2,054,106 Pages


aka Mark Coutinho

  • I live in Kolhorn, the Netherlands
  • I was born on August 15
  • My occupation is System administrator
  • I am male

Page names

If a song is by artist A and features artist B, the correct pagename is "Artist A:Song Title" (see my reply on the help desk). New versions of songs only get separate pages if the lyrics are radically different. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:05, December 19, 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, radically... It's not that radically. Only it's a duet now, so the one time Andre Hazes sings and the other time (in this case) Gerard Joling. But that isn't enough, I understand. If so: I leave your corrections as it is.

You bot-alike editing and removal of additional lyrics

Hi Mark,

in most cases I support your edits. But many songs you've been editing were already layouted although not in "quadruple time". Please take into consideration not all songs match this scheme. I think if the lyrics are obviously already grouped, you shouldn't change that grouping unless you really know what you do. I also don't think it's sensible to remove all the punctuation on line endings, and especially additional lyrics should not be removed. The lyrics should be transscribed as sung, i. e. everything. So I don't understand why you'd for instance delete all the repetitions here. I think you're removing valuable and correct content. Why is that? - Chris 01:38, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Hi there.
I understand your remark about 'bot-like editing'. Truth is: I'm pretty fast with the keyboard/mouse and I copy/paste the lyrics from my own music program (JRiver's MediaCenter - great program!) and my comment is a pre-defined line which I can put in the box by just typing a certain key combination (using the program HotKeyboard for that - great too).
The reason I note all the words sung by artists is that in my opinion the lyrics must be usable to sing along with them. :In that I go pretty far:
- If the original lyrics are "there is" but they sing "there's" I put the latter one in the lyrics
- I put down every chorus instead of 'repeat chorus' or something like that
- quadruple: I'm pretty confident I put all the lyrics in quadruple form. In some cases that means that a sentence will be broken, but only if a hearable pause is between the words. To be clear: quadruple form means after 4 or 8 beats, depending of the song
- I'm pretty neurotic about miss-spelling, but once in a while I even miss one, especially since English isn't my native language (I'm from Holland, as you might know)
- background singers I always put between ()
Probably I'm using more rules of which I'm convinced that they help in making usable lyrics, but they don't come in mind right now.
You might have noticed too that in case someone re-corrects 'my' lyrics: in 95% of the cases I leave them be. Only when I'm certain that the correction is wrong I undo them.
The only reason for me to do so much editing is to make lyrics available and usable for other people. I have put a number of new ones too, of which I'm certain they are only to find on 1 lyrics site which I've been contributing to for a few years already: But I think LyricWiki has a bigger audience, I want to put these lyrics here too.
Let me know what you think of my story.
Take care and enjoy tonight's celebration (31st of December it is now)— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markcoutinho (talkcontribs), 09:08, December 31, 2013 (UTC).
Hi, Mark,
I hope Chris' note was overwritten with your response by mistake, thus I just restored it.
HNY! ;-) Christmas1--Senvaikis (talk) 11:16, December 31, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Senvaikis. Indeed I didn't mean to overwrite his comment. But I'm new to this site, so I have to get used to the different ways of corresponding with everyone. Isn't there a way to just chat with other users? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markcoutinho (talkcontribs), 12:52, December 31, 2013 (UTC).
Yes, there's chat room, available for all LW users (see the main pop-up menu subitem "On the Wiki/Chat"), but it doesn't seem to be very popular... ;-) Christmas1--Senvaikis (talk) 16:46, December 31, 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Please sign your messages using four symbols "~" (or click special button Button sig, titled "Your signature with timestamp", available on edit window toolbar). Thanks.
Hi Mark,
At first for the lyrics you add: when creating new pages, the formatting of the added lyrics is your territory, so to say. As long as it complies to the general formatting rules, everything's better than no lyrics. So I'm not talking about that, and of course I appreciate that by 100%.
In general, not only in your case, I am very worried and negative towards copy and over-pasting of existing lyrics. In my opinion this method highly harbours the danger of worsening lyrics, because you likely do not check your changes before you submit them. That means, you do not evaluate the changes you submit, and maybe you don't even know what you've changed with your current edit, because the editorial process consists of "select all, delete, paste". You know what I mean?
Let me stick to Benni Benassi:Cinema, since this was an example that bothered me enough to write you here.
I totally agree with you that lyrics should be optimized to sing along. I've always understood the LyricWiki formatting rules for lyrics as guidelines aiming for exactly this. But especially on that page I feel the previous version was by far better for singing along to it compared to your version. Your edit removed the echoes, it removed the punctuation that showed how the words were sung, I'm pretty sure you edited three mistakes into the lyrics, and your quadruple scheme split sections that belong together by a blank line. While I could live with the latter, I'm really very concerned about the errors. LyricWiki is very proud of its lyrical correctness, achieved by our gigantic community and probably the possibility to correct mistakes without registering. Next to featuring a lot of niche artists, our lyrical correctness is one of the outstanding qualities that make us different from other large sites. Personally, I see this quality endangered if someone blindly replaces content. I think, if you made these edits by hand, you'd maybe at least have to think about whether it's really sensible to change
Romance growin'
Like a flower in the summer
Romance roll in
Like a flower in the summer
because growing flowers make much more sense than flowers rolling in.
So as I said, you are very welcomed for adding new lyrics, and you can do that in whatever manner you like, with bots, shortcuts, hotkeys, scripts, tools, etc. as long as the page names are good and you're not creating tons of duplicates. But I kindly ask you to refrain from editing in that copy-and-paste manner, because a) I don't think the "one summary for all kinds of edits" is a good aproach to the summary because this way the summary doesn't reflect your actual changes at all, and b) because this method is seriously lacking the human review process and it destroys so much of our valuable contents if your database is erroneous or you preferred different lyric layouts. Thanks and happy new year - Chris 13:23, January 1, 2014 (UTC) Smile
I understand your point, Chris. And therefore I've changed my way of editing since yesterday. I do it now like this: I change the whole lyrics, the way I did the last couple of weeks. Then I compare my version with the previous one. If I see things of which I'm not certain, I check the song again and make the corrections which I think are relevant. Takes me way more time per song though: I intended to change some 50 songs per day so I would be ready in 1 year with all the lyrics I've got. That will be a couple of years more now :-)
Keep in touch every time you wonder about some edits I make. I believe our common goal is to achieve 100% correct lyrics! :-) --Markcoutinho (talk) 15:53, January 3, 2014 (UTC)Markcoutinho, 3-1-2013
Hi Mark,
Can you explain to me why in Bots:Zeven Dagen Lang you replaced
La la la la la lala
La la la la
La lalala la la la la la
La la la la la lala
La la la la

