User talk:A Knight Who Says Ni/Archive 1: March to December 2008

Next archive: January to December 2009

PS
PS - cool user name. -- Roleplayer (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd #1
Thanks for recommending I do a revert immediately, instead of asking for consensus on the article's talk page. I just started editing Wikipedia this week (though I've been a reader here for a long time), and didn't want to make a major boo-boo from the start. I guess it's too early for me to be bold. I'm sure I'll get bolder as time goes by. Thanks again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for editing Wikipedia. Your cautious assumption of good faith is sensible and appreciated. Verifiability (not to mention Jimbo Wales) grants editors much permission to revert questionable, unsourced material. Comfort and experience pending, WP:BRD will usually work well in situations like this one. Ni! / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike Oldfield's Single
Hi, thanks for making minor edits to this article for style. I'll try to follow your example when expanding articles for other Oldfield singles, which I'm planning to do. (By the way, you sure do make a lot of edits in short time! Is your process automated?)

The only thing I'd question is removing quotes from this sub-title:

"Mike Oldfield's Single (Theme from Mike Oldfield's album 'Tubular Bells')"

where you changed 'Tubular Bells' to italics, since the quotes actually appear on the record label. Mind if I put them back?

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for improving the article so much, and expanding some of Oldfield's other articles would be really great :)


 * I'd only changed the "Mike Oldfield's Single (Theme from Mike Oldfield's album 'Tubular Bells')" to italics, as it is the usual style for album titles to be italic. But I've changed them back to how they appear on the sleve.


 * Some of my edits are semi-automated, via AutoWikiBrowser. Most of my edits at the moment are just fixing style/formatting; which is why I've done so many edits recently.


 * Have fun improving Wikipedia :) TubularWorld (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Norway's charts
Hi Terjeno Oslono. I, like you, recently got a Wikipedia account, and thought I'd copy over the welcome box that someone put on my page. I find it very useful!

I was looking at the edits you have been making, adding Norway chart info to various articles. I think that's great and will be helpful.

Can I make a suggestion? Wikipedia is very big on verifiability; the ability to show where you are getting your information. Most chart info has a link to a page about where that info comes from, usually pointing to a website. I see your edits just have a link to "Norway". I did a Google search for Norway charts, and found many commercial sites. I'm not sure which one is the best for research, and most of those sites don't make it clear where they are getting their info from, either!

A good idea might be to create a new page called "Norway album charts" with a short (stub) article that points to the website or other reference you are using. Then, when you add info to other articles, have it point to that page.

Let me know if I can be of any help.

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, shall try to link the Norwegian chart tag to an approriate side. Do you know the best way to upload an image without getting it delete the next week? Try to include as much info as possible but it's still isn't enough. Do you now how?


 * kind regards/Oslono. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oslono (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't tried uploading images yet, but I am aware that it's one of the most frustrating things to do at WP. They want to make sure that all images on WP are legal, and that forces us to understand how copyright laws work.  I haven't got into that yet myself!  As I understand it, album covers can be used in a "limited" way, meaning only used in the article that is for that album, and can't be used in multiple articles.  There is something specific you have to say in the picture's description page to explain that this is what you are uploading it for.  That's all I know about it.  Good luck! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd (Barrett's Decline)
You removed an edit by an anon IP (multiple-user with a history of vandalism), with edit summary: "Don't know why that was taken out. Use an edit summary next time". I have re-inserted it. Just to let you know, I'm not the person who changed it originally. The first time I saw the change, I thought it was an improvement. I did create a summary explaining why. Just trying to help a newbie, but with his talk page full of warnings, I don't think it would be useful to comment on his page. Hope you approve. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, THanks for the message. I've no problem at all with your re-edit. I was obviously a little cranky last night, because there wasn't an edit summary, and i'd been fighting IP vandals all day! Thanks for the message :) Ged UK (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello, I am Valtoras, a fellow Wikipedian editor. Not to sound rude or anything, but I was wondering if you could explain why you reverted 3 of my edits a few days ago. I'm certain you have a good reason, but I myself am somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia basic editorial style. Oh, by the way, for a newcomer you're certainly doing very well. Valtoras (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Valtoras. The revert had this edit summary, which tried to explain my reasons in the tiny space allowed: "this was duplicating info which was ok where it was, also lacks refs, also had typos".  I don't mind explaining it, and hope you aren't offended.


 * My biggest concern is that opening paragraphs of articles are supposed to be a very brief summary of the article's subject, i.e. "explain what it is", while saving details for the article's sections, of which this article has many. In the first paragraph you changed "concept/rock opera double album" to just "double album", which seems to take away from the basic description of what it is.


 * You followed with information about its popularity and sales in comparison to other Pink Floyd albums, and 1980s albums in general, which belongs in the section titled Reception, and doesn't contain much factual information that is not covered in that section. The album's ranking among fans of the group is something that is certain to be debatable, and an opening paragraph is not the best place to weigh in with an opinion.


 * You also used the opening paragraph to mention Richard Wright's firing and an alleged reason for it, which are already covered in the Recording history section, and which also disputes the reason you repeated, giving other explanations. Considering that this is a strongly negative assertion about a living person, I don't see why it should be included except where it's essential to understand points made in the article, and I'm not sure it belongs in this article at all.  It is duplicated in the Pink Floyd and Richard Wright pages.  By the way, Richard Wright's page is not called "Rick Wright", which is a redirect page, but "Richard Wright (musician)".


 * Such a strong condemnation of Wright should at least be followed a reference, which is present in the place where this information was previously, but is missing from your duplication of it. This is what I meant by "lacks refs".


 * Your edit also removed a large sentence that begins with "Largely based on Waters' life..." (see edit summary), possibly in error.


 * As to the typo, I see "almum" in place of "album" in the opening sentence. I could have fixed that, but considering my other concerns, I thought it best to revert and let you try again if you feel there is something about this article that really needs to be changed.  Looking at the revert again, and the article as a whole, I don't really see what these changes are trying to improve (content or style?), or what's wrong with the article as it stands.


 * Please don't let this discourage you from editing the article again. If you still feel there is something that needs to be done, by all means do it.  Best wishes! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your informative and civil reply. I very much appreciate it. Valtoras (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd #2
Hi, can you explain your recent edit to The Dark Side of the Moon? I realize this is a revert, but both stats link to the same page, and on that page it appears the album rates fifth. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just reverted it to the last good version of the page, which was one of your revisions. I don't keep track of the numbers, and honestly, I had missed it the disparity, focusing instead on removing some idiotic thing someone had written after someone's name in the article. Icarus of old (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd personnel lists
Hello VanzKantDanz,

You have been making recent edits to the personnel lists of articles on most Pink Floyd albums, to add more detail to the specific brand or model of instruments used. You have done this three times, and each time your changes have been reverted. Can I offer some advice?

I think that if these changes are valid, they would be welcome, and the reverts do not necessarily mean they are unwanted or are being disputed. The problem, I suspect, is that you are making these changes without saying where you are getting your information. Wikipedia requires that detailed edits such as these come with references. There may also be problems with the format you are using to insert these details, when they change credits as printed on the album covers.

