Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

International data

I think we need better international chart and sales data outside of the U.S. For individual songs too, but primarily for the album. Currently there's only the peak U.K. chart position for Pieces of Me (#4). If anyone knows how to find this, or can give me advice on where to look, I'd appreciate it. Possibly it hasn't charted anywhere else, but I doubt it. I'm going to do some more hunting, I'll mention here if I find anything. I'm going to start trying to keep a better record of my work on the article here. Everyking 23:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is that the royal "we"? You don't allow anyone else to have any input into this page. You've reverted every change that I can see. You're guarding Autobiography more carefully than Cerberus guarded Hades. But even Orpheus couldn't sneak NPOV into this article. Dr Zen 00:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to hear your input. I've just added a bunch of Canadian chart data, I'm quite pleased with it. Everyking 00:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are singlehandedly redefining the word "editor".Dr Zen 02:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen, I swore to be nice from now on, and I have to keep that pledge. So I'll just remind you that the only times I've reverted are when information has been removed or "summarized" in a way that I feel causes information to be removed. Now, I think that's understandable, and doesn't make me any sort of dictator. Here on Wikipedia we don't generally go around removing information unless it's clearly non-notable or false, or at least unverifiable. Besides, all I've ever really asked is that we discuss major changes here on talk before implementing them. I want people to edit the article. I just want people to be constructive about it, to improve it, not do what I consider to be reducing its scope and quality. Everyking 02:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tsk. What you consider to be reducing its scope and quality? It's almost as though you didn't believe in consensus. But how could anyone accuse an editor who has reverted every single change to an article as not a fan of consensus? I believe the "informational" value of your Canadian chart data can equally be conveyed in a single sentence. Want to bet whether you'd "allow" it to stand? Shall we have an experiment? Dr Zen 02:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can think of no way the chart data could be conveyed in one sentence. It needs to retain all the information currently present—the position of the album on the chart in each week—and I don't really think it's possible to reduce it much further. Perhaps a few extraneous words could be snipped here and there, but then there's the risk of disrupting the flow. It needs to be written neatly and clearly. If you really can think of a way to reduce it without losing any of the info, post it here on talk and we'll see if we agree on it. Everyking 02:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, man, I believe in being bold. See what you think. I believe I captured the essence of it. Dr Zen 02:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also got rid of the meaningless quote. You said she was stunned at getting to number one. A blow-by-blow account of how she received the news adds absolutely nothing. I expect you'll now explain how this has diminished the "quality" of the article. Dr Zen 02:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See? You simply are not willing to allow anyone else to edit this page. I'm going to wait until you're asleep before I give it any more attention. Dr Zen 03:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look, I don't think it'd be any good for either one of us to be in a revert war, Zen. Obviously we can't just delete a bunch of detail like that. I suspect this is something personal against me, and if it is, you should know that I don't have a problem with you and I don't want to fight over this. Don't worry about me going to sleep, I already took a little nap, and I can stay up all night if need be. I've got the day off tomorrow anyway. So why don't we just drop this whole thing? Everyking 03:08, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, why don't you drop it for a while and allow others to work on it? Very good idea. It's nothing personal, man, just the desire to make a good article even in the face of such huge odds. Dr Zen 03:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen, if I keep talking to you when you're so rude my temper's going to get the better of me, and then you'll be able to use any nasty comment of mine against me. So I just won't respond to anything that includes an insult from now on. Instead, I ask the reader to compare Zen's version:

"In the U.S., Autobiography was 2004's biggest debut by a female artist. [1] It was number one in sales on the Billboard 200 chart for the week of its release, selling about 398,000 copies. [2]. It stayed at number one for three weeks in two spells before dropping down the charts as, inevitably, all albums, no matter how good, must."

With mine:

"In the U.S., Autobiography was 2004's biggest debut by a female artist. [3] It was number one in sales on the Billboard 200 chart for the week of its release, selling about 398,000 copies. [4] It dropped to number two in its second week on the chart, displaced by Now That's What I Call Music! 16, a compilation of popular songs (including, ironically, Jessica's cover of "Take My Breath Away"), and sold about 269,000 copies. [5] Sales increased in the album's third week, however, with about 286,000 copies sold, returning it to number one. [6] It remained at number one in its fourth week, with about 263,000 copies sold, [7] but dropped back to number two in its fifth week, selling about 164,000 copies, having been again displaced by the Now That's What I Call Music! compilation. In its sixth week, it dropped further to number six, with about 134,000 copies sold, and in its seventh week it fell to number eight, with about 113,000 copies sold. The album returned to number six in its eighth week, despite selling only about 89,000 copies, fewer than in the preceding week. In its ninth week, it remained at number six and sold about 75,000 copies; it fell to number nine in its tenth week, although it still sold about 75,000 copies. The album fell much further on the chart in its 11th week, slipping to number 19, but in its 12th week it moved up to number 16. From that point it fell steadily: back to number 19 (week 13), then to numbers 22 (week 14), 27 (week 15), and 34 (week 16), before briefly dropping out of the top 50, to number 51, in its 17th week (in mid-November 2004). Subsequently, however, the album rose again again on the chart: slightly in week 18, to number 50, and then more substantially back up to number 34 in week 19. It fell to number 42 in its 20th week."

Which seems more informative? Compare another of Zen's paragraphs:

"In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 on the Jam Music charts in late July [8], and peaked at 11."