La lalala la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La lalala la la lala
La la la la

La lalala la la la la la
La la la la la la la la
La lalala la la lala
La la la la
La lalala la la la la la
? This is the exact opposite of what you did in Blurred Lines, where you added lots of background yells.
As Chris already pointed out, with your earliest adjustments, you made some lyrics worse than they were. Are you planning on inspecting and repairing your early changes? F.e. Boney M.:Mary's Boy Child (Oh My Lord), in which you replaced Christmas Day by Christmas day a couple of times. Or The Black Eyed Peas:Let's Get It Started in which you replaced
Let's get it started, in here...
And the bass keep runnin' runnin',
Let's get retarded in here
And the base keep runnin', runnin'
Personally, I do not see why you would take on such a big project, and adjust all the lyrics on the wiki for which you also have lyrics. The lyrics on LW are already of high quality, several people have worked on them. I do not understand your quadruple logic, we all follow the lyricwiki naming policy LyricWiki:Page Names, and that is not a part of it. When I look at f.e. Bonnie Tyler:Total Eclipse Of The Heart I think it looked better the way it was before. But if the admins think it's OK, then it's OK.
I want to tell you I am very happy with all your new additions!
Have fun on the wiki, cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 07:34, January 5, 2014 (UTC) a fellow Dutchie
Hi Marjon. The reason for me to change la la la la etc. in Bots's song is quite simple: as long as the la's are a replacement of the actual chorus I believe a simple lalala... is enough for people to understand that they can follow the chorus' canvas.
The quadruple thing: like I told Chris it means after 4 or 8 beats, depending of the song. I've looked it up in the LW:PN section, but I can't find a thing about this in there. If there is: please show me, so I can read them.
After Chris's remarks I've quit the bot-like editing - since then I'm doing it the way I told Chris.
I understand may corrections have been made on many songs and for that I should be careful with just replacing them. So I do lately. In fact: I benefit of some of them and see that my version contains some mistakes.
In case you don't agree with my corrections: feel free to undo them. As I told Chris: in generally I leave these 'corrected corrections' untouched.
Kind greetings from Kolhorn, Netherlands! Keep in touch, Marjon! :-) --Markcoutinho (talk) 08:26, January 5, 2014 (UTC)Markcoutinho, 09:26, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mark, yes, that is what I said, that our naming policy says nothing at all about applying any quadruple logic. Like Chris did before me, I want to ask you to, if the lyrics are already grouped, not change that grouping. Please trust that the people before you knew what they were doing.
You say "In case you don't agree with my corrections: feel free to undo them.". Does this mean that you have no intention to clear up the mistakes that you created yourself? Because I think you should.
You made some alterations to remove parts of words that you say are not sung. F.e. in Bot's Zeven dagen lang you replaced "Sla het vat maar aan!" by ", sla 't vat maar aan". But "het" is a syllable that is sung, it is part of the song metric. And I also disagree with you removing the lalala bits.
So, again, I would wish for you to leave good lyrics alone.
Cheers, all the best from Utrecht, --MarjonW (talk) 09:10, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Hi Marjon,
I've changed back Bots' lyrics, although it's not what I think they should be.
Because that is my opinion, I understand there are other people that have another. And because I don't like arguing about subjective matters, I won't.
But this is also the reason for me to quit contributing to this site. I want to feel free to do this without being corrected/asked about them. Again: I don't think my point of view is the right one, but I don't want to argue about them too much.
It's a pity though because I am sure I was to add some 2,500 lyrics to the site which are not to be found anywhere else but on the site I've been contributing to for years now ( I just stick to that site.
No hard feelings, though. I wish you, Chris and anyone else here good luck on the great job you're doing: sharing lyrics for anyone who's looking for them.
Hi Mark, Thank you for your contributions, what a pity you do not like it here, but yes we argue here about lyrics because we care so much about them :) All the best, --MarjonW (talk) 11:39, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
Hi Marjon. I didn't say I don't like it here - I just said I don't want to get involved in arguments about subjective items. And that's just the case here.
By the way, I forgot to say: I will undo all my edits in the next couple of weeks, just to make sure for you guys that lyrics that already were good haven't been altered. Will be quite a job for me, though, but I feel obliged to do so.
Again: no hard feelings!
Great, thank you for that! Maybe I come across as nitpicky but I want this site to be good, that's all! All the best on Lyricsvault, groetjes uit Utrecht, --MarjonW (talk) 12:01, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think you're nitpicky. At least not nitpickier than I am :-)
Hi Mark, I see you are now semi-automatically undoing all your earlier semi-automatic changes. I guess that is the best option, a manual inspection of all changes is just too big a project for any one person. It is great that you are willing to do this - but, I imagine, not the nicest job to do. But this is something I could do too. Do you need any help? I see you are working your way through the A's now. Shall I do the B's? I would not touch the changes for which a newer change by someone else has already been made. And I would not do this for the latest ones, where you used a different method. I will not do anything unless you say it's OK I do this. Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 18:00, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
No, Marjon, thanks for your offer, but leave it be - I'll do it myself. While reversing lyrics I've bumped into some lyrics of mine that weren't good (enough). If I bump in such ones I play the song again and compare it with the version that I'm about to reverse to. So I don't mind doing it at all: I benefit of it actually :-)

These edits were the ones I did in the beginning without checking. In the end I did it WITH checking so I was able to do that re-editing if necessary. (hope you understand what I mean).