Another problem is that you are making very similar changes to so many articles, such as replacing "bass guitar" with "Fender Precision bass" on most. Some editors may suspect you have read that Waters used that model, and just presumed he used it on everything he recorded. Are you using a reference that says this make of bass guitar was used on every album whose article you are editing? And that no other model was used additionally on those recordings? It may be that you do have a reference source which says exactly that. But you need to state what it is.

Another problem may be that, in general, album credits should quote exactly what is printed in the official album notes. If additional information is provided, it should be formatted in a way which makes it clear that it is a deviation from the official credits. For example:

or
 * Roger Waters – bass guitar (Fender Precison)[reference to where you found this], vocals
 * Roger Waters – (Fender Precision)[reference] bass guitar, vocals
 * David Gilmour – guitar, vocals (also bass guitar on "One of These Days")[reference]

Hopefully these suggestions will help you make edits that will endure, and they will be welcomed as good contributions to these articles. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the adivce, I'll note the references as soon as I get back my biograhpy from a friend. Thanks-Vanz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanzKantDanz (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd album covers removal
I noticed that you removed some jpeg images pertaining to PF albums. I thought that Wikipedia was allowed to host album covers. Something has changed recently? (please note that I've not contributed to this site for several months, due to the cyberstalking behaviour of some pretentious guy(s). regardsDoktor Who (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Doktor, I started doing this a while ago, and guessed that someone would question it eventually. You're the first! :) I have not removed images from album articles, only album images from song articles.  I did this after noticing:


 * 1) several discussions on the Village Pump mentioning that fair use rules state cover art can only be used once for the article about the album, and not for additional articles about songs, nor for any other purpose, even though there are many examples where this rule is not being followed
 * 2) a recent challenge attached to the JPEG for Atom Heart Mother, which was added by Fairusebot and later removed, presumably because my edits addressed the problem, see history page for the JPEG
 * 3) the actual infobox instructions: Template:Infobox Song


 * In addition, I have been removing jpegs for covers of singles where they appear a second time in the article for the B-side song, as I see no reason why the same rule would not apply here.


 * I realize some people may not like these edits, or may feel it is a step backward in the development of these articles. I think it is a step forward, bringing articles up to standards.  Since this is a legal issue, principles of "be bold" and "ignore the rules" are not applicable.  If you can provide any evidence that I'm in the wrong, let me know.  Also, thanks for your vigilence. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks ok to me. Apologies for my lack of time, really, I would like to spend more time here, but life is life... best wishes.--Doktor Who (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd: A Momentary Lapse of Reason
Hello, could you tell me more about this edit. You have changed part of a statement which tells how Roger Waters and Pink Floyd divided up their rights, by removing a specific list of songs. Are you disputing the whole paragraph, or just that sentence, or just the part you removed? What are you using as your source of information? The article, as it stands, does not state where its info comes from, and I'm concerned that it is changing from one unsourced story to another. I have reverted the change, but this does not mean I think your version is less true. I'm hoping you will add the changes again with a reference. If I can help, let me know on my talk page, or the article's talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)"


 * The wiki article says the following when referring to legal disputes following Waters' leaving the band:


 * "Waters dissolved his former management partnership with Steve O'Rourke and gained exclusive rights to some traditional Pink Floyd imagery, including the original flying pig design, almost all of The Wall concept (all the songs except the three for which Gilmour wrote the music, "Young Lust," "Run Like Hell," and "Comfortably Numb") and everything to do with The Final Cut."


 * the writer of this passage is incorrect to say that Waters has "exclusive rights" to "almost all of The Wall concept (all the songs except the three for which Gilmour wrote the music, "Young Lust," "Run Like Hell," and "Comfortably Numb")"


 * While he/she is correct that Waters does have the rights to the concept of the Wall album and any imagery that goes with it, he/she is incorrect to say that Waters has exclusive rights to songs on the Wall written solely by him. this is evidenced by the release of "Another Brick in the Wall pt. 2" and "Hey You" on the post-Waters Floyd live album PULSE.

(above reply from User:Ledbetterman10 who made the edit under an anon IP)


 * Thank you, I have re-applied your change. The edit summary box can be used to explain why you've made a change like this.  Congratulations on getting an account! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Name

 * Thank you for the barnstar. It's my first one! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S., Hope I'm not out of line, but I noticed your table on contents was screwed up because some headings only have one equals sign instead of two, so I fixed it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
Hi WichitaQ, and thanks for the edit you made to The Dark Side of the Moon. FYI, there is a rule against using Wikipedia itself as a reference, so I changed it to a Wikilink; see the difference here:. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S., Welcome to Wikipedia! (I didn't say that before, because I see you have been here a while.)  I notice you created your user page just after I posted above, and said you don't like WP's talk page system.  If it's because my message was abrupt and impersonal, my apologies.  Lately, my messages and edit summaries have been getting quite wordy, so I was trying to keep it short for once.  Maybe I should try for the middle ground instead.  See you on the Pink Floyd pages! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * oh trust me, i only registered for editing and some advanced options for participating in Wikipedia improving, and your message was the first one i received and i was like "gaah, could they make it even more complicated just to reply back"


 * i wasn't offended in any way by any of your actions, i just thought it might be nice to set up a profile here :D you see, i'm just trying to be more active here, since i tend to make a lot of edits by forgetting to log in.


 * don't worry, i'm just implanting myself here in the society, and thanks for the welcome ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WichitaQ (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd – "Biding My Time"
Hi, you state that the song in question dates from 1971; however, the CD booklet doesn't give a recording date, just states that the copyright is from 1971 (unsurprisingly, since it was unreleased before the Relics compilation). However, the back cover of the "four-eyed face" LP version gives production dates for each song, and the one for "Biding My Time" is July 1969 - see here. -- 87.165.252.96 (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good information! I think it should be added to the stub page for "Biding My Time" (and also fix the info box on that page, which says "1967-1969") and of course re-insert your edit on the Relics page.  I think it should be okay to use a reference like this, on both pages:


 * Recording dates taken from back cover of Relics album, USA edition


 * Note: if you look at the above line in an edit box, you will see "nowiki" tags surrounding it; these should be removed. Also the square brackets around "Relics" should be removed when inserting this line on the Relics page.  (I presume you prefer to insert this information yourself, but if you don't, I will do it.  Just didn't want to take over your edit.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks great! Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Nice name =D. Kwsn  (Ni!)  18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Bayview Village
"I have never seen the boundaries listed as extending to Leslie or including the NYGH grounds" added by Dabbler as hidden comment.

I am using the map at City of Toronto's website to determine the boundaries. A link to the page is in the references section, and it is pointed to from 3 places in the article. On the City Hall page, the map is also copied into PDF files compiling census data, which suggests these are the boundaries used in the census process, and this seems to make them official. It may be that these are not traditional boundaries, but they do seem to be the current ones.