With mine:

"In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 in late July [9], rising to number 36 in its second week [10] and then to number 30 in its third week. [11] In its fourth week, it rose greatly, to number 11 (its peak), [12] but fell to number 14 in its fifth week, [13] where it remained in its sixth week. [14] In its seventh week, it fell slightly to number 15, [15] and then slightly more in the next two weeks: first to number 16 (week eight) [16], and then to number 17 (week nine). [17] It remained at number 17 in its tenth week, [18] before falling to number 24 in its 11th week [19] and then to number 29 in its 12th week. [20] It rose again in its 13th week, however, to number 23, [21] and rose further still in its 14th week, to number 20. [22] It then fell to number 30 in its 15th week [23], to number 33 in its 16th week [24], to number 41 in its 17th week, [25] and to number 46 in its 18th week. [26] In week 19 it fell slightly more to number 47, before rising to number 38 in week 20. [27]"

Besides that, Zen completely removed this paragraph, which was sourced from a transcript of a TV interview:

"In an interview with MuchMusic, Simpson described first learning that the album had debuted at number one: "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!" [28] Her father, Joe Simpson, is also her manager."

There, now anyone can judge which version is more informative. Everyking 03:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• now anyone can judge which version is more informative. Sure - Dr Zen's. The most important facts, condensed, instead of a mish-mash of eye-glazing detail, the sort of thing I would give as an ESL exercise in how to draw a chart. Not that I'm suggesting you do such a thing, but this is exactly the sort of thing that charts are used for. Quantity does not equal quality. --Calton 07:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, just to confirm that to me, and I suspect to most non-fan readers, Dr Zen's versions are much more readable and useful. Sorry, Everyking, but your blow-by-blow descriptions of the chart movement, while undeniably factual and detailed, are not good encyclopaedic writing. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain every single known fact.

You know, what I think you should try with this article, Everyking, is leaving it alone, ignoring it completely, say until January 31st. Leave it to the rest of the community to do what they want with, and edit some less contentious articles for a while. See what happens. I wouldn't try to dispute the fact that you know a lot about this album, but I would dispute the suggestion that you know best what the disinterested reader wants to know about it. That's best determined by disinterested readers, and you certainly couldn't be described as one of them! Worldtraveller 00:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. But no. Here's the problem. It's not just about this article. If people got their way deleting half of this article, then all the work I do on any subject is in danger. Why would I want to concentrate heavily on some other subject if I think people will just come along some day and delete half of that, too? Everyking 09:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Assume good faith: remember the vast majority of people edit because they want to make articles better. Interpretations of better differ, but people have good intentions. And when interpretations differ, we try to find consensus. In this case, the consensus is that this article needs to be trimmed down - many editors agree that the interesting, useful information is swamped by too much trivial detail. Unless you step back and let others edit this article, you'll spend your whole life reverting edits, which could be considered vandalism of good work. Let other people edit. Don't touch the article for a while. See what happens. Unfortunately, you're stifling the development of what could be a very excellent article. Worldtraveller 19:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't been rude to you and I'm not sensitive about nasty comments, so have at it, big boy. Anyone with eyes can see that both versions are equally "informative".

It's of absolutely no informational value whatsoever that Simpson said she was "freaking out" when she got to number one. It's not even a memorable statement. If she matched "Eureka!" or "One small step...", I'd wholeheartedly agree on its inclusion. If she had even made a comment that was illuminating, you'd have a case. But no. It's exactly what you'd expect, and so, no "information" is conveyed. Simpson has doubtless been interviewed thousands of times, and her views on every small part of her life are not jampacked with information. I don't suppose that will stop you from including them though, and reverting any edits made to what you include. Dr Zen 03:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you have individual singles articles, you do not need indepth discussion of them here.Dr Zen 04:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, but it's not in depth. Those are summarized versions of what's in the individual articles; see Wikipedia:Summary style. Everyking 04:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert warrior

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)

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)

Making minor edits to hide a revert does not stop it from being a revert. I have asked for attention to your vandalism and I am preparing an RfC on your revert-warring. No one has called you names. You are not doing calm, productive editing though. You are not allowing editing to take place. Dr Zen 05:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

No, I'm editing it. I'm maintaining the information content. However, you are reverting every single change I make. Dr Zen 05:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's impossible to edit this article properly without condensing some of the bumph. For instance, it simply is not "informative" that an album was at number 326 in its 18th week on the Canadian charts. It doesn't say a thing about the album. I'm allowing that its debut position and peak might say something very small about it, but that's a stretch. I am hoping that an admin will come and give you the block you deserve so that I can work on this article without your reverting my every edit. It's a terrible waste of my time and effort that you do that. Dr Zen 05:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

You did absolutely no such thing, that's why. Dr Zen 06:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Didn't do what? Everyking 06:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

Zen, will you agree to discuss controversial deletions here before going ahead with them? I don't want to have to wonder with every passing second whether you've gone and deleted half the article. Surely you can agree that discussion is the proper way to work through a dispute like this, not endless reverting. Everyking 06:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So um. My only question is...What the frell happened to all my changes? And should I even bother asking (for the 6th time) for proper cites for some of this stuff? No? Didn't think so...-sigh- Reene^✎ 06:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Notes

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)

Chord changes

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)

Yet again you've removed another editor's work. In any case, you can't use those chords. They're in dispute from other sources. Maybe you could buy the songbook and see what whoever wrote it thinks the chords are.Dr Zen 06:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

I desire it greatly, I lust for it. Add all you want on the song's structure to the Pieces of Me article. I would love to see more musical data in this article, too, but it needs to be more general than what you added, don't you know what I mean? I'd like to ask you to explain your other changes. They weren't utterly objectionable to me, the way your old revisions were, but I still don't really understand them. Can't you explain them, and maybe we'll find out we agree after all? Everyking 06:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have yet again struck out perfectly reasonable changes. I have already explained all of them, I believe, but once more won't hurt:

"debuted at number one in sales" means nothing. You must give the source for this; which chart it was number one in, and where this happened. It's too Americocentric as it stands.

The "according to Simpson" thing is mainly an editorial fix. It was poorly structured, so I fixed it.

"notable contrast". It is your opinion that it is notable, nothing more. There is no way this could ever be anything but POV. It should be excised.

