User talk:-5-/Archive 2

Band members
It's not mandatory at all to have these sections. A lot of band articles don't have them. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The NME website has a few of their song reviews up, as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can probably put up Riot Act for a GA nomination at this point if you want. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Five
First off, thanks very much for bringing this to my attention. I spent a long time looking for little details that gave him away, so to validate my expended energy I'm gonna write about how great I am at doing this crap: As we all know, BBHS has difficult spelling certain English words (i.e. ). I'm guessing his early music and discog. editing gave it away to you too, right? And the fact that he knew straight away how to do complex references on the Norwegian related articles. Oh well, great catch Five and thanks very much for bringing this to my attention! :-) Cheers and take care! Scarian  Call me Pat!  03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for February 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits Are Not Vandalism
I do not think my "unconstructive", as you put it, edits are vandalism, in any sense of the word. They are simply correct. The Mainstream Rock Tracks chart used to be called the Album Rock Tracks, such as the time period "Black Hole Sun" and "Daughter"(1993/1994) were both released in. I'm simply adding factual information. It was NOT called the Mainstream Rock Tracks at the time, it was called the Album Rock Tracks, so I edited it as such, and I do not appreciate my edits being removed. Check the facts on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks page before you remove my edits. Thank you. --99.254.221.155 (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Still Regarding The Articles
I'm sorry, didn't mean to snap. Honest mistake. I just wanted to make the articles a little more accurate. For example, for the "Mainstream Rock" singles from 1981 to April 1986, I re-edited it to "Rock Tracks", because that was the chart's name at the time. I know that it is common practice to use the "Mainstream Rock Tracks" handle, I just edited it to their original titles to re-inforce when the single charted, the time period, stuff like that. Thanks. --99.254.221.155 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

COI and neutrality question
Hello Scarian. There's a biography of a living person that I have worked on in the past, and two ip users have been removing a bit referenced information from it recently. The article concerns a former member of a band and the bit of informtation is about why he left the band. The information is referenced, and comes straight from the article subject from interviews. One editor claims he/she is a friend of the article subject and the other editor claims he is the article subject. The article subject apparently wants this bit of informtion removed. I have reverted the edits because of conflict of interest and neutrality. If these editors continue, what actions should I take? Thanks.-5- (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If they're IPs you can request that the article be protected. If they appear to be static IPs and protection doesn't work (after it expires) then you can ask an admin to block them. IPs are generally easily dealt with; it's when they start figuring out how to sock... Hope this helps! Thanks for your message and don't hesitate to ask for anything else. I'll always try my best to help :-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  13:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, you made the right call about COI. Perhaps you could also point them towards WP:OTRS and they can ask for help there. A lot of sensitive things are dealt with at OTRS that are completely out of our range! Scarian  Call me Pat!  13:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

BBHS
Any opinion on this guy? Look how "new" this new user is... Scarian  Call me Pat!  19:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of title for Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003)
Given your previous involvement with the article, I'd like to invite you to participate in the discussion concerning the capitalization of the page title -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ownership issues
You seem to have consistent ownership issues with the articles you've contributed to. Please practice some discretion with regard to incorporating contributions from other editors.

Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003) track listing
Specifically, this time I'm referring to your removal of this disclaimer about "Better Man" as it appears on the track listing of Rearviewmirror. First I remind you that you are not the gatekeeper to the content of the articles you are involved with; even if you disagree with an edit, it's best not to revert it with no discussion. Anytime you find yourself reverting anything that isn't obvious vandalism, you should consider finding a consensus on the issue or attempting to reason about it. Ever.