Re. the sentence about churches, there is a typo there, and I'm trying to figure how I can put the word "churches" at the front, as it looks awkward to read through a list before you get to what the sentence is talking about. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Bayview Village Association recognises the boundaries as Finch, Bayview and Sheppard Avenues and the East Don River,thereby excluding the townhouses on the west of Leslie Street which are cut off from the rest of the community with no direct access the ravine. Certainly NYGH is well outside the accepted boundaries. The city document does state that it creates the tracts based on census data breakdown of areas and that they do not necessarily correspond to the "traditional" neighbourhoods. At the very least this should be distinguished in the article, as the city's criteria may change after the next census and with the allthe new development south of Sheppard may lead to the area round NYGH, which has no permanent population, could be reassigned. Dabbler (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I am trying to fix up some Toronto neighbourhood articles, but don't know if I'll be able to get to all or many of them.  I'm finding out neighbourhood boundaries, names, and existence are not as straightforward as I thought.  Any help in sorting it out is appreciated. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My Bad
I'm sorry for the edits on the Yahoo! review links. I didn't know it is a professional review site. (from Dan56)

Good day Sir Knight
Just wanted to point out to you that the Template:Infobox Album (or any other WP:ALBUM rules) apply to albums only. For proper guidelines for the musician/band infobox you have to refer to the Template:Infobox musical artist. And the rules regarding genres for the musician box are (unfortunately) inconsistent with the rules of the album infobox. So your edit summary earlier re: Pink Floyd genre capitalization was incorrect. I see no need to revert your edit because I feel that the 2 projects should have consistent guidelines.(and that the WP:ALBUM guidelines are currently better than the WP:MUSICIAN ones) But I thought I would bring the differences to you attention because if anyone had the wherewithal the rv your edit because of the WP:MUSICIAN guideline loopholes... they would be no argument against it. Keep up the good work with the PF pages. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Anger. Yep, you caught me... I deliberately linked to the wrong infobox instructions on purpose, for the very reason you described!  Oh, the shame...  Now that you've given me some backup, maybe I should change/improve the infobox instructions.  After all, it's not so much a change as an elaboration.  I do believe I shall! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd pig
I notice you recently added a picture to the Pink Floyd article, and had some questions about its validity, which I asked about here:

Media copyright questions

It seems my question has been answered and resolved for the moment (and it turns out I misunderstood the caption; my apologies) but you may want to check if something still needs to be done about the licensing. (I'm also notifying User:Yarl who I think uploaded it, and it's really more of his concern, but I thought you should know.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The pig is from the Spanish wiki, here, also a featured article, and it has been checked for validity. smooth0707  (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, it looks like we don't need to do anything. But to explain it further... User:Tombomp noticed a problem with the copyright designation.  The presumed author of the picture, using the name janusz I on Flickr, and User:Yarl on WP, originally loaded it to Flickr and declared it to be copyright free, then loaded it to WP Commons, which can only be done with uncopyrighted pictures.  The uploading instructions say that if a picture is copyrighted, it can't be loaded to Commons, but users can get around this by uploading directly to WP.  That was not done in this instance.  After the picture was uploaded to Commons, the author apparently changed his mind, and slapped a copyright on it at Flickr.  The problem for the author is that his picture may not be protected.  Someone could rip it off and say that the copyright tag isn't valid, because the author also declared it copyright free by the act of uploading it to Commons.  So the author isn't doing himself any favours by declaring it copyright free in one place, and saying it has a copyright in another.  Since it's doubtful anyone is going to challenge the picture's residence on Commons at this time, it's not an urgent problem, but I thought it would be a courtesy to let the author know his copyright declaration has a loophole.  And I thought I'd let you know, as the person who inserted it in an article, since the picture could disappear from Commons in future if someone notices the problem a second time, and the author is no longer around to fix it.  Sorry for the long explanation.  I don't know much about copyrights myself; the above is my interpretation of what I read from the discussion. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You want a chat?
Hi Knight. If you'd like to discuss any issues regarding Pink Floyd articles on Wikipedia then I'm perfectly happy to discuss them here. NH78.147.159.3 (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Knothole in Granny's wooden leg
Re. your edit to Echoes (Pink Floyd song), I'm somewhat familiar with the Goon Show, but don't recall that phrase. Can you provide a citation, or at least the name of the episode where it appears? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you go:


 * http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts_show.asp?title=s09e17_the_50_pound_cure


 * The site seems to be cranky, so the Google cache may be helpful. I'll add it to the article! Goldenband (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I inserted the episode title into the article, because other Goonologists will probably want to know. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Want a shrubbery? ——π₰₯ ĬLʡ  $Φǚɭ  ₯₰π 14:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Shrubbiferous greetings to you, A Knight Who Says Ni, from ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fixing style of genres
Hi, I see you have been making improvements to lists of genres in articles, but I believe your changes are incomplete. Only the first word in a list should be capitalized. See Template:Infobox Musical artist. As an example:
 * Before change: Psychedelic Rock, New Prog, Space Rock
 * After your change: Psychedelic rock, New prog, Space Rock
 * What it should be: Psychedelic rock, new prog, space rock

Also, I saw you change to in places where there shouldn't have been a in the first place, i.e. at the end of a line. Actually you can just use, the slash isn't required at all, see Line break handling. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know about the genre issue. Thing is, my regex skills are not that advanced (i'm using a semi-automated tool to do those changes), that i could make it capitalize the first one, but not the further ones. So, as i seem not to be able to fix it completely, i still think it's an improvement by decapitalizing the words "Metal", "Rock", et cetera. About the line break stuff: I never actually read about it, but i always assumed that all forms of writing the break-tag will be interpreted and output in the same way. Yet, i think it still is in the users service to show them how a proper, valid tag should look like. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 06:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. To quote from WP's line break handling guide: "The  tag used here is not really HTML markup but 'HTML wikimarkup' that gets interpreted by MediaWiki." In other words, it's not an HTML tag, but a wiki tag that just looks like HTML, and therefore