No one has compared Ashlee's music with Pink's. They compare her approach. I even allowed you to make the comparison in the article. It should be noted that none of the artists in question are "independent". All are products of major labels, in Ashlee's case through the medium of a reality show! Furthermore, Pink switched styles from R&B-tinged pop to rock-pop because her label told her that her demographic wanted the latter, so it's not even correct to compare their music. You could at least correct your usage from "compare to" to "compare with". The latter is correct for comparisons of qualities.Dr Zen 06:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Debuted at number one means a great deal, of course...how could it not? Shouldn't the reader know right from the start how successful the album was? I don't agree that it's necessary to name the chart, either. It says U.S., and U.S. general album sales are measured by the Billboard 200. This is mentioned later in the article, but it's an unnecessary detail for the intro. I disagree that's it's U.S.-centric, it's just that the album debuted first in the U.S. and is primarily a U.S. release by a U.S. artist, and has sold by far the most copies in the U.S., so I figure the U.S. sales deserve a mention in the intro while other countries' sales can be mentioned later. They have compared Avril and Pink's music with Ashlee's, didn't you see my AMG quote I added? I can add many more if necessary, because people say that all the time, but I don't see why the section should be bogged down with quotes on that one issue. "Notable contrast" isn't just my opinion; people are always saying how her image and music are distinct from her sister's. That's why I called it "notable". Everyking 06:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The incredible irony is that I set to work on this article tonight meaning to shorten it by summarizing the promotion section, since most of that info is already in other articles. Everyking 07:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More obstructionism! What's the use? You simply revert all changes any editor makes. How is a nonYank supposed to know that the Billboard 200 is the chart you're talking about? I thought American charts charted airplay not sales, anyway. The comparison thing is wholly bogus. "People are always saying" is exactly the kind of weaselly nonsense I'm trying to strike out. What is the point of trying to work with an editor who continually pushes not just a POV but the POV that only he knows what is "right" for his article. This is entirely antiwiki.Dr Zen 07:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

No, your sources do not say any such thing. You actually give sources that contradict your text! I am thoroughly fed up with this now. Your constant reversion of others' work is unsupportable.Dr Zen 07:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How does the AMG quote not support what I say...? I'm baffled, to be honest. The NYT quote, yeah, maybe you could argue that if you really want to split hairs, but certainly not the AMG quote. Everyking 07:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Busted tables on Autobiography (album)

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. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:41, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I turned the table into a vertical one (like the US/Canda sales one was) and have a demo of how it might look in the article at User:Tony_Sidaway/Sandbox/Autobiography. Comments, please. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks OK, I'm getting an annoying little bit of white space between the section header and the first paragraph now, but I guess I can live with that. What do you think about having tables on both sides, with text in between? Do you think that would look too cramped? Everyking 23:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Give it a go. If it doesn't look nice you can always change it back. It may look a bit funny on 800x600 if you have a table either side and a thin snake of text in the middle. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:52, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there a way to kill that white space at the section top? Do you see it on your screen? Everyking 23:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have a look now. I added the table title to the first table, and also tweaked the table title of the second table to span the whole table. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

Ah, you remember me. :)

If I said that the album entry was fancruft, I take it back. I have different ideas about album covers. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tightening

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.
• [[Hilary Duff (album)|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)

Everyking's blanket reverts

Everyking, I tackled you about the fact that you have twice in the past few hours made a blanket revert to an edit by another user. You replied:

Well, with one or two minor exceptions, I dislike the whole edit. Everyking 12:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well that's fine but you're not the only editor here. I'm fine with the edit but I could be persuaded. Could you be more specific about this? I won't revert again because it's against my personal rules to repeat a revert except in the face of simple vandalism (see Harmonious editing club) but I will take one example of where I think the wording has been improved and restore that. Then we can discuss what you think it wrong with that particular change. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A) The "improved" wording is, frankly, terrible.

B) You added a factual inaccuracy into the very first sentence.

C) "In the United States it entered that charts at number one in sales in its first week." Entered the charts, not that charts.

D) "Distinguish her in her own right"? What kind of wording is that? Everyking 12:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine. I take your point about not wanting the article to contain an inaccurate statement, but the solution to that is to correct the statement, not roll back the whole edit.

• Firstly, what is the inaccuracy in the first sentence?
• Secondly, I agree that I made a typo, so why didn't you just correct the typo?
• Third, if "distinguish her in her own right" is not to your liking, replace it by better wording.
• Fourth, I want to remind you of a little thing called the Three Revert Rule. I do so because you have now reverted the article three times in less than two hours: at 10:56, 11:31 and 12:31. According to the Three Revert Rule, you should not perform any more reverts on the article in the next twenty-four hours or so. Please don't abuse Wikipedia. You can still make edits, rewording what is already there and so on, but you should not revert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did replace it with better wording. The wording that was there before. Don't tell me I'm abusing Wikipedia by reverting poor wording and inaccuracies, please. Everyking 13:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you will be if you revert this article a third time over an editing dispute before 10:56 tomorrow. Those are the rules. If the wording is poor and inaccurate, correct the inaccuracies and replace the wording. Do not revert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did replace the wording. What difference does it make to you whether I wait to revert until such and such time? You just want me blocked, or what? I'm not going to revert a third time, because I believe in obeying the rules even if I personally disagree with them, but you ought to be more responsible than to pull this sort of thing, Tony. Everyking 13:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want you blocked, but I do want you to become a cooperative editor. Your current behavior, which others have remarked on in the past, is suggestive of someone who is attempting to act as sole author of a work. Please cooperate. The fact that you have reverted three times in less than two hours today should be a warning sign to you: learn to work with other editors. The errors and problems you have pointed out are all valid, but the solution is not to revert but to correct individual errors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who has remarked on my behavior in the past, Tony? And what have they said? I am as cooperative as anybody could be; your accusations are absurd. Not only am I not attempting to act as the sole author of anything, I wouldn't want to be the sole author of anything. I don't even think I'm competent enough to be the sole author of anything. Everyking 13:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just read this talk page. In fact also look at the history list for the article. You revert other people's edits frequently. From just the past two weeks:

Reverting Dr Zen:

Revision as of 02:59, 10 Dec 2004 rv, i'm not going to say anything impolite, just revert

Revision as of 04:12, 10 Dec 2004 i'm going to "be bold", as dr zen would advise me to be

Reverting thesteve: 06:58, 14 Dec 2004 Everyking (sigh, here we go again)

And now this morning's flurry of reverts. You have shown that, when pressured, you are capable of working cooperatively, but it should not be necessary for me to pressure you like this. It should be a given that you alter bad wording when you see it and stop using the revert as a safety-blanket. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, to hear you tell it, I'm the worst thing that ever happened to Wikipedia. But truth be told, I love nothing more than to see a good edit; it is, however, equally important for a responsible editor to revert bad edits. Why don't we talk about the actual article instead of all this ridiculous lecturing? Why don't you make some argument to justify your version? Everyking 14:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't claim that you're "the worst thing that ever happened to Wikipedia", but I'd like you to edit to improve bad text rather than reverting. Reverting to an earlier version is not being bold, it will never get us from the admittedly imperfect present version of any article. That's what "be bold" means, edit the text as you see fit. Your behavior in the past has hampered this process, although you have produced a lot of good edits, too. It is absolutely not (and this should be stated clearly) the duty of a responsible editor "to revert bad edits." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't continue discussion on this basis. I feel I'm being personally attacked and threatened, and I can't deal with that. I have too much to deal with to cope with this too. Everyking 14:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that I'm attacking you and threatening you. Far from it, I'm just asking you to cooperate with other editors instead of rejecting their work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am absolutely cooperative and I reject no one's work. But I am tired of being treated like shit just because I want to discuss radical changes before implementing them, and just for exercising my right to revert an edit when I disagree with it. Everyking 14:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, will you please revert your changes and discuss matters with me here first? I am on the verge of abandoning this article completely and taking it off my watchlist, and then I suppose you can do what you want with it. I only want to discuss, and I don't want the article to be ruined. But if I can't avoid that anyway because you're being so aggressive, why should I continue to try to work on it? Why roll that boulder up the hill if it's just going to roll right back down again? Everyking 15:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that I'm being aggressive, sorry. Bold, certainly. That's how editing is supposed to go on Wikipedia. if there are problems with my prose, fix them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You make radical changes without discussing them first, and when I try to start a discussion I get attacked as a person. I call that aggression. Everyking 15:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where have I made a radical change to the article? Where have I attacked you as a person? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You accused me of abusing Wikipedia and said I wasn't a cooperative editor. As for the changes, I consider them radical and I believe they should be discussed prior to being implemented. I will have another three reverts come tomorrow, so why not discuss? What's the point in just going on reverting forever? Everyking 15:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I asked you not to abuse Wikipedia, but I take your point. You aren't being very cooperative, as quite a lot of people have told you. The changes are not radical. If you continue to revert reasonable edits you will soon find yourself before the AC. Take the existing edits and improve them. What have I done that could be improved? This is the kind of editing question you should be answering, not "when do I get another three reverts so I can have the old version back?" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep threatening me, Tony? Be civil. Don't use a threat of arbitration to get your way. I will of course revert back to my version next time I get a chance, excluding any helpful changes that were made, because that's the only way I can see to improve them. Can an honest person not believe that, Tony? I want to discuss, but you are making radical changes that I disagree with and then expecting me to just deal with it, and I won't. You need to discuss and help me hammer out a compromise, not just try to win through brute force by getting me to use up my reverts before you do. Everyking 16:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not using the threat of AC--I have no plans to start an Arbitration case against you and at present would not support such a case. I'm pointing out that your problematic behavior will bring you before the AC if you don't start acting reasonably. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fourth revert

You have yet again reverted an edit. This makes four reverts in about four hours. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article at all, Tony. Everyking 16:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

this looks like a delayed revert of my edit here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where we go from here

OK, I think if we're going to break off subarticles, the most obvious to start with is the sales and chart data section, because that's the one people have been complaining about. Promotion: I'm not sure, it could be a subarticle, but then again most of it is already mentioned in the singles articles...but there's still something to be said for having it all together in one place...reviews/critical reception could also be a separate article, but I'd really hate to trim any of what's already there, it all seems pretty essential. Any other suggestions? I don't want to implement anything until the whole situation with Tony gets worked out. Everyking 17:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't really think that you can write an article about the sales and chart performance of an album in an encyclopedia. In a book about the album, perhaps, you could devote a (very boring) chapter to it. Same goes for pretty much all your suggestions above--another attempt to split off data would crash and burn at the VfD stage. What I suggest we do with sales and charts is go through it carefully and decide what pieces are needed. I'd suggest that the tabular data speaks for itself and much of that section is just padding.

But the article as it stands really could do with having some of the fat trimmed. There is a very large section on Promotion and another very large section on The Making Of the Album. As I understand it, the making of the album was documented on her reality show, so we can condense the information (boy does it need condensing!) and put it in that article. The promotion section can be condensed to a brief paragraph, much less wordy than the current version, describing the shows she sang it on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We need all the chart data presently given. The options are either subarticles, it all stays here, or I just abandon this whole thing and get on with my damn life. I want an apology for being called uncooperative as well, and for being threatened with arbitration. Everyking 18:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a knowledge base. We're not a repository of information. We summarise it. Most chart information is irrelevant except for notable ones like the album's peak position, and maybe how long it stayed at that position. Nobody cares that it was at position Y in week X except for fanatical fans to whom this article is like their penis. Johnleemk | Talk 07:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Autobiography is a pop/rock album by Ashlee Simpson. It was released in 2004 and sold a lot of copies, especially in the U.S. It had a popular first single, "Pieces of Me"."