Well, it's good to know you don't mind it, looks like a chore to me :) Have fun then, I will let you to it! Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 18:11, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Dutch lyrics

Hi Mark! I've just seen that you are from Holland an I need someone speaking Dutch. I'v found a source for Reinhard Mey's Dutch version of one of his songs Reinhard Mey:Ik Wou Zoals Orpheus Zingen. Then I remarked that there are missing some lines. I can understand some written Dutch, but I can't spell it. Would you be so kind and complete the lyrics?

Have a happy New Year! --Ignor-the-ant (talk) 22:22, January 1, 2014 (UTC)

Btw: Your name sounds Portuguese. Does your family come from Portugal? I'm doing also a lot of lyrics in Portuguese language, bot mostly from Brazil.

Done that, Ignor! No problem. My family does not come from Portugal. Yeah, a couple of centuries ago, I guess :-) Since you can speak Portugues fluently: I've got a request for you. I want to transcribe the lyrics of Johnny & Orquesta Rodrigues - Hasibaba. I can't find them nowhere and I don't speak Portuguese at all. Would you be so kind to transcribe them for me? If you can't find the song I can send it to you. --Markcoutinho (talk) 11:57, January 2, 2014 (UTC)Markcoutinho, 2-1-2014

Say, Ignor, did you read my request? If so: are you willing to give it a go for me as a return favour?

Please stay

Hi Mark,

I've never done this before and probably never will again, but I'm kindly asking you whether it might not be possible for you to stay.

You know, you're new to this site so some of your accustomed practices do not fit to ours. I think when we come here to discuss these differences that is the normal procedure to equalize our different styles. We come here and ask you about this change and that change because we're used to our style and want to keep the whole website's appearance consistent.

I can't compare our manner of achieving that to other projects, because I've never contributed to any other site, but I know that a lot of pages in LyricWiki have been created by people who are simply passionate about the content of these pages, so naturally they want to discuss all non-corrective changes like markup or line break changes. We are all caring about the pages we've contributed to, so (opposed to other sites?) someone will notice and care about changes to his/her 50-times optimized layout.

But: from my experience, I know that these discussions are not the normality though, and they'll decrease the longer you continue to edit. For example your quadruple scheme: by the time you'll get used to how lyrics are usually formatted around here (they are grouped more logically than mathematically) and you'll be able to apply these scheme to your contributions, although they do not match your personal database's preference. Once you've adapted our "unwritten formatting rules", the discussions about your formatting will certainly decrease a lot. It's not like you're going to be asked to confirm each edit all the time. Imagine I had been asked to do that for my +125k edits - I'd not be here anymore.

As I said, I've never before directly asked a user to stay, but I feel very sorry for you leaving again so quickly, because I actually think you'll be a great contributor to this site: you've got plans for the future, you're willing to adapt to our rules, you're (now) diligent regarding your changes, you've got a good will to enhance our contents, you're capable of several languages, and so on and so on. So once again, I can only encourage you to continue editing and don't be disheartened by the fact that some of us are bit fussy about foreign influences to "our" lyrics pages (maternal instinct and such Wink). Since you quit editing multiple pages per minute, you'll also not run into a situation where 3 different people are asking you about the same things and it'll be easy to update or rework things, because after one day you don't have to review 400 pages, but 20-25 which is acceptable, you know?

Greetings, Chris 00:54, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark,
I fully agree with Chris, please do stay! Chris, well put! I may come across a bit blunt sometimes (even according to Dutch standards ;) ) but I too want to stress that I valuate your contributions very much!
Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 07:05, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris and Marjon. I appreciate your request. As you say I don't mind adjusting to existing rules - in fact I replied positively to some remarks of you guys concerning my edit habits. However: the quadruple thing isnt't 'documented' in the rules. And while undoing my edits I see a lot of lyrics coming back with nowhere near any logic schemes in them. Opposite of that: In the last 8 years I've rechecked my own 15,000 lyrics twice (by listening to the songs) and one thing I'm sure of: my way of quadrupling songs is very, very consistent. Like I said before somewhere: a line should be 4 or 8 beats (1 or 2 bars) and after that a new line should begin. Of course one or two words can cross that line for natural reasons, but that's just it. If you're talking objective definitions or rules: I'd say the way I put it is very objective and clear. I already adjusted my botlike editing before and I must say I'm glad I'm did. Because (also now with undoing my edits) I see that not all my own lyrics have the right words. So I know by now for sure that even I am not perfect :-) No, seriously, I'm very glad with that way of contributing: it forces me to check/listen the song again and compare the Wiki-lyrics to mine and get the best out of it.

So, that's no problem to keep on doing in my edits, if I decide to come back in again, but the quadruple thing: no way I'm gonna adjust that for the reasons I told you guys before. Check yourself some songs and see there's no consistency in them whatsoever. You may or may not agree with my style, but you can't say that it's inconsistent.