is the correct format. A slash is allowed for compatibility with coders who are used to typing it. So if you want to show users what a proper, valid tag should look like, the tag without the slash is it. ("Proper" isn't universal, it's like having to remember to spell "colour" with a "u" in some articles, and without in others, regardless of which is declared "proper" where you live.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Albums infobox
This edit was undone. There was no consensus ever reached for the musician template. However there was a clear consensus for the Album project. Perhaps if you could pursue a consensus within the musician project to match up with the consensus of the album project Wikipedia would be greatly improved. But for now the consensus guidelines of the Album project will stay until, hopefully, a consensus to match by the musician project will be reached one day. Have a nice day. Libs (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. That change was a by-product of another change I was making, and presumed it would not be controversial.  Do you think it's worth proposing this change?  I'm asking because just yesterday I noticed what I'd have to call a feud between two user pages over the issue of commas vs. line breaks in an infobox.  Apparently some people are quite passionate about it.  Album and musician (and singles) infoboxes are very similar, with some identical parameters, so it makes sense for their instructions to be in sync.  But since I'm an outsider to the music project, maybe I'm not the one to make a proposal. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can try and broker a deal on the musician template talk page until your blue in the face. It never seems to be resolved. Its been debated so many times it's ridiculous. Probably the stupidest edit war I've seen on Wikipedia in 4 years of editing.(this account is fairly new I use to edit as an anon IP... over 30000 edits as an anon too... you can call me an "Auld Wiki-head" :D ) The consensus through all the debates at the musician project have actually been fairly clear (if you read through them all) and the lowly comma has always been the choice with the clearest majority. BUT, the coded break editors (who really only number around a half-dozen) are extremely vocal in their disdain for the noble comma and most of them have been blocked for 3RR because of it just to try and keep it "their way". Through all the conversations there was 1 very brilliant compromise that would have satisfied everyone but it was a proposal that slipped through the cracks. It was very simple. If the genres included in the musician infobox numbered 3 or more... use a comma.(keeps the box length a little shorter... always one of the key elements of the use comma camp... keep the box length short... I saw one editor use the phrase... "don't make it look like a receipt from a grocery store" :)... pretty much nailed it for me). And if there were only 2 genres listed... then a br code was fine. The "use a br when there is only 2 genres" actually had another aim... seeing as the only clear rule for the field is "aim for generality", the thought was that if the br camp thought they could use a br code in every box they would work as a group to remove all the superfluous genres (and there are many) just to get their own way. It was a brilliant idea but for some reason just never caught on. Shame too... can't remember exactly who proposed the idea? I think it might have been a veteran anon IP editor who now edits using an account :D . The Album project membership work together much better as a team and consensus over there is relatively easy. I do not officially belong to either Project but since I edit mostly music related pages I follow the both Project's talk pages quite closely. I also follow the Guitarist Project and several of the "band" Projects as well (including the Pink Floyd Project of which I think you are a member... (keep up the good work over there BTW) ) Hope that little background helps you out. I have about a dozen admins who I count as close "wiki-friends". If you're ever in a dispute and the regular channels of resolution aren't getting you anywhere, feel free to drop me a line. I find some of those "regular channels" can be a bit useless at times and that if I really want something done... it's quicker just to call up an admin buddy on MSN to get things cleared up. Good luck and, more importantly, have fun with your editing. Have a nice day! Libs (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the follow-up. Everything you said is pretty much what I suspected! :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot language edit
Hi, I saw your bot made this change:, and it appears to me that it is (a) moving an existing entry ("it" = Italian?) from its correct alphabetical sequence to an incorrect position, and (b) "fixing" the "pt" entry, which previously appeared twice, once with incorrect capitalization, by fixing the capitalization instead of removing the duplicate entry. Unless I'm misreading what's happening. I can understand the latter mistake, but can't figure out why your bot moved the "it" entry. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is no duplication of pt-links in the article as far as I can tell, and as for changing the alfabetical order; Italiano ('it') should indeed appear above Magyar (Hungarian; 'hu') --Harald Khan  Ճ  15:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again, thanks for the explanation. I was told some time ago that these links should be in order by 2-letter language code, since not all the languages display as characters in the Roman/Latin alphabet and are therefore not sortable.  But your method is confirmed and explained in Interwiki sorting order (note to self), so I've learned something!  As for the duplication, I guess the colon after "pl" made it look like "pt".  (I do have trouble with WP using arial font to show differences.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
Hello, you made an edit to The Dark Side of the Moon to change the number of consecutive weeks that the album was on the Billboard charts, but you did not change the reference to where this information comes from (apparently a blog site called rockandrollreport dot com), which suggests you got this information from the same source as the original edit, but interpreted it differently. I tried to go to the link to see what it says, but could not get through, so this may be a dead link. I'm unsure where to go from here, so I reverted your change for now. If you got your information from a different source, please make the change again, and replace the reference with the source you are using.

Also, I recommend keeping the wording currently used in the article, and just changing the numbers. I found your wording to be a little awkward compared to the original. No offence intended; your rewording uses "Billboard" twice, uses the word "historical" ungramatically, and removes the information that Billboard is a USA chart – which isn't essential, but the result is a longer sentence giving less information. But if you think the sentence does need rewording, and want to try a different way of wording it, go ahead. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, your criticism of my edit is correct. I found a better source, but could not figure out how to cite it properly. Therefore I just changed the facts. The source is the Pink Floyd homepage here: http://www.pinkfloyd.co.uk/dsotm/content/setup.html

--Deleet (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard or Rick Wright
Hi, maybe you can help me, since you have made some changes to the Rick Wright page to change his name from Richard to Rick. The page was renamed from Richard to Rick a couple of days ago. Do you know of any instance where he has used the name Rick instead of Richard professionally? He may be Rick to his friends, but I can't find any album credits where hs uses that name. I do realize he has a fan site (linked from the article), but neither the fansite nor the current WP article mentions him changing his professional name. On the fansite, the name Richard cannot be found anywhere. But that site does use the same photo that is used in the WP article. So the rename might have been done by the fans who maintain that website, and the insistence in calling him Rick could be just one fan's POV.

I posted an objection to the article rename on Wright's talk page, and on the Pink Floyd WikiProject talk page, where I also complained about other recent article renames which are even more dubious, but I'm getting no replies. These renames are making me crazy! Any help, or pros or cons to my objections will be appreciated. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point You know, I had always seemed to recall "Rick," but I looked at the liner notes to Pulse today, and they read "Richard." I may well have been in error. What is most relevant is not his professional name, but his most common name, which may well be "Richard" (Google on Richard and Google on Rick.) You have a good point, and maybe it should be renamed... I'm sorry for any headaches this may have caused you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wish I had some recent albums to check. The WP article for Pulse says Rick, so I guess we can't depend on our own articles for checking.  But even so, articles for more recent albums: Echoes, Oh By the Way, and the live Wall all say Richard, and there's a good chance the name was copied from the way it appears on those albums.  I'm still trying to get some replies on the WikiProject talk page especially, and have pointed to my post there from a few other talk pages. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure Let me know if anything happens or if I can be of assistance; looking at some Pink Floyd sites, they are inconsistent themselves. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way allmusic calls him "Rick," for what that's worth. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Guys... Just an observation, but the popular press often gets the names of an artist wrong, using the name most popularly associated with the artist rather than how the artist is credited or identifies himself.


 * For example, Edward Van Halen is most frequently referred to as "Eddie Van Halen", despite the fact that, as far as I know, he is always credited as "Edward", and perhaps more importantly, his friends and band mates refer to his as "Edward". (If Valerie calls him "Eddie", well that's another story altogether.)


 * A bit of supporting trivia - In Back to the Future, when Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) insets a tape of a screaming Van Halen guitar solo into a Walkman to terrorize the 1955 version of his father George McFly (Crispin Glover), the tape is labeled "Edward Van Halen".


 * Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support. Last night I changed all 3 renames that I was objecting to, back to their previous names.  No brouhaha so far. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Secret Machines
Hello,

I have made some changes to The Secret Machines which will hopefully improve the article. I see you re-added info about a future album in the "discographies" section, with an edit summary that reads, "don't delete this AGAIN". I explained the reason for its removal in the edit summary. The discography section should not be used for future albums. In this case, it's very unlikely the new album is to be titled "The Secret Machines", so giving it that title, and especially creating a redlink to a non-existing article for the album, is very misleading. A mention of a future album can be placed elsewhere the article, and there is already an entire section about it.

I see you added a reference to a news story about the future album, which is good, but you neglected to add a "reflist" section, so it didn't show up.