There, John, I summarized it. Shall we replace the article with that?

More seriously, you need to understand that just because something is unimportant to you doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. I don't go around saying notable things need to be deleted just because they bore me. We are supposed to include far more detail than a paper encyclopedia, but it seems that deletionists like you don't think we need half as much content as a paper encyclopedia. Before I blanked my user page, I posed the question there: Should a featured article be useful to the serious researcher, or is it good enough that it helps out a high school student writing a two page paper? Everyking 07:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust a serious researcher who quotes an encyclopedia. Researchers should go to secondary or primary sources, not tertiary ones like encyclopedias. Encyclopedias summarise information that is interesting and/or vital to many people. Nobody except fans who couldn't have sex without the album care about the album's chart position, unless that chart position was its peak. Johnleemk | Talk 08:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John, aren't there more important targets for your radical deletionism than an Ashlee Simpson album? Why not go trying to remove half the content of some major historical or science article? Everyking 10:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not isn't read enough these days. Mind-numbing chart information is not encyclopedic, and can easily be referred to in an external link. Johnleemk | Talk 12:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And didn't you vote to delete "La La", Tony? Do you stand by that vote? Everyking 18:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. The single had only been out two or three days. This isn't a pop magazine, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So how am I supposed to reason with someone who holds such a radical view? Most Wikipedians don't accept that kind of extreme deletionism, as the vote clearly showed, so why don't you give up on it? Everyking 07:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have stated the problem clearly. The problem is that you regard someone who would oppose an article about a three-day-old single in an encyclopedia as radical. That isn't radical at all. It's just a view that you happen to oppose. I accept the vote and would not support a further proposal to delete the La La , but this doesn't mean I have changed my mind about the suitability of the La La article. How did it do in the charts? A week or so at number six? Good but hardly exceptional. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sales and chart discussion

U.S. album sales, first ten weeks
Week	Sales	Sales to date
1	398,000	398,000
2	269,000	667,000
3	286,000	953,000
4	263,000	1,216,000
5	164,000	1,380,000
6	134,000	1,514,000
7	113,000	1,627,000
8	89,000	1,716,000
9	75,000	1,791,000
10	75,000	1,866,000

In the U.S., Autobiography was 2004's biggest debut by a female artist; [29] it quickly went platinum and was certified triple platinum in September 2004. [30] Following its July 20 release, it was number one in sales on the Billboard 200 chart in its first week, selling over 398,000 copies.⁵ In its second week on the chart, it was displaced by Now That's What I Call Music! 16, a compilation of popular songs (including, ironically, Jessica's cover of "Take My Breath Away"), and sold about 269,000 copies. [31] In the album's third week, however, it returned to number one, [32] where it remained in its fourth week, at the same time crossing the one million mark in total U.S. sales, with about 1.2 million, [33] but it dropped back to number two in its fifth week, having been again displaced by the Now That's What I Call Music! compilation. [34] In its sixth week, Autobiography dropped further to number six, [35] and in its seventh week it fell to number eight. [36] The album returned to number six in its eighth and ninth week, despite selling fewer copies than in the seventh week. [37] [38] It fell to number nine in its tenth week, though sales held steady. [39] Subsequently the album fell (although it rose three spots in week 12), eventually dropping to number 51 in its 17th week (in mid-November 2004), before rising in the next two weeks—to number 50 and then 34—and then briefly falling again. It rose significantly in its 21st week on the chart, however, from 42 to 33, with a 61% increase in sales, according to a Geffen press release. [40]

U.S. & Canada chart performance
Week	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
U.S. chart position	1	2	1	1	2	6	8	6	6	9	19	16	19	22	27	34	51	50	34	42	33
Canada chart position	37	36	30	11	14	14	15	16	17	17	24	29	23	20	30	33	41	46	47	38	24

In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 in late July, selling about 3,000 copies in its first week [41]; it reached a peak of number 11 in its fourth week on the chart, before falling steadily in subsequent weeks.

Ashlee Simpson with Jordan Schur, receiving recognition for Autobiography going platinum, from The Ashlee Simpson Show

Some have compared Simpson's success in album sales favorably with that of her sister Jessica, who, despite having several hits since 1999, has never had a number one album (the closest she came was with the release of the special edition of In This Skin in early 2004, which debuted at number two). Simpson herself has said that she never expected the album to do so well: "I just hoped my album charted. I didn't expect it to be number one in the country! It was a huge shock."⁶ According to Geffen President Jordan Schur, the sales of the album in such a short period of time were exceptional: "It's unheard of in this business—even for a superstar—to sell this number of records." He also emphasized Simpson's relative obscurity until not long before the album's release, making her success that much more impressive.⁶ Simpson had, however, received a great deal of exposure in the period immediately prior to the album's release through The Ashlee Simpson Show, which debuted in the U.S. on MTV on June 16.

Discussing the appeal of Autobiography, Simpson emphasized its emotional sincerity in a Capital FM (London) radio interview: "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..." (September 15, 2004) She also said that people of many different ages could enjoy the album; it is, however, commonly thought that it appeals primarily to teenagers.

Some observers have viewed Simpson's reality show and association with her sister as more responsible for Autobiography's success than the music itself. In July, Geoff Mayfield, Billboard's director of charts, described the album as the "right thing at the right time" and said: "The MTV show is a huge catalyst, radio jumped all over the song, and her famous sister opened the door. If Jessica never happened, then Ashlee doesn't get her own show and this album doesn't happen." Zena Burns of Teen People was willing to attribute more of Simpson's success to the quality of the first single, "Pieces of Me": "Ashlee has an amazing promotional machine, and it doesn't hurt to have Jessica and MTV behind you, but she also came out with an insanely catchy pop single."⁷

In an interview with MuchMusic, Simpson described first learning that the album had debuted at number one: "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!" [42] Her father, Joe Simpson, is also her manager. Simpson was also quoted in a press release as saying: "This is beyond my wildest dreams. I'm so excited for what's happened and what's to come. I am so thankful for everyone's support."⁵

Autobiography drew 2.66 million requested streams when it was featured online in the week prior to its release (July 13–20) on MTV.com's "The Leak", breaking a record previously held by Britney Spears' 2003 album In the Zone.⁵ "Pieces of Me" proved to be a major hit in the U.S., eventually rising to number five on the Billboard Hot 100 in September 2004 ([43]) and number one on the Billboard Top 40 Tracks chart, and remaining on the charts for many months. The follow-up single, "Shadow", was not as successful, rising to only number 57 on the Hot 100 and number 27 on the Top 40 Tracks chart.