Hope to hear from you guys! (girl) --Markcoutinho (talk) 15:05, January 15, 2014 (UTC)Markcoutinho, 16:05, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I'm sorry if I was unclear about what I meant with consistent. I can really imagine your quad-scheme itself is very consistent, and I really didn't mean to question this. What I meant to say is that your personal lyrics database of 15,000 lyrics (which is an impressive amount btw) is nevertheless a small number compared to the total amount of all lyrics hosted here (~ 1.32 million).
(N.B.: I'll use the term "arranged" from here on to describe the state of lyrics where linebreaks have been deliberately inserted to give them a certain structure, be it your quad-scheme or anything else.)
It is true that there are many unarranged lyrics, yet there is also a lot of arranged lyrics. From what I know these arrangements are usually not compliant to a strict quad-scheme. They are rather based on a quad-scheme and then enhanced* through minor modifications regarding optical and/or syntactical aspects. Most of the lyrics to popular music have already been arranged by someone. If you now start to degrade* these arrangements back to the quad-scheme again, that might fit to your database but not to ours where all other arranged lyrics are formatted in that enhanced* quad-scheme.
I think all of us agree on that you're absolutely free to put unarranged lyrics into any sensible scheme, including your quad-scheme, because everything is better than unformatted lyrics. Of course also your new pages can be formatted whatever you like. All we're asking for is to leave lyrics' arrangements as they are if they were already arranged by someone else beforehand.
To put it in a nutshell: feel free to arrange a) new, b) all-lyrics-in-one-line, and c) all-lines-as-the-only-paragraph pages in your quad-scheme. Just please do not adjust the linebreaks of arranged lyrics.
Thanks for joining the debate, Chris 20:47, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
P.S.: If you come across any example where you think your quad-scheme is superior to the otherwise applied one, please let me know.
* from the POV of who made the modifications to the quad-scheme.

I understand what you mean, Chris, and I have decided to stay, as you and Marjon requested. First I will keep on undoing my former (non-checked, robotlike) contributions and then restart my contributions. As for the quadruple thing: I leave them be when I see that they've been changed in the process. Although I've seen quite a few the last two weeks that really don't make any sense. Inconsistent withing the song itself. Some of them look really ridiculous. But I know I'm just one man and like in football: "no person should be placed higher than the team" and I respect that. Hope to talk to you guys more about what we like so much: making good lyrics!--Markcoutinho (talk) 19:29, January 19, 2014 (UTC)markcoutinho

Nice :) --MarjonW (talk) 07:02, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
I'm thrilled for these good news. As I said, please show me those examples that are inconsistent and look ridiculous. I'd like to check whether these have been layouted or just contain random linebreaks.
Btw: here's an example that I think looks weird if layouted in quad-scheme because the refrain is either 6 lines long and would be split into 4+2, or it would be awkwardly ragged if they are actually splitted at the marks. Some of the sentences would be torn apart if you'd insert linebreaks or even a full paragraph at the exact beats. Nevertheless I'm interested in how your quad-scheme version would look like in this case, maybe you can put a layouted copy on a sandbox subpage as show case Smile. Thanks, Chris 01:03, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Now that is an example that wouldn't fit in 'my' scheme, Chris :-) But as far as my theoretical knowledge of music goes it's caused by the fact that the song isn't written in quadruple format. It's more like a tango-rhythm. I don't have the song myself, let alone that I have re-arranged the lyrics. But when I wanted to give it a go for your sake I soon noticed that this song is the well-known exception to the rule.

The quad-scheme can also be very difficult with rap songs. When they're too difficult to match the beats I usually tend to stick to the lines that rhyme (if you understand what I mean). Keep in touch! --Markcoutinho (talk) 19:49, January 23, 2014 (UTC)Markcoutinho

YouTube embedding/no.1 templates

Hello Mark. I've noticed you've been adding YouTube embed and No. 1 templates to song pages, which is great. But since I don't have time to go and fix all of your edits now, I just want to let you know that the YouTube embed template goes above all of the other song badges, and the No. 1 template goes above the WP-Song badge. It's not in the rules or anything afaik but that's generally how song pages are formatted in regards to that. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)10:44, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! A couple of questions though: - Above all other song badges, you say. Does that mean the Youtube-embedment (?) should be the first one after that initial line with song title and album? - WP-song badge: just out of curiosity: what does that mean? - is the WP-song badge in every song represented? I thought I noticed sometimes it's not there

Let me know! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markcoutinho (talkcontribs).

Hi there, here is some help for using the song badges. It shows their recommended order too. Hope this can help you! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 13:31, June 2, 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, thank you 123F. Refer to that, Mark, and that should answer things. If it wouldn't be that much of a hassle to go back and fix all of your edits to be in line with that, that would be great.
Also, to your WP-Song question - not all songs have Wikipedia pages, so the template is only applicable for songs that do. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:42, June 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to go back to these mistakes, XxT, but that'll be quite some work finding out which ones. Do you by any chance have a list which songs should be re-edited? --Markcoutinho (talk) 06:40, June 4, 2014 (UTC)Markcoutinho

You really expected for me to keep track of all of them? Tongue Nah, I don't. But seeing as how you took the time to go back and fix all of the songs you made the "quadruple time" edits to, I figure this couldn't be that hard for you either.
Also, please just call me Nic or Nicolas :) XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)10:55, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it was worth trying :-) Anyhow, you're right: I can and will redo them all. I'll take it from here - no worries. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markcoutinho (talkcontribs).

