Talk:Keyboard Fantasies

Repeated edits
I am repeatedly baffled by your edits to this article, for numerous reasons.

Firstly, why do you keep removing information relating to the Seance reissue? Namely that it was promoted with a short film. That isn't extraneous information. In fact, it's the only information in the article regarding direct promotion of any of the reissues at all.

Secondly, despite your claims in recent edits that you're removing extraneous info, including a few tidbits about the reissue labels being connected and that one of them was based near the album's recording location, you make unsourced edits riddled with poor grammar like this one, which seems to me the same style of information you're keen to remove. There, you have information inserted before the source even though it is not found in the source. Much the same happened with this edit ("world renowed Dj soundsystem"?) Stick to what the sources say and avoid puffery.

Thirdly, its irrelevant that Discogs thinks the first reissue is from 2016 because Discogs is not a reliable source. The Resident Advisor source, a publication listed among WikiProject Albums' reliable sources here, says it was released in February 2017. If you believe that's wrong, it's up to you to introduce a new reliable source that says it was from 2016 (let alone "February 2016"), rather than change the date and keep the Resident Advisor source.

The sup script formatting, which I've never previously encountered on wikipedia, I don't understand at all but it isn't necessary. Citing with ref names is how the article is formatted, not to say most of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, it hasn't escaped my attention that this article is the only page you've ever edited, likewise with, which given the behaviour of both accounts I assume was your older account. This raises suspciion that there's a conflict of interest here. If so, it is important to disclose any COI you might have to the album.

Thanks. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You're ignoring this and continuing to edit the page in the same unconstructive fashion. I don't need to repeat myself about the 2016 Discogs date problem (RYM has it as a 2016 release too, but why should anyone else have to find a reliable source for you? You're the one insisting it change, so edit the article with a RS). And once again you've inserted the name of a record store without a source - worse, making it look like the two sources that follow include the information, when they dont. This is not constructive editing.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)