Secondly, I point out that the notability guidelines do not exclusively govern the content of articles, and I'd challenge your assertion that track listing of an album isn't notable&mdash;again, despite the fact that the Wikipedia guidelines of notability don't even come into play here&mdash;especially considering we're talking about the content under a heading titled "Track listing" on the page devoted to the album. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 19:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Vitalogy
Either is acceptable. Personally, I'd say label all Pearl Jam albums either "grunge" or "alternative rock" for consistency. For example, I've listed all R.E.M. albums as alt-rock in the infobox, but all Nirvana albums as grunge. Both are alt-rock, but Nirvana is consistently identified with the more specific subgenre, so I chose specificity for better relevance. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Personnel Sections
First off, the personnel sections on the Soundgarden pages are a mess and clarity is needed. Pages for albums by Oasis and Suede are using columns here and here. If the personnel section for the Soundgarden albums weren't so cluttered I wouldn't suggest that columns would be necessary, but as you prefer them they are cluttered and confusing as there are so many people listed. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and see associated talk sections here, here, and here so that others know what's going on. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not all about you. I'm sure there is no definitive answer for this, just more of you policing pages that you feel ownership towards. So you should hold off until an answer is provided as well. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm well and relaxed, thank you though. I just feel that you're making a bigger deal of this than needed since you obviously feel ownership towards the Soundgarden articles. I mean no ill will here. I'm glad you're being civil about this, though your tone towards me is that it's your way until you find out otherwise and has rubbed me the wrong way. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I predicted, there isn't any agreed upon method for our little squabble, lol. The preferred method listed here was a subsection (marked in bold) for the personnel section. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Of the two, I prefer Kid A, though I have no specific preference between the three different ways that we've seen. My point here was clarification, and all three versions provide clarification IMO. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto, 'till next time! Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for March 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Vedder
The body of the Eddie Vedder article should be rearranged so that it is a straight biography, with no separate sections devoted to his personal life or his career. This ensures that details of a subject's life are given proper weight, and it also reads better. See John Frusciante for an example of this. Can you rearrange it this way? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Hi there, I appreciate your adding the category "Billboard Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks #1 Singles" to some of the songs I haven't gotten to yet. I've kind of just been populating the category by going from the list of #1s wiki-linked on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart page (which itself needs some help, some of the links aren't right anymore) and trying to reference or edit a few of the song pages if they need it. This is really minor, but as far as the categories "1994 songs" and "1994 singles", one is a parent category of the other, so the only ones that should be listed as "songs" are ones that weren't released as "singles". That's what somebody told me, anyway, and that's all I meant by deleting the "songs" category. Anyway, thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If an album was released in 1998, but the single wasn't released until 1999, then I think it should be "1999 singles", even though the album would be "1998 albums". If there was no single released but the song is notable enough for wikipedia, then probably "1998 songs". That's my best guess. Also, if the single came out in December 1999 but didn't chart until January 2000, it goes by release date, not the date the song hit the charts, so that would be "1999 singles" as well. Cheers. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Grunge refs
It's mainly a matter of personal preference and what is established in the article. Given my work on past FACs using the cite web template, it's preferable to list the website URL than a Wikilink. In the case of Allmusic (which is a website, not a publication), always list the URL. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Explain please
Could you please explain line 32 on [|this page?] Thank you. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  21:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously just an error :-) 86.3.61.125 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Voxfan's edit warring