Just checking if I get the 'assign' thing right now: --Mark Coutinho (talk) 10:12, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

You don't get the unassigned template automatically - someone puts it there for you. In the past few cases, OneTwoThreeFall and I put it there for you. Just always remember to sign with four tildes and you won't have to worry about that. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)17:25, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Got it! Like this: --Markcoutinho (talk) 18:51, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

New userbox for all Dutchies

Hey Mark, I've created a new userbox for all Dutchies :) To use this userbox, insert { { Userboxes/Nationality/Dutch } }. This will place your page in Category:Users from the Netherlands. Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 07:34, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great, Marjon, but... where/how do I fit in this insert? --Markcoutinho (talk) 07:51, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
On your profile page (just look at mine or others who have userboxes on them, press edit to see the source code) Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 08:31, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
Guess I did do that right, didn't I? (please check) --Markcoutinho (talk) 09:26, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
Yup! Except I added some spaced between the brackets on this talk page, which I took the liberty of removing from your profile page :) Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 10:31, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) --MarjonW (talk) 16:25, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

It's such a great song! Do you know it? --Markcoutinho (talk) 17:48, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Yep, had it on cassette tape, which is now digitized ;) --MarjonW (talk) 19:23, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Take away your money makers!

Get rid of annoying banners!

Message to Wikia staff: Please get rid of these banners!!

Andre Moss vs André Moss

Hi Mark, please make sure that you got the spelling of an artist right (or any page name, for that matter) before publishing it. There are only very few technical restrictions when it comes to page names. An accent above an e isn't one of them. Thx and happy editing,  · Lichtweber talk service  17:38, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Lichtweber, I will make sure to be more on that! --Markcoutinho (talk) 06:46, November 4, 2014 (UTC)


I don't know how many edits like this you've done, but they all need to be corrected. ES (talk) 07:47, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. What's wrong with this page? I'll stop making them until I receive your answer and just stick to adding Youtube links on other pages, because I want to do things the right way. --Markcoutinho (talk) 07:54, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting with a blank SF, instead of saving a bunch of bogus params in SF then wiping them in the next edit. Adding yt doesn't need 2 edits. hth ES (talk) 08:13, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean, ES. I use a template to make a new page. I've put the footer categories in it (fake ones) for helping me to remember the right way of writing them; especially in the beginning I've done some of them wrong. I always remove them afterwards and take it from there to find other categories like these and Youtube etc. I didn't realize that was against the rules or something. I'm sorry if I offended you or the rules with my way of handling this. As I already know by now the right way of notation (if that is the right word) I'll change my template to a blank one. I've done it as we 'speak'. As for the 'adding yt doesn't need 2 edits': for me it's quite necessary to do it this way to avoid RSI in my arm. After I've published the song I've made a macro that will search all necessary categories with just a few keystrokes. This macro highlights the title and artist, copies it and opens 6 webpages of the different sites (YT, Musicbrainz, Allmusic etc). I hope you don't consider that much of a problem. If you want me to correct something, I'll be happy to do that (well, sort of ;-). I only mean to make this site a place with clean lyrics with as much as correct categories as possible. --Markcoutinho (talk) 08:36, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

In the two exmples I showed you above you create 3 edits when one is sufficient: create new page with yt param filled!
I insert 15 Albums in a page in one edit, and my arm hasn't fallen off yet, I am sure you can do something similar. Whatever tool you are using, you can use it more elegantly and intelligently. So it is not cool to create a page
  1. that contains garbage :edit 1
  2. garbage is removed : edit 2
  3. another param is added (yt): edit 3
I'll let you figure out how you achieve the task. hth ES (talk) 09:24, December 3, 2014 (UTC)
@M: Please, don't understand ES literally, (his sample wasn't the best choice of page formatting model to be followed, imo). I think he just wanted to show how the number of edits may be remarkably reduced. But sometimes it's better to make 15 times more edits, if they leave 15 times less garbage on the page :)
@ES: take it easy ;) (if you find my jokes little impolite, I have a slight extenuation: just had a sleepless night...)
cheers --Senvaikis (talk) 10:11, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you are angry or not - I thought I made my intentions clear and also the reason why I do the things I do. I'd like to keep this conversation polite. As I said: I already wiped my template. I did one with that just a minute ago: Take a look at that one - is that okay with you? I do want to persist in a 2-edit way, as I run this macro for 6 pages (in the case of this last song it just resulted in one link of Musicbrainz). I have a history of RSI so I do want to mouse click as little as possible. In my opinion there are too many songs published that look horrible (punctuation, capitalization, no lines between verses etc.) AND it would be nice if people who publish songs take the time to search for all categories, like I do. --Markcoutinho (talk) 10:22, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it's ok. And great thanks for your tireless job, adding eyts.
Let me use this ocasion to ask you one question. Don't know if you've ever seen that, but once (long time ago) I used to check yt links availability on LW. Results were very sad: only 58% of yt links didn't have any restrictions atm of validation. All other were either denied on some countries, or allowed only in limited list of countries, or unembeddable. Do you check "media:restriction" field before adding a new eyt? I'm asking that, 'cause some of eyts, added by you, do have some restrictions. So, ES hardly will see any video on Björk:Army Of Me page, 'cause it contains eyt, restricted by "<media:restriction type="country" relationship="deny">US GB DE CA IS</media:restriction>"; yt for The Beatles:Beatles Movie Medley is unembeddable at all (<yt:noembed/>). Let me know, if you haven't done such validation and want me(Lwt) to repeat it.
Btw, just curious - what kind of macroses are you using? Regards, --Senvaikis (talk) 11:57, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, jeez... I didn't realize that restriction thing on Youtube. So I'm afraid to say I definitely haven't checked that with all the links I've added. I start doing that from now on.

I don't understand what you mean with 'want me(Lwt) to repeat it'. Could you explain that to me?
about what you were saying about ES's remarks to me. In general I can handle criticism very good - I know I'm not perfect and I am always willing to adjust my behaviour or correct mistakes (like you've experienced some months ago). It's just that I don't like it if people (whoever) questions my integrity.

