating for many errors because I worked on this hastily, without any further copyediting. If you have more suggestions, please reflect it here and I'll address it as soon as possible. Thanks for the review, that was very nice. --Efe (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Efe, I admire the work you have done on this article, but I suspect that English is not your first language; while the English errors in this article are all minor, they are too numerous and glaring for me to be able to pass this. I would be more than happy to copyedit it for you, but I would have to fail the article first because of conflict-of-interest. Or, you still have 48 hours to ask someone else to copyedit it. Let me know which you prefer; until then, I can't pass this article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally copyedited ad cleaned-up the article. Please reflect it here if you have more concerns for me to know what to do before that 48 ends up. Or, if its already passable but with some more minor errors, fell free to fix them. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I thoroughly copyedited the article and then requested a second opinion to avoid COI problems.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And I've passed it (not sure what the other guy was doing after tagging it...). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DM for passing this. Thanks to Esprit as well for a thorough review. --Efe (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)