The article needs more work to bring it up to an encyclopedic style, as opposed to "fansite" style. Some of the changes I made were to remove or expand vaguely dated items. For example, there were several places that referred to the next album being recorded in "May". This was apparently added last year, and can be mistaken to mean May 2008. There was also mention of "recent" concerts that were also added over a year ago, obviously the word "recent" has become misleading through time. When adding material, you should be more explicit about what dates you are referring to.

Since you apparently intend to edit on Wikipedia regularly, and keep watch over an article, you may find it very beneficial to get an account. It will make it easier for other people to communicate with you on your talk page. I think you have a non-static IP address, so you might not even see this note I've written to you. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.nme.com/news/the-secret-machines/38646
 * The Article. For you. Here it says it's self-titled. Have fun with deleting my edit again and again 84.72.157.246 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and add a mention that the album is self titled. But do NOT put it in the discography section.  There is no need to get upset over this; it's just Wikipedia's standards, not to mention standards as to what a discography means.  You, I, and others can make improvements to the article at any time.  Also, when adding a note to a talk page, please add it to the bottom; thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Help
I wanted to thank you for taking the time to send me the information on getting started. I wanted to make sure that what I've done up to this point is correct and still considered "not-live" as I work on the information. Sam1957 (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New contributors' help page
Replied to your post here. Please clarify your position.

Cheers mate!

&Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, I goofed big time. Responded as requested. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No harm done, mate!
 * It took me a while to figure it out myself; (s)he acted like they were the victim....
 * By the way, I noticed your reply here, and was about to thank you for your position when that orange bar came up...
 * Thanks mate!
 * Cheers!
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 14:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Village_pump_(technical)
Excuse me. Are you intrested in it? If so, please answer. BartekChom (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't think I can be helpful to you. (Not sure where to post this reply; your talk page redirects to Polish Wikipedia.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Weston
Thanks. It's nice to see the orange box lead to a friendly recognition of one's work. I didn't actually do much but a little superficial grunt work that you pointed out needed doing. Cheers! Double Blue (Talk) 04:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Musical artist - archives
Hi,

If dates are required, an archive page can be set up to show them. By having to manually specify each page in the archive (archives doesn't automatically detect them unless they're strictly numbered "Archive 1", "Archive 2" etc.) it means that the archive box muct be manually altered each time a new archive is created, and it prevents automated archiving. Are they really needed so much? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris. I presume the person who set up the archive using the longer method, did so to purposely index the dates.  There is so much discussion (arguing) in this WikiProject about past consensus, and users are frequently referring to things agreed upon so many months or years ago.  So I figure anything to help search and review old discussions is beneficial.  I notice the Archive help page says to use  "for pages with a very large number of archives" which isn't the case for this page.  If you feel there are good reasons to make this change, go ahead, but it's too bad this dating information will be lost. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * archives is a pretty recent innovation - it's possible it just wasn't migrated over. I'll leave the manual links in for now (although it can be tidied a little) - who knows, maybe at some point archives will be able to guess dates too. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd problems
I'll fix them, those problems are my fault, but i'll fix them, been working si hard on the PF discog that i forgot. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this refers to. I haven't reverted your edits or posted to your talk page lately.  I know you make a lot of edits to the PF discog page, and I'm not sure what they're all about, but if I have a problem with one, I'll let you know. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The red links on the [] page. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, that. I forgot!  Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. edit summary

 * Thanks. I like it that you like my edit summary. Str1977 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pink Floyd revert
I'm desperately out of touch with the "new" racial slurs as well so you're not alone. Thanks for the laugh :) It's a refreshing change from the "go to hell", "STFU" messages I usually get. Pinkadelica (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Discography
First comment "I appreciate the work BBHS is doing on this article. But I notice he has been making a dozen edits to it per day, for quite some time, changing things around in tiny steps. I wish he would use a personal sandbox to prepare his changes, and move them all at once when they are ready. His edits could also use edit summaries. More to the point of the featured list request, it looks like his work is not done, as he is still making significant changes daily, and I would have liked to see the changes reach a state of completion before announcing the candidacy. How can we be expected to assess the article while it is still being developed, and is continually changing?" i ges your right. Oh can you help me the lead problems on the Pink Floyd discography, my grammar ain't the best. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh... I guess I was grumpy when I posted that. It really doesn't have much to do with the FA nomination, so maybe I shouldn't have posted it.  I could have posted my concerns on your talk page, I guess.  As for helping, you don't need help, you're doing fine!  But if you do need help with something specific, let me know. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm can you review the Pink Floyd discography, i've fixed all the problems and the only thing thats missing is some supports. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd dates

 * Dear Knight, you said in your edit summary you would raise the issue of PF end dates on user talk. I don't see anything hence I am posting here.
 * It is utterly wrong to claim that PF ended in 1994 just because that's when the last toured. The live album Pulse was published the next year. Yes, it was recorded during the 1994 tour but then it also had to be produced (I don't think the three had no hand in this, do you?) and then it was published. Yes, a live album but still it was new material, not merely a compilation of already published stuff. Hence, that was PF's last publication, their last activity (except Live8) and hence should serve as the end date for their de facto end.
 * We do not say the Beatles ended in 1969 even though their last two albums were recorded in 1969. Let It Be in 1970 was their last publication and would serve as an end date had their been no official announcement of their dissolution. Str1977 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot is using the older software again
That means things should be fine again. --harej 20:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Wright's Yacht
Wright sailed his yacht around the Virgin Islands. For all we know, he may have crossed from UK to US VIs daily; and it may have been registered at Lowestoft. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My humblest apologies for engaging in a silly edit war over this. Wright's article has been updated 50 times a day this week, so I haven't been able to follow who added what. The edit looked like half a factoid (and unsourced, too), so I thought I'd try to force the editor to recheck and quote his source.  Didn't mean to get into a fight with a fellow regular.  I shall now punish myself by eating plain oatmeal cookies without any chocolate chips or candy sprinkles. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Credits
As per wiki:

A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list.


 * 1) "Complete song title" (John Doe, Brian Smith) – 4:23
 * 2) *First verse: Name of rapper
 * 3) *Second verse: Name of rapper
 * 4) *Samples: Name of sample source (preferably including artist, song, and album)
 * 5) "Complete song title" (Doe, Kelly Kalamazoo) – 3:24
 * 6) "Complete song title" (Doe, Kalamazoo, Smith, David Whitman) – 2:34

As you can see, after a person's full name is listed, only the last name need be listed in subsequent credits. Please be sure to read references carefully before citing them when reverting edits. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Recently I have reverted several instances of someone changing a track list as formatted above, to one where names are in full, and wikilinked, on every song.  I take it you found an instance where I reverted in the other direction.  If so, it was an error on my part, or perhaps I was attempting to revert something else and the example you listed just got caught up in the change.  Usually when reverting, I quote the revelvant instruction page, which is WP:ALBUM, in the edit summary.  (Whoops, I see your example was copied from that page – never mind!)  Hopefully you have corrected whatever was done wrong, and if so, thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. It's good to know we're on the same page here! Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tracklist:Template for The Wall
Hello, this is the editor who used the Tracklist:Template for The Wall article. I did it for the sake of organizing it and make it look pretty despite the lack of information it has. So then I'm just asking, are you totally fine with the tracklist right now? Are there any concerns for this? If there is let me know since I just did out of my own will. I've done this for numerous articles already.--Xangel (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, yes, I'm fine with it. I had a wobbly (as they say in Britain) at first, but after I figured out how to change it to the way I wanted, I think it should stay.  As I posted on the Wikiproject page, I don't think the musicians project intended to promote this template in their instructions, and they are looking into that issue. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your group actions (along with Mwanner) at Village pump
While I thought your first reply was productive and helpful, I thought that this one was extremeley poor judgment and bad faith. Let me dissect your post here, rather than at both places.