Outside of the U.S., "Pieces of Me" was a popular single in many countries, and the album itself also charted in some countries. Autobiography was released in the United Kingdom on October 4, 2004, debuting at number 31 on the albums chart; [44] the "Pieces of Me" single, released a week before the album, debuted at number four on the UK Singles Chart before falling steadily. [45] In Norway, Autobiography debuted at number 31 and peaked at number 29 on the top 40 album chart, [46] remaining on the chart for three weeks, while "Pieces of Me" reached number three on the top 20 singles chart [47] and stayed on that chart for 12 weeks. In Switzerland, Autobiography reached a peak of number 36 on the album chart in its second week [48] and "Pieces of Me" reached a peak of number 11 on the singles chart. [49] "Pieces of Me" reached a peak of number 24 on the Italian top 50 in October 2004, in its fourth week on that chart, [50] and it fell out of the top 50 in November after seven weeks on the chart. [51]

In Australia, "Pieces of Me" reached a peak of number seven on the ARIA singles chart in September 2004 and stayed there for two weeks, while "Shadow" reached number 31; in New Zealand, "Pieces of Me" reached number 32 on the RIANZ top 40 singles chart and stayed on the chart for three weeks. [52]

The above is for us to work out what in this section should stay here, in this article, with the entirety going to a subarticle. Proposals for possible expansion are also welcome. I'm going to go through and bold what I think is essential for this article here. Everyking 18:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, what I think is very important is in bold, the rest I'm much more flexible about and can be restricted to the subarticle. Of course, we can discuss any of it, but I'm going to much more stubborn about what's in bold. Everyking 19:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd much rather see some of the information that you haven't bolded kept - for instance the information about how it charted around the world, which is very relevant to an article such as this. Of the bolded information, I agree that much of it needs to stay. The only things I'd probably suggest removing are the Schur quote (and more importantly the POV conclusion that comes after it) and the Burns quote (which is getting more into reviews, and we've already got enough of those).

I also think it's questionably wise to spin this off into a subarticle when the odds of it withstanding VFD aren't very good. I won't nominate it, and I give my word now that I won't vote, but I think it's fairly likely to happen. Ambi 00:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, isn't that what people do when articles get too long: break content off into subarticles? Why is Autobiography different from anything else? Just because some of the content isn't bolded doesn't mean it should go totally, just that it's too detailed in its current form and needs to be significantly summarized. What's bolded I think should be kept more or less verbatim, with perhaps a few minor tweaks. I'd like to get this section down to about 50% of its current size, and then be able to continue further expansion of the content in the subarticle. Everyking 05:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I think you may be right about the Schur quote. The Burns quote I'd really like to keep, though, as it helps to balance the Mayfield quote. Everyking 06:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can someone fix the U.S./Canada table for me? Lengthen the title bar. I also revised the bolding a bit. Everyking 06:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is everyone OK with this proposal? I'm probably going to implement it after I get my next revert. If it gets VfDed, do I have everyone's assurances that they will vote to keep it? Everyking 06:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not all too sure that most of this information isn't fancruft, though I do agree with Ambi that a lot of the unbolded information is important. However, I don't see the need to spin this off to a subarticle yet. I suggest you write articles for the songs and link to them instead; I'm not sure where all the 40+ kilobytes of this article are coming from, though. I think we don't need as many quotes as we do now, but I'm too lazy to sift through all of them. Johnleemk | Talk 08:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the position of Tony and John. What is their point? Why do they want to fight a revert war over this? My attempts to start discussion have gone nowhere; they just want to edit blindly despite knowing that this is unacceptable and will be reverted. In the future I'll have the sense to space out my reverts more across the 24-hour period, and to rework the content in a more suitable fashion in the meantime. Everyking 08:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want a revert war. I want you to realise that this article is not yours. Your writing is yours, but by submitting it, you agree to let us mercilessly edit it beyond recognition. You insist that all changes be discussed on the talk, which is frankly bullshit. I won't bother seriously discussing anything with you as long as you stubbornly insist on this. Johnleemk | Talk 08:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've never said all changes must be discussed on talk. That's preposterous. I've said radical changes, which mainly means removal of information (see Wikipedia:Wikicrime point 1), must be discussed on talk. That's standard for working out a dispute, and this article is no exception. Everyking 10:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The words "radical" and "must" above are in my opinion inaccurate portrayals of recent edits, with the exception of your blanket reverts of the edits of others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the history: rv, john can make his changes one at a time and discuss them. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It sounds to as if you may be close to falsely accusing some of your fellow editors of making radical changes without discussion. Would you like to reword your statement and your reference to Andries's article "Wikicrime"? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huh? That's exactly what I say, you are making radical changes and you are not discussing. If you don't want me to say that, start discussing. Everyking 10:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Everyking, I think it's odd that you're accusing us of wanting a revert war, but how many of your edits have been reverted? Be honest, you're the revert veteran here. I for one would be happy if you reverted less and edited more.

