Talk:Song Fight!/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FightMaster Jr.

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)

Your response is unsurprising. I apologize for pissing you off, and for trying contribute where I'm obviously not wanted, but I do not retract my arguments regarding your narrow-minded jerkhood. Here are points for clarification in this article:

"Meanwhile": Created to serve as a place to songfight while waiting for the official site to be updated. No momentum was ever SOUGHT, as it was meant to sate the songfighting needs of current participants, not to draw in new people. Meanwhile was created and maintained by songfighter Spud, who became Fightmaster Sr. but did not have that title while Meanwhile was in operation. I (FightMaster Jr.) was not involved in creating or maintaining Meanwhile.

Fight Sizes: Song Fight doesn't care about how many songs are in a fight. The current article is obssessed with this issue. It's not appropriate and gives the wrong impression of our goals and mission.

Colored Fights: The article assumes the motivation behind splitting the fight was provocation from songfighters. This is not the case. We have learned that part of the appeal of Song Fight is an enigmatic aura that surrounds much of what happens regarding the fights. Things happen because they are cool, or interesting, or strange, or wacky. They may happen to facilitate a better songfighting mechanism, but changes for that purpose will only happen if they are simultaneously cool/interesting/strange/wacky.

Special Events: The article should contain information regarding the special events that take place at Song Fight, such as crossovers with web comics, optional challenges, our secret title-provider named "Deep Throat", etc. These are the things that enhance the interest of Song Fight beyond its basic premise.

Community: There is a large, passionate community surrounding Song Fight, which is neglected in the current article, briefly mentioned in context with how big the fights grew after a Song Fight Live event. The point should be the community, not how big the fights are. There is a very active message board, a chat room, a blog, yearly live "official" gatherings, and numerous unofficial "Songfight.org Presents" gatherings/concerts spread throughout the year.

I hope this qualifies as doing "jack shit to call them to your attention". Perhaps you'll feel moved to update the article in the CORRECT style, with no horrible FAWNING over anyone, before you go hang yourself. Perhaps you'll find strength within yourself to ignore my incendiary reactions to your "editing style", and just add my notes somehow, in correct and official wikipedia style, to the article.

--FightMaster Jr.

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)

Perhaps you should read through Wikipedia's conflict resolution page before a)reverting an honest attempt to improve an article without improving it yourself and b)calling that honest attempt a "chatty puff piece by the subject of the article." I think your impression of who is the jerk in this situation is backwards.

"When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind."

--FightMaster Jr.

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)

Dear sir, the page you linked to clearly states at the top that it is a guideline. The text on that page is phrased as "suggestions". Also, you are far too into Wikipedia if you think getting a username is the only way to legitimately participate. If it were, one wouldn't be able to edit pages without one. Because you have a username means you care more about Wikipedia than I do, but not about Song Fight. What you care about is being right and not making an apology. As someone who obviously cares a lot about Wikipedia, I'm surprised that you'd rather give me a bunch of hell for not being far enough in the know for your taste than diplomatically help me improve the article about a subject I care about.

For the record, Song Fight isn't "self promotion". I don't have a lot of ego invested in Song Fight, and there's no money involved, but I do have a lot of emotion and care invested in it. I'm proud of it, and I think many people who don't know about it yet will enjoy it if they find out about it. My priority here for this Wikipedia article, is making sure that the article is accurately emphasizing things that are important about Song Fight, rather than those issues that the original author of the article focused on. But apparently my attempt to add that information flew in the face of your wikipedia-obssessive sensibility, and you had to shoot me down. I appreciate your commitment to the Rule and Law of Wikipedia-- even though there is no such Rule or Law, and everything is a suggestion.

You don't care about making this article, or any article, better, do you? You only care about keeping naive newbies like me in line, so we don't mess up your little playground because we unfortunately assumed that the Wikipedia community would welcome further participation and help us help wikipedia. This is a lovely little flame war. I look forward to your next response.

-- FightMaster Jr.

Neutral descriptions

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)

MC Frontalot

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)

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)