 * It doesn't matter how lovely the park is, or how wonderful the website is. Bad advice is being given when you recommend that Mike put his "stuff" directly into the body of the article, especially if this refers to text as well as pictures. There is a copyright notice right at the bottom of his web pages. An editor would be right to remove anything copied from that site, for apparent copyright violation. Learn the rules, and understand why they exist; it's all explained in help pages cited in previous replies. The niceness of the subject matter doesn't give it exemptions.

Particularly, when you write Bad advice is being given when you recommend that Mike put his "stuff" directly into the body of the article, especially if this refers to text as well as pictures. and I'm focusing on the adverbial clause (the last 10 words starting at especially...) First of all, your post is word salad and makes no sense if there is any other "stuff" besides his text and pictures that I could feasibly be referring to. Shame on you to interpret my encouraging post to mean I suggest he copy/paste his text from his website to the article. That could only mean two things.


 * 1) To delete the current article, and simply hit "paste" from his website's text, the entire text verbatim
 * 2) To insert parts of text verbatim from his website, as "chunks" scattered through various parts of the article

Both of these possibilities are clear violation of copyright. I'm stretching my civility to give you the benefit of the doubt, because the website that I'm looking at, is his own words and he cited his source. He's knowledgeable about copyrights and would drop a note on the discussion page, or in his edit summary, if he did in fact copy verbatim from his site (which would interrupt the flow and style of the article, so I doubt he would indiscriminately copy verbatim parts of his own blog to wikipedia articles without making them fit--i.e. matching the format, and flow of the wikipedia article).

You are also clearly wrong with An editor would be right to remove anything copied from that site, for apparent copyright violation. If he uses an edit summary, he could state that he is the copyright holder, and its his site (which isn't even necessary if you realize the pattern that he is editing state parks which he visited, and if there exists a website about a person's blog of visiting state parks, then by logical deduction it would be easily assumed that he is the blogger & owner of the apparently copyrighted material).

There are no editors who patrol articles on state parks, manually checking for copyright violations, and if there is I would hope that editor has enough judgment to email the website owner, inviting the blogger to create an WP:ACCOUNT and continue contributing away. (and of course this process would logically confirm or deny if he is the contributor or if someone stole content from his site)

This will be a good example for WP:CLUE
Rarely do I get to make two good points in a single post. I already left a post over at Mwanner's talk page, and encourage you to read that one also, since you may be more willing to assess my judgment here, by reviewing my judgment over there (afterall, I may have caused you to become defensive, and this may affect your perception of my argument).


 * I am interested, but distracted and busy at this time. When you all get the copyright issues sorted out, let me know. There seems to be differing opionions on this. -Mike

Seems to me like mission accomplished. Congratulations. If I disappeared from wikipedia right now, he'd probably never return. Instead of trying to strengthen my point, I'm going to try to salvage this sinking opportunity and beg for Mike Brieding to stick around to see the finale, so he knows who truly gave him good verses bad advice. I am awestruck that more people are trying to defend themselves at Mike's expense, than for us to band together and all give him a perceived single, unified message.

That message would be for him to be bold and to follow our policies and guidelines. Its your decision to defend your ego, that has caused your lapse in judgment. Your edits to WP:Village_pump_(policy) over the last two days were the indiscriminate pursuit of self interests. Please lets sort out the "copyright issues" here and over at Mwanner's talk page and lets unite and deliver Mike Brieding a single, unified message before he stops checking by the village pump to scan updates.

Back to your [first reply], do you still hold the belief that


 * I don't see the responses as unfriendly, or likely to drive the original poster away.

Are you convinced now? When I wrote my first post, I only tried to consider how Mike Brieding would understand it, and all of my syntax was goal oriented to try and get him involved in our encyclopedia. The stuff I wrote wasn't written for you (and I wished you could analyze it that way, and not read an attack into it).

The reason you don't see the response as unfriendly, or likely to drive the original poster away is because you are thinking about it from your point of view, not Mike's. Luckily, you've managed to undo my progress at helping Mike want to become a wikipedian, so in turn I ask for your help getting him back. Maybe you don't know the feeling of being bitten, and aren't as careful. Please support my new post to Mike at the village pump. Sentriclecub (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (replied on Sentricleclub's talk page)

Sorry about partial censorship and spam accuations
I immediately emailed a more experienced user to ask them if it is okay or not, given the circumstances. I did not remove it in bad faith, and since the only person who probably would have read it on my talk page, was the person I asked (TenOfAllTrades) he definitely would have given me the same answer you did, and he would have ridden the !--- --- part. I hope something good can come out of all this. Sorry that you aren't focusing strictly on the point I discussed pretty straightforward in the email. I have no problems or objections with any of your edits in the past, from this point onward. Sentriclecub (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally I am sorry for all the accusations about calling other members of our community spammers. The rest of my message is still private, and included in my email to you. Sentriclecub (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you. Left a message for you in the New Contributor's help page. Justicia Liga (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Message
Hi,

Thanks for giving me my first message! I edited AHM to have a table of tracks now. I thought I'd share with you my ultimate goal of getting Meddle to 'Featured article' standards. Surprisingly Meddle isn't actually my favourite album. I just get hell bent on one thing and then lose interest after a while. Anyway, thanks for making me feel welcome. --MrHolyStickman 17:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Chapter 24
That's fine. Thanks for the notification. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

British English
Hello Twidget1. Regarding the comment you left on Fair Deal's talk page, have you actually read the Manual of Style section that has been pointed to you in edit summaries, and other places where you have asked about this? The section is here: WP:ENGVAR. You are not alone in not knowing about this. The edit you have been making has been made in the past by various people, and it always get reverted. There is consensus that British English is to be used in this article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I KNOW that nowhere in the U.K. they say, "The car are very fast". NEITHER do they say, "They is happy". A little lesson here: The definite article has a singular and a plural form. If you're going to use a singular definite article (the or that over those), then the verb has to agree. That is to say: That IS very pretty, or Those ARE beautiful. NOT "That are nice!", or "Those is sweet." I KNOW you don't talk that way in the U.K. I've been there.


 * NOT


 * THOSE bandS is playing well today. nor THAT band were great!