I would recommend that if Voxfan adds in Indie rock again that you report him to WP:3RRN. He's edit warring over a long period of time and it's becoming irritating. Also keep an eye on Bleach (album) if you don't already have it watchlisted; he's doing it there, too. Thanks -5-! 86.3.61.125 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to album reviews in infoboxes
I don't know if you're up for doing massive changes for existing articles, but by apparent consensus at Template talk:Infobox Album, links to album reviews, like all other links to sources, should now be cited as references rather than linking to them with "link" as the link text. See this change to the Infobox Album template documentation by Gendralman if it's not clear what I'm talking about. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 03:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Genres on Soundgarden article
In your most recent edit summary, you said "nowhere on there does it state to order by generality, that something you're guessing at; in my experience it goes by alphabetical". First of all, I could say the same thing about alphabetical ordering of genres - this isn't a guideline written anywhere, it's something you are also guessing at. I would be curious what your experience is, too, because in my experience, the Soundgarden article is the first music article I've seen here where alphabetical ordering of genres is used instead of ordering by prominence. Not everything is going to be spelled out in Wikipedia guidelines or template documentation - sometimes, you should be able to easily infer what the spirit of a rule is. And in many contexts (particularly the explanation of the Genre field for the infobox), the spirit of Wikipedia rules is "aim for generality". Soundgarden was first and foremost, an alternative rock band - which is why the lead sentence of the lead introduces them as a "rock band", not an "alternative metal" band. Why should the infobox be any different? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Ten (Pearl Jam album)
Why? You reverted me on this article with the edit summary "revert per Template:Infobox Album" when virtually everything you reverted contradicts it. E.g. you reinserted multiple release dates, when that page explicitly says "Only the earliest known date that the album was released should be specified; later release dates (incl. re-issues) can be mentioned in a Release history section." Also, much of the changes have nothing to do with the template (e.g. alphabetizing interwiki links.) Could you please explain yourself more thoroughly on the talk page there as to why you think that this article should violate the standards that you cited? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Citations Thanks; I hadn't noticed that thing about citations, but my statement stands otherwise. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for May 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 tour
Sorry, but I disagree. There's enough info to start this off now - it's only 8 weeks until the first show starts. I saw the TC email too, so new dates could be added any day now! Compare with these two articles I started way in advance of events happening: and. Enough RS to keep the page IMO - it already has the same number of dates as their first tour.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem. Everything so far has been announced via TC, if more dates are added, then more info can be added when it's posted. This is in exactly the same situation as the new album article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a tour by Pearl Jam happening in 2009! Sounds pretty definite to me!  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The TC email states "2009 Tour Dates So Far". I'd say that pretty much confirms it. I thought you'd be helping to expand a new PJ article, rather than split hairs on is it a tour/isn't it a tour? A band playing gigs is a tour.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me! My intention was to get the ball rolling, and once the initial article is there, for editors (such as yourself) to help improve/expand it! Thanks!  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries and thanks for starting to work on expanding the article!  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoonman
I am posting this here so I don't cause edit warring or any other serious problems. The edit summary "but I have" means "I have seen years linked on many articles", especially music articles (my area of expertise). Why does it matter to you whether the year is linked or not?-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  05:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions anyone would think that you liked Soundgarden.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  06:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That there may still be Soundgarden fans out there....-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  06:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Like yourself? Just curious...-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  06:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