This, apart from the fact that I don't have a clue what the problem of 1, 2 or 3 edits more or less to a file is. Maybe because it fills up the database with non-info?

For your curiosity :-) I use a tool called HotKeyboard to record keystrokes and mouse actions. If you want more information I'll be more than happy to tell you about it, 'cause I'm a big fan of this nifty little piece of software.

--Markcoutinho (talk) 12:41, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

When immediately upon creation of a page it needs to be edited to remove garbage that shouldn't have been there at all...There is room for improvement! That you are using a tool makes it even less justifiable.
Now my turn to be curious; how do you find out the yt string for a song page? tia
ES (talk) 13:30, December 3, 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
  • " repeat it": sorry for my English, - just wanted to say, that if you haven't validated your yts, Lwt could make that for you, i.e. - "repeat the same validation (mentioned above)" at least for those eyts, added by you (Lwt counted 12373 your edits, starting from 29/12/2013, with comments, containing "Added Youtube link").
  • criticism: that's nice to hear that you handle it very good, moreover that ES' note does make sense - if you may avoid redundant edit, - please, - avoid :)
  • curiosity wasn't aimless - if you were using js, vbs or vba, it would be possible to write an additional sub for such validation. I do believe that HK may be very usefull (in a good hands), but I doubt if it may be used for such task :)
  • more curiosity: if you decide to request mentioned validation, I'd like to know, what format (text csv, xml, Excel...) of results would you prefer (Excel is best for me).
--Senvaikis (talk) 13:40, December 3, 2014 (UTC)
P.S. @ES: Again curiosity: was I right regarding Björk? :)

Guys, I already told I got rid of the template with fake categories - I admit that I could have gotten rid of that some weeks ago, since I really started adding songs. My apologies again - you were completely right.

Senvaikis: I guess that Lwt is some sort of magic machine of yours? ;-) So if I understand you well: you suggest that you run a check on my links? Fine by me and (if possible) I'm more than willing to replace/remove the links that contain country restriction, because...
I've added a check-function to my macro every time I add a Youtube link. This function checks on this site whether there is a restriction. It was quite easy to program in HotKeyboard, by the way :-) (it's such a great tool - you should take a look at it!)
@EchoSierra: I find the Youtube string like this: highlight the artist:title; copy paste this to the Youtube link; check the results: take the best result (if possible not the live version but the studio version). So this latter step is always done with my eyes
I want to add that I will persist in my way of 'work' when adding a song: first I'll add the lyrics and album - then save it. And after that search for the next categories: goear;asin;itunes;musicbrainz;allmusic and Youtube. As you might have noticed I do a lot of editing and I don't ever want to be injured again with RSI. I would appreciate it if you guys wouldn't mind doing me so.

--Markcoutinho (talk) 14:08, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Yes Senv, Björk is dead here in Canada. I have only ever added a handful of yt links, I do recall the time that you originally checked yt (and WP-Song) and found most of them needing maintenance, not exactly fire & forget ;)
@Mark I'd recommend making edits that stick, (SF/SH params, punctuation), yt is not a particularly useful one, and I see other editors continuously redoing yt links.
If you are using a tool that requires n edits (saves) for n params, and you already know that n params need being added on your own newly created pages... umm don't you see what is wrong with that picture? Do you spend your weekend taking 6 trips to the grocery store when on friday night you know you need 6 items to buy?! Please... this has nothing to do with RSI. Compile the edits into local storage before slapping it on site.ES (talk) 14:54, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it another go in trying to figure out a way to do an edit in one take, ES. You definitely got a point there, but I've tried it several times to do it like that but it never came out just right (with the right title and/or results).

what are SF/SH params? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markcoutinho (talkcontribs).
@M:Relax and don't let be "fooled" by ES, - that's just such a style of cooperating - requesting from any partner depending on his abilities (btw, - very effective approach, I'm using it also ;)). So, you may be even proud - that means that your rating is high enough in ES' "ranking" scale ;) Actually anyone can't blaim you for making one sensible change per edit, if that's more convenient to you for some reasons. --Senvaikis (talk) 16:05, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

(small hour later) I got it! I finally found a way to do a publication in one edit with all the categories checked! And, what's even better: it saves me some mouse clicks and key strokes! I'm a happy man. Thanks, ES, for 'pushing me to the limit' :-) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markcoutinho (talkcontribs).

  • Lol, - what I told you about "effective approach"?. Works! :)
  • If it's still actual, - SF/SH are {{SongFooter}}/{{SongHeader}}.
  • What about formats?
  • What about signing your msgs? :)
--Senvaikis (talk) 17:17, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean with 'formats', Senvaikis? --Markcoutinho (talk) 17:47, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Reread my post above (#"more curiosity") --Senvaikis (talk) 18:11, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Excel is fine with me, although I'm not sure what 'request mentioned validation' means --Markcoutinho (talk) 19:32, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

done Right now Lwt has finished validation, "requested" by you :). Results - in Excell file Marcutinho YTs1.xlsx and summary chart.
nite, --Senvaikis (talk) 21:33, December 3, 2014 (UTC)
closing this ticket Great! Perfect edits. Much improvements in a mere 24 hrs! Meanwhile Senv as usual sets an excellent example in cooperation. happy editing ES (talk) 07:11, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Billy Joe's album

Hi mark, Give me the old name and the new name, so I can change it ES (talk) 09:26, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

This is the current place, ES:
And this is what it's supposed to be named:Unshaven: Live At Smith's Olde Bar (1995), but apparantly that's not possible. That name is used on the artist's homepage (whoever put down all these albums there without making these album pages at all...).