 * RATHER:


 * THE band is good. THOSE bandS are horrible. Twidget1 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * BUT, I will tell you where they DO talk like that--The uneducated parts of America..."I've seed it for myslef". (Yes--I've actually heard the "word" "seed" used as the past tense of "To see", instead of "saw".)Twidget1 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Twidget1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twidget1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct in all the examples you give. Nonetheless, in the world outside of the USA, they do say "Pink Floyd are..."; it's not the same situation as any of your examples.  You've answered my question: you haven't read the help file, which explains it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is what is confusing you: you talk about definite articles. "Pink Floyd" is not a definite article, it is a proper noun, and it is plural.  In the USA, proper nouns follow the same rules as definite articles.  Elsewhere, proper nouns follow the rules of proper nouns, which early Americans must have failed to grasp. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Pink Floyd is a noun--yes. Band is a noun too. Band is a SINGULAR noun.  THE is a definite article, AND the writer of that article CORRECTLY USED the SINGULAR definite article with the SINGULAR noun and then used a PLURAL verb and a PLURAL pronoun.
 * "The band were known for THEIR" (pluarl pronoun)....


 * The writer jumps from singular definite article and noun to plural verbs and pronouns. If the word, "band" were considered plural, then the writer should have said, "Those band were known for thier..."  It is possible to jump, however if the focus is changing from the entity of the band to ITS memebers:  THE band IS struggling financially and I don't know how THEY (the members) can find the resources to continue as a team; however this sentence structure is shakey and would not make good writing.


 * BTW...these rules, I've double checked with an English professor friend of mine. ONE FROM SOUTH HAMSTEAD (Near LONDON).  Why do I want to trust some illiterate site to tell me the rules on English--when I have access to litterate and informed sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twidget1 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's the way you feel about Wikipedia, why do you want so desperately to contribute? You won't convince the entire Wikipedia editing community to allow you to use Americanized English in articles about British people, by trying to claim a different non-Americanized English doesn't exist.  If you really showed Wikipedia's help files to an English professor, and he agreed with you that non-Americanized English doesn't exist, you would certainly have an ignorant professor.  If you're asking if you can go ahead and change articles this way again, the answer is no, and if you insist on doing so, your ID could be blocked for vandalism.  Perhaps you should limit yourself to editing articles about American people and places. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * DUH! IF you noticed, I haven't changed or contributed a thing since I realized just how ignorant this site is.  The only reason I came back was to see if you had responded.  No need to respond to this...I'll just go to more informed places.  You can bet your bottom pound that I will never visit WWW.Wikipedia again for anything ever.
 * twidget1

Twidget1: my thoughts entirely, mate! Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.118.20 (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wall
Have seen your comments there and agree; I've started a discussion here, where your comments would be welcome. -- Rodhull andemu  22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Random quote
(first 2 paragraphs copied from Village Pump technical page re. IRC channel quotes fortune cookie)

Could a random quote be generated on any WM project page somehow? -- Menti  sock  14:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Template:Random portal component says it was made for portals, but I don't see why it can't be used elsewhere. It picks a quote based on the day of the year.  Template:Randomquote is another, but it isn't too user friendly, and has no documentation.  It picks a quote based on the user's number of edits.  It should be possible to modify the latter with a truly random number; you might look here for guidance. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought was purely random out of the fifty quotes it has and nothing more. Besides, could it work with quotes on another page? (Since I'd like IRC channel quotes - do they even support interwiki feeds?) --  Menti  sock  15:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When I went into Randomquote's page, I kept getting the same quote. Then I looked at the code, and saw it was using number of edits as its random number seed.  The "random" template uses part of a time of day lookup as its seed.  If you want more randomness, you could use a combination of the two.  I wouldn't expect you to be able to use "interwiki feeds"; there is no such thing; links to other Wiki sites are just normal external links, and probably can't (and shouldn't) be used this way.


 * I said that Randomquote was not user friendly, and I was especially thinking of how all its quotes are inside the template. So you would need to make your own version of this template under a new name, probably as part of your userspace, and edit it whenever you want to add a quote.  You should be able to change it to use as many quotes as you like.


 * I'm guessing Random Portal Component is a lot closer to the IRC channel quote. It takes its quotes from a sub-page.  By the way, I have no experience with these templates.  You asked, and I did a search and found these two, plus the note about a couple of methods of random number generation.  You'll just have to create some sandbox pages and try them out. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. -- Menti  sock  17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandal
Well he's been blocked twice now, but he's still at it. Just ignore silly people like that, I say. --TubularWorld (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Pink Floyd revert
It's nice seeing people who not only revert, but explain the reasoning behind such. A small deed, but great none-the-less. Thank you. --Tylerdmace (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearlight
Hi,

Sorry, I'm new to this - I mean, talking to other people via Wikipedia.

I can easily understand why you took exception to some of my changes, but I believe I was right in most cases. I know the history of Clearlight rather well, having interviewed most members some years ago for a retrospective article. My incentive for making the changes originally came from the - for me entirely fictional - assumption that Delired Cameleon Family was somehow an alias of Clearlight.

I'll address your various points chronologically:

>It is my belief that these sections should start with a verbatim quote of what is on the original editions of the albums, and add comments in brackets if elaboration is required, or if a later edition has updated credits. I see you have removed some of the comments, but I can't see why, as I believe they are helpful. In other cases, you seem to have updated credits probably taken from a later edition. If so, it is good to include the updates, but it should be clear what is being done, and the exact edition where extra info comes from, should be specified. I don't think it's necessary to state that info not in brackets is from original editions, since that is the default. Also, ampersands should be avoided. In some cases you have actually replaced the word "and", or a comma, with an ampersand.

I see your point. This is not how I would do it but I understand this is how it's done on Wikipedia. I'd rather correct the info if it's clearly wrong (especially in the case of people's names being misspellt). Also I am really bothered by the Wiki habit of linking every single word to "relevant" pages - like "Hammond", "organ", etc.

>In Clearlight Symphony the article originally stated it was recorded "in 1973 (and probably completed in 1974)", and had a reference to Cyrille Verdeaux's website where he states it was recorded in 1973. I have seen several dates and timelines quoted on Verdeaux's site which I think are suspect, and he may have created his site quickly without checking his own facts. It seems unlikely that the album was completed in 1973 and Virgin Records sat on it for over a year.