YES! I knew I would find another Soundgarden fan if I joined Wikipedia. From one fan to another my top 28 Soundgarden songs:

28. Zero Chance 27. Outshined 26. An Unkind 25. Never The Machine Forever 24. Dusty 23. Let Me Drown 22. New Damage 21. I Awake 20. Boot Camp 19. Face Pollution 18. Drawing Flies 17. Get On The Snake 16. Entering 15. Blow Up The Outside World 14. Mailman 13. My Wave 12. Room A Thousand Years Wide 11. Rhinosaur 10. Spoonman 9. Rusty Cage 8. Pretty Noose 7. Somewhere 6. Fell On Black Days 5. Superunknown 4. Hunted Down 3. Slaves & Bulldozers 2. Jesus Christ Pose 1. Black Hole Sun -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Question are you one of those Wikipedians who knows that they have to just get on with the job and edit articles but can't help socialising as well?-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  06:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. I'll let you get on with it. Nice talking to you though.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  06:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sucession boxes
Just so we can get this clear, All I am saying is Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill preceded No Code as the No. 1 album back in 1996 NOT A Tribe Called Quest's Beats, Rhymes and Life, obviously I'm not all doubting No Code was No. 1 at one time, I'm just continuing with the flow of the succession boxes and making the information accurate. QuasyBoy 23:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, But that arguement has nothing to do with No Code. The album was No. 1 for two consecutive weeks correct, between Morissette's Jagged Little Pill and New Edition's Home Again, I'm simply pointing that out, That's all. QuasyBoy 23:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, What about NON-consecutive runs, Which Jagged Little Pill clearly had between 1995 and 1996, That should be pointed out, too. And once again Jagged Little Pill preceded No Code NOT Beats, Rhymes and Life as the No. 1 album, regardless if the run was consecutive or non-consecutive. QuasyBoy 24:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My main arguement with you is that Jagged Little Pill preceded No Code, That's all. Jagged Little Pill's non-consecutive run ended with No Code taking over. That's all I'm pointing out. QuasyBoy 24:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even though I disagree, I'm done aruging. I just wanted to make the succession flow more comprehensive, But whatever. QuasyBoy 24:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for June 2009
SoxBot (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Regarding This reference for A Looking in View are we allowed to use blogs as references for articles?-- The LegendarySky Attacker 21:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 21:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Alice In Chains
Correct me if I am mistaken, but in the third paragraph of Alice In Chains, it mentions their three years of inactivity "Although never officially disbanding". For this reason, I think 1987-present would be better. Your thoughts? -- The LegendarySky Attacker 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about it. Thanks.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 21:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Soundgarden
Hi. I just noticed that Soundgarden does not have FA status yet. Looking at the archives, I saw that it had failed the nomination last year, but a scan through the content, I think it should apply for FA again. Your thoughts?-- The LegendarySky Attacker 02:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ten
Can you turn the section about the reissue of Ten from bulleted items into prose? It looks really bad right now. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked it out. Looks good! WesleyDodds (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologise
I apologise if any edits I made to Kurt Cobain were unwarranted of me to do so. But I'm sure plenty of them were, based upon perfectly reliable sources. I will be happy to discuss this constructively. Jacob Richardson (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana discography
If you have time, I would appreciate a response at Talk:Nirvana discography. – Zntrip 03:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Nirvana (album)
Please do not remove File:Nirvana album cover.jpg from Nirvana (album) again. File:Nirvana album cover.jpg is a higher-quality image that supersedes File:Nirvana-Nirvana.jpg. – Zntrip 06:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not an unauthorized reproduction. Before you respond to me look up the phrases public domain and threshold of originality. Then read this template: PD-textlogo. If you still don't understand, I'll say it one more time: For something to be under copyright protection in the United States, it must meet the threshold of originality; if it doesn't, it is in the public domain. The album cover consists of text on a black background. How could it possibly be copyrighted? You can't copyright the word "Nirvana" or the color black. Putting the two elements together does not constitute an original work. Therefore there is no such thing as "unauthorized reproduction" of the image. – Zntrip 17:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kurt Cobain
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Kurt Cobain/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Billboard Problem
Since their recent design, all articles using Billboard.com as a source for chart positions, such as A Looking In View, now have dead links. See here for an example.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When you sorted out the references on A Looking In View you changed the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks back to Billboard.com. Are you able to change it back to Billboard Magazine because we both know that Billboard has dead links as of late. I'd gladly do it myself but you add the citations a different way to the way I do.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 12:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New chart
Just in case you don't know, there is a brand new chart that has just started on Billboard. The Rock Songs chart. I've just added A Looking In View's position to the chart position section of its article.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 09:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Temple of the Dog edit
I accept your point that strictly speaking, inserting the text quite so crudely as I did wasn't the right way to do it. But where else should information on M.A.C.C. go? Right now the only place you can find it is Stone Free: A Tribute to Jimi Hendrix and it doesn't exactly belong in the articles on Chris Cornell, Soundgarden or Pearl Jam. The place it feels most relevant is the Temple article since it contains the singer, lead guitarist, bass player and drummer from Temple. Unless you think it's worthy of being made into a short article by itself? (The Elfoid (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC))


 * There has to be some reference to it, surely? It was a mini-Temple reunion that most people don't even know happened because pages like this don't make reference to it. It wasn't a complete reunion, but no non-Temple members were in the group. I can't be bothered to get into a fight with you though...I'm lazy like that...I'll put a link to it in the 'associated acts' thing and leave it at that. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC))

Featured article candidates/Soundgarden/archive2
Hi, are you still watching this nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2009
SoxBot (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Them Bones
Overall the revision that you have chosen may be a bit more organized in your opinions, but the next revision I will make will meet the standards of how every single is supposed to be per WP:ALBUM and WP:Songs. And for the next part, there are NEVER supposed to be any external links from WIkipedia that lead to YouTube videos. • GunMetal Angel  03:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)