Enough information for you to handle this? Cheers! --Markcoutinho (talk) 09:31, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Senv cooked it! ES (talk) 09:36, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
Indeed :-)

--Markcoutinho (talk) 09:41, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Caps within lyrics, bracketed

not sure about this --ES (talk) 21:46, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Actually it's in my opinion quite simpel: every backing vocal is the start of a new sentence, whether he/she sings just one word or more. But, as I said, I see what you mean. I start questioning my opinion myself. Because: if a backing vocal is treated like that, the main vocals could be considered the same. However: one would get something like this (lyrics from my imagination ;-)

A) I know you are (Are) The one I love (Love) But then (Yes?) Again, you (Me?) Are my dove

Writing it like that is quite silly, indeed.

So far I've treated these kind of lyrics like this:

B) I know you are (Are) the one I love (Love) But then (Yes?) again, you (Me?) are my dove

Keeping the backings all lower case doesn't seem natural to me:

C) I know you are (are) the one I love (love) But then (yes?) again, you (me?) are my dove

What would your suggestion be? Keep in touch!--Markcoutinho (talk) 22:37, December 9, 2014 (UTC)

Mark, what is actually in brackets, and entered by Userbot (a BOT), and inicapped by you is not sung; neither in the ytvideo linked on the page, nor on the copy of the song that I have. The preceding statement is not my mere opinion. I would suggest listening to the song, correcting the song to what is being sung, and maybe even providing a video that matches your claim on backing vocals. With or without your inicapping, that page needs correction.
Further, if the song exists in multiple versions with and without backing vocals, don't you think it's best to simply provide the lyrics for the pure unadulterated version? Backing vocals are more like instrumentation than lyrics; I doubt the lyricist had such adornments in mind when they wrote it.
Again, why not stick with solid uncontroversial edits?

Wisdom consists of knowing when to avoid perfection. --anon

cheers ES (talk) 00:55, December 10, 2014 (UTC)

You're right - in this case the bracket-things had nothing to do with the song. I changed the lyrics entirely - by listening to the Youtube version and transcribing it line by line.

Great quote of yours: 'wisdom... perfection': that's one I should live more to (no cynism). Would make my life easier.

--Markcoutinho (talk) 07:54, December 10, 2014 (UTC)

We have a smarter Janitor

added item to 'other song' section ONE At A Time, is garbage editing, Ever heard of Janitor? ES (talk) 08:10, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

No, never heard of. I thought it was a person who checked orphaned songs. And therefor I've done my very best to not leave orphans around by adding a song to the 'Other songs' every time I publish a song that belongs there. So if I understand it right, I don't need to do that? LYRIC-Janitor does that for me instead? --Markcoutinho (talk) 12:29, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Take some time off, Mark

Last Warning Mark. Your edits are garbage, study your own edits find and understand what is wrong with them, come back after the weekend. You are a Sysadmin apparently, use your learning skills. Test what you are doing in small scale before applying it in Industrial scale. ES (talk) 17:59, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Dear ES. I really do not understand what is wrong with my edits. I take it you mean the Bobbie Gentry ones. In my opinion I leave them as clean as can be with as much extra info as I can find (allmusic, yt, goear etc) with it. If you mean the fact that once in a while I oversee a mistake, like a capitalization of the album or title... If that is the problem, well, then I really should quit helping this site make a better place for lyrics to be found. I do make mistakes sometimes, just like anyone else does. In my opinion there are lots and lots of publications on the site that are really garbage, to use your words.

But if you think it's more important to leave the edits on a minimum than to have complete and clean lyrics, you should say so.

Please, keep your tone polite if you answer me - I would appreciate that. My only aim is to be cooperative. --Markcoutinho (talk) 18:15, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

(Post edit conflict)

Block notice

Icon - Stop HandFor incorrect and damaging edits on song and artist pages, insufficient knowledge of tools wielded, insufficient knowledge of the working of LW
This has resulted in a 4 Days suspension of your account by EchoSierra.
Please note that after expiry of the block, after the first vandalizing act you will be blocked without further notice.
If you disagree with this suspension please notify the blocking administrator or the LyricWiki staff by placing {{Unblock|reason=Your Reason Here}} on this page (your talk page).
  1. Please take this timeout to study your own recent edits of the past two weeks, learn how to edit manually correctly, before applying mediocre edits in a grand scale.
  2. The No. 1 overseer of every editor should be that editor, not admin staff.
  3. You can also test your tool by applying it in pages you create in your sandbox. You are still having issues with capitalisation of templates that you edit, turns a blue link into a red link....wah! Please test!
  4. Look at the History of any of the pages you edited, notice the activities of User:LYRIC-Janitor on nearly every artist page on site? It should have occurred to you that if LW had no means of attaching newly created album and song pages to Artist pages, then there should be tens of thousands of orphaned pages scattered all over the place.. take a trip to Special:LonelyPages...Anything notable? Take a trip over to Category:Homeless Songpage... Nothing about the work categories at LW is hidden, We have a slew of special pages that deal with special issues. We have lists created for problem pages that cannot be automatically categorized so interested parties like you and me and my fellow admins can deal with those problems, hopefully without creating new problems.
  5. I highly recommend that you pick a work category and apply your skills there. Which one? Take the time to familiarize yourself with the site and appreciate the work categories, you will find something that you can sink your teeth into!
  6. You are not required to make large scale edits, but before you do, it is your responsibility to make sure that you can manually edit correctly, and most important learn from your own mistakes. All of your newbie-ish questionable edits would have been forgivable from any editor for a while and at a small scale, we all make mistakes before we really learn. Perfect your tool and your technique before wielding it at high speed and large scale.
  7. It is infinitely preferable that questions are asked first, rather than apologies being offered later.