"they just want to edit blindly despite knowing that this is unacceptable and will be reverted." This statement is in my opinion unworthy of a Wikipedia editor. You cannot dictate terms for editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"In the future I'll have the sense to space out my reverts more across the 24-hour period, and to rework the content in a more suitable fashion in the meantime." Again, this does not look good. Combined with your other statements, this appears to me to amount to a threat to stall all edits with which you disagree by applying blanket reverts at intervals so as to circumvent the Three Revert Rule. I'll be watching your behavior today very closely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am so sick of your threats, Tony. Do you have any idea what civility and WikiLove are? All you ever do is tell me I'm uncooperative (incredibly, you even tell me that when I'm trying my hardest to cooperate) and that I'm some horrible editor who needs to be banned. Every editor has the right of revert as a kind of veto power over other editors. That means that neither of us can force our will on the article, because we have each other promising to revert, which forces us to discuss matters. The way we get around these individual vetoes is through consensus. Do you not know this already, Tony? Everyking 10:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again you falsely accuse me of making threats. Again you falsely characterise me as saying that you are "some horrible editor who needs to be banned.". And now you falsely accuse me of threatening to revert--which I have already told you I will not do again. I have reverted this article once and that is the only time I will do so. Please stop writing falsehoods. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, talking about the ArbCom and telling me you'll be "watching my edits closely" are threats. I believe much of what you have been saying are barely concealed references to a desire to get me banned. If you don't want me banned, please make that clear and then I won't suspect you of it any more. I certainly don't want you banned. Everyking 10:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You must have missed this: "I have no plans to start an Arbitration case against you and at present would not support such a case." Now I've documented a number of falsehood that you have used to try to get your way. YOu falsely accuse me of threatening to go to arbcom, you falsely claim that I am threatening to revert your changes, you falsely accuse others of making radical changes and you falsely accuse others of not discussing the changes on the talk page. Please stop promoting these easily refuted falsehoods. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, you are right about the ArbCom thing. I did miss that, as this page has gotten quite long. As for the rest, I suppose it's just a matter of interpretation. I certainly see things in those ways—don't I have a right to express my opinion, to complain if I feel I'm being threatened? Would you like to mediate this, Tony? There will be no arbitration because I will drop my involvement in this article entirely if it gets to that point, and possibly quit the project, but I hope you will not use that against me. Everyking 10:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Everyking's massive revert

Everyking, you have reverted every single edit made since 12:31, 23 Dec 2004 with the exception of the insertion of the text "Main article: Autobiography sales and chart positions" and the addition of a single column of chart data that you have added since yesterday [53]. You have even reintroduced an error in the table that resulted from your failure to update the colspan attribute of the "U.S. & Canada chart performance" cell. This is unacceptable. You are knowingly making it impossible for other editors to contribute. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is that a surprise? I plainly stated my intentions in advance. Make a few relatively minor changes and I will try to work with those while concurrently discussing matters here. But I can't accept all those massive changes and the removal of information without prior discussion. You know that. Everyking 11:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please indicate where you think a massive change has been made. Please indicate where you think information was removed. Please indicate who you think has not discussed his edits on this page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The edits to the first paragraph alone were massive, Tony. Obviously information was removed, I think one whole paragraph (the Village Voice one) was gone and many others had been briefly summarized. It seems to me none of you have tried to talk about anything. Instead of making massive revisions, why not just pick something and let's talk about it? Bickering back and forth about whether or not I'm the devil doesn't constitute discussion. Everyking 11:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph edits can be summarised by putting the two versions side by side.

Version as of 12:31 yesterday:

Autobiography is the first album by the American singer Ashlee Simpson. It was released in the United States, where it debuted at number one in sales, by Geffen Records on July 20, 2004. The album is a mixture of pop and rock—its rock elements helping to set Ashlee apart from her sister, Jessica Simpson, who was already a famous pop singer—and includes "Pieces of Me", a hit in many countries in mid to late 2004, as well as the follow-up singles "Shadow" and "La La". The process of making the album was recorded in Simpson's MTV reality show, The Ashlee Simpson Show.

Version as of 10:27 today, which you have reverted:

Autobiography was American singer Ashlee Simpson's debut album. It debuted at number one in sales upon its release in the United States by Geffen Records in July, 2004. The album is a mixture of pop and rock, differing considerably from the pop music of Ashlee's sister, Jessica, already a famous pop singer in her own right. The album includes "Pieces of Me", a hit single in many countries in mid to late 2004, as well as the follow-up singles "Shadow" and "La La". The process of making the album was recorded in Simpson's MTV reality show, The Ashlee Simpson Show.

Questions for you:

1. What massive change has been made?
2. What information has been removed from the article by this edit?

Brief summaries are the the purpose of editing. This is not a bad thing, it's intended.

"Bickering back and forth about whether or not I'm the devil doesn't constitute discussion." Again you falsely accuse others of denigrating you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you removed the exact date of release—not that I object so terribly strongly to that, but you never discussed it—you changed it to was her debut album, as if that can ever change, and you generally damaged the quality of the writing. To me, that's pretty massive, especially considering it's the intro. In controversial articles, just changing a handful of words can be massive. That's why we have talk pages. And brief summaries are not the point of editing, Tony. Everyking 12:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The exact date of release is contained elsewhere in the article. This is not, or at least should not be, a controversial article. I'm sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the purpose of editing. The tense does not matter, clearly it was not a massive change since either tense can be used in English in this context. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've gotten a bit worked up at points in this discussion. For that I apologize. But no one likes it when they feel like they're being personally threatened and attacked, and it's not appropriate to remove factual information without discussion beforehand. This sort of thing is why we're supposed to build consensus. Deletionism also scares the hell out of me, and sometimes I overreact when I have to confront it: I just see in my mind a day when the article on World War II reads in total: "World War II was a war that was fought a while ago. Many people died." An exaggeration, obviously, but you get my point. I don't want to see Wikipedia move in that direction. I worry about it all the time; I probably would've never started contributing here if I'd known about that kind of logic, to tell you the truth. But I'm here anyway. I've asked User:Ambi to take the case against me to the ArbCom, because I want a verdict on whether I should stay or go. As for the article, I've created a subarticle and moved a considerable amount of content there; hopefully that will be acceptable to everyone. We ought to put the aggressive tactics behind us and just concentrate on positive discussion. Everyking 15:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony has nominated the subarticle for VfD. I do not understand why he will not try to compromise with me. I'm assuming good sense will prevail in this vote. Note that even though I strongly disagree with Tony on the notability of this information, I respect his right to an opinion. I regret that I have not always been shown the same respect. Everyking 15:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have nominated the overspill article for VfD because I honestly think it is not an encyclopedia article. I will not participate in the discussion because I want to see if my opinion is a minority one or there are many others who think that articles like that are too trivial. Everyking, you have been shown every respect. I have declined to get involved in revert warring, performing only one revert to your own self-admitted total of at least four in a little over twenty-four hours and your past history of aggressive reverting on this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Self-admitted? I reverted three times, and at one point I restored a single paragraph to my version but left your other changes alone. Don't accuse me of breaking the 3RR, because I made a pledge a few weeks ago not to break it again, and I take that pledge seriously. Why don't you pick something in the article and talk about it? I'm willing to talk about just about any of it. But you must bear in mind the inclusionist/deletionist difference regarding the question of notability. Everyking 16:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you admitted in your revert this morning that you were admitting to reverting every single change since 12:31 the previous day except for two small edits that you yourself had done. It is a verifiable fact that this is what you did, so whether you admit to this fourth revert in the space of little over a day is a moot point.

"Why don't you pick something in the article and talk about it? "

What an odd question to ask. Please do re-read the copious discussions on this talk page. The article is too wordy. There is too much fluff. You refuse to permit anybody to compress. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did revert four times in the space of 24 hours+1 minute, that's true, but I was careful not to break the 3RR. I said to bear in mind the inclusion/deletion difference. Because we fundamentally disagree on this question, we need to discuss each change individually and work gradually, because we've got a lot of differences to overcome. But not only do I permit people to compress, I just went and did it myself by creating a subarticle. I don't know what you expect. You can't fully have your way about everything; none of us can. Everyking 16:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I'm sorry, I misread what you wrote earlier, you didn't accuse me of breaking the 3RR. I apologize, I've gotten hasty about this stuff. Everyking 16:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Could it be that you've been generally too hasty to revert that hard work of other editors? You wiped out two man-days of edits this morning,and you have not yet accounted for the necessity of doing so. Was it just that you got your three reverts back and decided "to hell with it! I'll show them!"? Doesn't work with me, I'm afraid. I won't use the revert as a weapon. I think it would be good if you stopped squatting over the pot like this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussing edits

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)

I had repeatedly mentioned creating the subarticle on talk previously. I even let the link stay red for about a day to give people time to object to it. Everyking 16:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But you see my point, don't you. Your move was unilateral, although you had mentioned your intent earlier. We also mention our intent and make edit, but you abuse your editing powers repeatedly to restore the article to a state that contains only your own edits. This is not a good way to work. You cannot own part of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, have you noticed that nobody else is abusing their edit powers? Only you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not own this article, Tony. But I do have a certain self-imposed responsibility to make it a certain quality, and to clean up after anybody who makes a bad edit. Back when you made good edits to it, like the tables, do you remember me reverting you then? Everyking 17:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who will clean up when you make a bad edit? Wikipedia's decision-making process is based on consensus. That means that you and I must reach an agreement on article content. This cannot happen if, as you seem to want to do, you revert every single edit performed by anybody else every twenty-four hours.

A truce proposal

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)

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)

I'm shocked. Do you deny that, as a matter of fact, you have performed many wholesale reverts, completely and utterly ignoring the opinions of others? Do you deny that, in doing so, you have arranged it so that virtually all of the edits recently made to this article that now remain are your own? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

I withdraw the truce proposal. You refuse to face the reality of what you are doing. You use false claims (which I have documented) to justify your wholesale reverts, then you accuse others of stating falsehoods when they describe what you do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

Your stipulation was that I cease to describe your bahavior accurately. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yet another blanket revert from Everyking

I just cannot believe it. You've gone and done it again. If the "three years" reference was so significant you could have added it back without reverting the whole edit. [54] --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the whole edit and thought about it for a while—I did not initially revert it—and could see nothing that looked like an improvement; every aspect of it appeared to decrease the quality of the information and the writing. Everyking 20:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have you noticed that this is true of practically any edit anybody other than you ever does? Admit it, man, you're adopting a proprietorial attitude to this article and an attitude of "only my changes are any good."

Your commenting accompanying the change was especially revealing: "don't you think "three years is important"? why do you just remove things and never add?" Well if the three years were so important you could have added them in (as I have done in my latest edit). And it's painfully obvious this article badly needs lots of unnecessary chaff removed. In its current state it will never make it to Featured Article. Not in a million years. Not if it and the page on the GNAA were the only two articles on the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, while I reject your edits to the "making" section, I want to say that I do understand there is a problem with that section. Much of the early info is very vague and weak. I would be open to a proposal to try another subarticle on that, moving some of the detail there. Everyking 23:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it is massively bloated. You persistently revert any attempt to compress. Can you begin to understand that without some judicious editing this article will never be up to Wikipedia Featured Article standards? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe that both our concerns can be addressed through subarticles: the content is preserved, but the basic information is retained here in a more summarized and accessible form. Yet you VfDed Autobiography sales and chart positions, and that was a severe disappointment to me; I hoped that could go through without controversy. Everyking 23:46, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your decision to go to subarticles is a symptom of your apparent inability to edit this piece properly or permit anybody else to do so. As I've got plenty of other things that I can edit more productively, and people who are far more cooperative that you are, I am abandoning my attempts to edit Autobiography. It isn't worth the bother. This article will never make it to FA until you are prepared to show some maturity and let other people edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And yet another one.

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)