Have a peaceful weekend! I sincerely hope that we won't have to rehash any of the above again. Go kick up a storm in your sandbox when you come back!

Be warned: further neglect of the consequences of running untested script / key stroke simulator / on pages will get your account suspended.
ES (talk) 19:45, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, EchoSierra - I like the way you explain things to me; I would have liked you to address to me in that way in earlier posts - it's so much nicer. I understand a site like this needs people like you - in fact you people are necessary on it, otherwise things could turn out as a real mess.

We differ, however, on which way to look at things. My opinion is: look at the end result of something someone edits/posts and not at the way that leads to it. Almost every edit I've made ends up clean. In fact, apparantly, I've been too eager being picky on my own edits, by adding albums and songs to avoid being them orphaned.

The way I look at your work as an admin, you approach it in a different manner as just stated: just warning and in a way occusing me, instead of asking about things and helping me out and being thankful for all the effort I put in it (although thankfulness is not what I'm looking for - it's just my opinion on how to keep people motivated). Senvaikis has done this once in a while and I appreciated that very much. Because, and that's the main reason: my aim is to get this site filled with clean lyrics. I've always been co-operative and positive, as far as I'm aware of. Heck, I did even undo lots of edits in the beginning (a year ago and recently) after Senvaikis asked me to. No worries at all. My aim (clean lyrics all over) is of course something that never can be fulfilled, but my way of working (lots of semi-automated edits) makes it more possible than taking it easier/slower. Again: the result is always clean and good. Well, almost always.

I too do copy/paste lyrics from other sites. But inbetween copying and pasting I re-edit/clean them. And that, I must say, is something that's hardly done by other contributors. The pages I've bumped into containing wrong punctuation, capitalization, formatting, or even chords (!) is quite big. If I were you I'd focus on that.
I've got a feeling we keep on differing on opinions, so I call it quits with my contributions - you're the boss and I'm just a passer-by. I've had a nice time doing them and hope people will enjoy them. In the meantime I wish you and the other admins success with your hobby/work.
I'd appreciate it if you say hi to Senvaikis from me. I've enjoyed working with him.
No hard feelings here - just disappointment.

--Markcoutinho (talk) 07:24, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mark, - no need to delegate your hi's - I'm here :). Just jumped in for a second (bussy atm) to persuade you not to take any quick decisions. All we are making mistakes, including me or ES. Just editing mistakes are easier to fix, compared to other mistakes ;) So, please, - let's try to be cool, let's try to communicate positivelly and collaborate for the welfare of LW, and let's try to have more fun from all that. About mistakes - later...
cu later, --Senvaikis (talk) 09:55, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
Hi Senvaikis. I'm willing to hold my horses for a bit, but I guess you and EchoSierra have to sort things out on this issue first. I've written my point of view on this all (summarized: the most important thing is what is published in the end and not how many edits it took) and as far as I can judge I think you guys have to level on that.
The fun-part you're talking about has gone out of my mind since these warnings, bans and blocks. I've felt haunted by ES since two weeks whilst I've only got good intentions.
For now I'll leave the 'line' open and check on this Talk once in awhile.

--Markcoutinho (talk) 11:24, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hope you understood already that we've tried to "sort things", at least partially - your block has been cancelled, as you may see. I realize that's not a big consolation, but anyways I bring my apologies for this not very adequate block.
--Senvaikis (talk) 12:52, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for intervening, Senvaikis. Indeed, a light consolation, because I'm still not sure where we (you, me and EchoSierra) stand in this discussion. For now I'll take it very, very easy on my contributions. Hope we can find a way that works for us all.
In fact, I just REALLY noticed the Preview button. I never really took notice of that. If I start using that button, that would be a big step in ES direction, I'd say.

--Markcoutinho (talk) 13:24, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

Could you unblock this ip-address too, Senvaikis? --Markcoutinho (talk) 16:52, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

First of all - that was ES, who cancelled your block, - not me :). Second - sorry, but I don't know what IP you are talking about...--Senvaikis (talk) 18:27, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
We're almost a week further, guys, and I was wondering: is there any progress on the discussion about editing and mistakes? Senvaikis said: "About mistakes - later...". Would you share your comment on that with us, Senvaikis?
My opinion is: a few edits more on a page is to be preferred over a page that is incorrect or incomplete. If I understand right, EchoSierra doesn't agree on that.
As you might've noticed I've cut down my contributions to an absolute minimum, waiting for this matter to be cleared.
Awaiting your kind response, --Markcoutinho (talk) 08:32, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Mark,
If you are waiting for some further discussion about the style of editing, I'm afraid you could wait too long ;) - actually would be better to close finally this ticket and continue the normal job :)
But if you insist, I may repeat once more: nobody can blame you for making one sensible change per edit". Just I hope you understand, that uppercasing one letter per edit isn't an attribute of proficient editing, especially when this uppercasing is wrong ("the"->"The" in The same should be said about edit, resulting only with inessential empty lines adding/removing.
But when I was speaking about mistakes, I've meant mistakes of different kind - invalid spotify IDs, added by you to multiple pages. You definitely should recheck your "spotify ID searching engine" - I failed to find where these invalid spotify IDs have been taken from. And even that isn't the main mistake for editor. The main mistake is to not even notice, that your edits were wrong and have been updated ;)
So, my advice would be simple: don't forget about lw:docs, study other users editing experience and more often take a look at your own contributions history.
Resuming I'd suggested once again: let's close this thread and continue our normal collaborative job. (Such messages as this are taking too much time from me, with my "English" ;))
Happy editing, --Senvaikis (talk) 12:39, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.