This is where I have to return to my correspondence with Cyrille - translated into English especially for you. "The original demo was recorded in September 1972, on a Revox machine - a piano track, and an organ overdub". "I had taken a clearlight acid that day, and for the first time improvised on piano. Luckily I had a tape recorder with me that a friend had lent me, so I was able to keep a large part of that improvisation and use it as the basis for my first record. I guess I had no choice but to call it Clearlight-something". "Once my demo was finished I played it to Jean-Pierre Lentin, a famous music critic for Actuel Magazine, who advised me to get in touch with Virgin, who had just started. He gave me their address and also that of a squat Tim Blake was living in at the time. Tim offered his services as producer and got a budget of 10,000 pounds for the recording. Unfortunately that money was spent before the album was finished, so I had to make do with a somewhat approximate result. Apparently Virgin didn't mind, as they prompty signed me for two more albums". In the same letter Cyrille wrote the album was recorded "Winter 1973/74". What leads me to conclude that the sessions did last well into 1974 was that Cyrille told me about the attempt to overdub drums by Chris Cutler, and Cutler was Gong's temporary drummer ca. August 1974. "The reason why the two sides are so different, both in personnel and sound, is chiefly a lack of experience on my part (no surprise, it was my first time in a recording studio). What happened was, I had the very smart idea of taking a clearlight acid to make the whole experience more 'trippy'! I recorded the piano first, on my own, and while the acid gave my performance more 'feel', it also made my tempo very unsteady. So when we later tried to add drums to it, it was completely impossible to do. You can't necessarily tell it by ear, but a drum overdub requires a very steady tempo. I didn't know this at the time! This left me with a piece that couldn't have drums on it. Thankfully it proved easier to record the melodic instruments - sax, guitar, mellotron - on top of my 'fluctuating' piano. But Virgin were a little reluctant to the idea, so it was decided to re-record the 2nd movement (then the 1st) with French friends, as Gong had embarked on yet another tour. Another change was that instead of recording at David Vorhaus's studio, Virgin decided to let me use their Manor Studios for a week. This is where we recorded the other side. But since Steve Hillage and the other Gong members were better known than my French friends, Virgin decided to reverse the sides. Finding myself with a rock/electric side, and a more romantic and harmonic side, the idea occurred to me to describe them in terms of Yin/Yang duality". "With Christian and Gilbert, we rehearsed and then recorded together, in a single session. Which protected us against any lack of rhythmic synchronicity. With the Gong guys, they recorded their parts one after the other. The atmosphere was rather serious and committed, not the psychedelic fiesta one could imagine". "Martin Isaacs was a session player booked by Virgin. I never saw him again after that session". "Virgin's advance was 2,000 pounds. That's all I ever got from them - in spite of the album selling about 40,000 copies".

>Furthermore, the fact that 2 different mixes appear to exist (see note about the V compilation album in the article) suggests that the album was still being worked on into 1975, but perhaps this conjecture is stretching things, so I decided to mention only 1974 as a possibility.

Agreed.

>Wikipedia's guidelines state that everything should be backed up with citations, but if the citations are not considered reliable, they should be used anyway, with an explanation of what is being questioned. That is what was attempted in the article. Your edits removed the citation entirely, and you also removed the "references" section and reflist from the bottom of the article. All articles should have a reflist, even if there are no citations at present. Anyway, if you have another source that says recording continued into 1974, it should be added as an additional citation, i.e. "in 1973 (Verdeaux citation) and completed in 1974 (2nd citation)". That would be the ideal way of improving this sentence.

Well, what about "private correspondence" ?

>Similarly, I don't know why you deleted the section about Paragong, since it is backed up with a citation. Maybe you didn't feel it was relevant to this article?

I do remember thinking that. It didn't seem to be relevant to the period in discussion. Paragong existed briefly in February-April 1973, but wrong dates and line-ups have circulated. I assume the bit I deleted was mistaken in either respect. Paragong consisted of Malherbe, Hillage, Blake, Moerlen and, on bass, Didier Thibault then Mike Howlett.

>Speaking of which... the part you added about Chris Cutler is interesting, but where did you find this? Is it mentioned on notes of a re-issue, or elsewhere? This is the kind of information that would be a great addition to the article if it's sourced, but since it isn't, it comes across as rumour. I'm hoping you can provide a source and put this info back in.

As I said, private correspondence/conversations with Cyrille.

>Back to the personnel list: WP's guidelines state that instruments should be wikilinked. I don't know why you removed all that. You have also completely removed category tags from the bottom of the articles without explanation. These tags were added by several editors. Did you have a reason for taking them out?

Sorry about that. I thought it was stupid and/or irrelevant and/or too much. Hybris on my part I suppose.

>Regarding track lists, and back to the guidelines again: composer names should be written in full, and wikilinked if applicable, the first time they are mentioned in a track list. Subsequent appearances should show the surname only.

OK

>Regarding edits to the Delired Cameleon Family album, you have done a lot of rewording, but little actual information has changed.

As I wrote above, the original intention was to delete the factually false assumption that this album was an episode in the history of Clearlight. While the "line-up" (actually a loose collection of musicians) makes it look like it, it absolutely wasn't. As Cyrille wrote to me, "indeed some later band members appeared on that record, but apart from D'Agostini they turned up by chance

>The original article mentioned the downplaying of the album's status as a soundtrack, and the reason for it. You removed all this. Are you disputing it?

Yes, it all seemed highly dubious to me. First, that album was never given a proper release. I first heard it when Christian Boule lent me his own copy (ca. 1995) when it couldn't be found anyway. It was never promoted. I believe the film was banned. And the film's title is quoted on the cover. The lead actress sings a song on it... I don't see why you wrote what you wrote.

>On the page for Forever Blowing Bubbles, you stated Francis Mandin was in Happy the Man, but that band's page says Coco Roussel was a member, and does not mention Mandin.

Indeed. A mistake on my part if I really did write this.

>The page for Heldon does not state either name, but I left it in for now. Can you clarify who was in which band, and provide citations if the Wikipedia articles for those bands are deficient?

Coco Roussel is on several Heldon albums, it's a pretty well documented fact. He was associated with Richard Pinhas (Heldon mainman) since the early 1970s, and remained the project's drummer of choice until he left for the USA in 1976.

>Finally, I strongly recommend you get a WP account.

Thanks for the suggestion. Done. High time I did.

>It's also great to establish your work as your own, even if it's done under a made-up name. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk)

Great name btw. "Fetchez la vache"!

A.

PS: This is taking a long time, but I'll dig more into my archives, there's much more info than what I quoted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urich21 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:
So your saying you'd be okay with the subheadings as long as i include the : ? And as for the removing the word the, i don't recall removing the word the from "The Dark side of the moon", i did however remove the word the from the sentence that originally read: and the rock opera The Wall (1979. I removed the first the because it flowed better that way. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 18:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UWC
The UWC is clearly on WP:BADCHARTS, and that reference was clearly to the UWC. mediatraffic.de is already on Xlinkbot's list of sites to remove when it is added, and I am preparing for getting it placed on the spam blacklist. If you have an alternate source for information, please feel free to use it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (This discussion is in connection with changes made to Wish You Were Here (album)) I'll leave your latest revert as is, but some comments as to why another user probably reverted your change, and I did it as well: It's a little confusing to point to a list of depreciated charts when the site name is not the same as the chart name, especially since part of that list deals with site names (URLs). It's also confusing that the site name is something that you intend to add to the list, but are already deleting entries before completing that task.  It's also confusing that the depreciated list appears to be a list of articles that have been deleted, with the presumption that if the article is gone, that automatically blacklists the chart, and I don't see that as being necessarily so.  It seems to me that charts, websites, and WP articles about charts and/or websites are three different things, and are being confusingly meshed together.  I also wonder if the arguments against these charts, as presented in the article deletion logs, apply to the site or collection of charts as a whole, or just portions of it, and other portions might be reliable.  I note that the depreciated chart list describes it as "United World Chart/Global Top 40 Albums" which could mean only a list of top 40 albums is in dispute (which is not the particular list being removed as a reference in the Wish You Were Here article).  Hopefully these issues can be cleared up, otherwise deletions like this are going to be contested. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Record charts, and the consensus was that all those charts were to be deleted. The text we are talking about says " The album sold 21 million copies worldwide. . I don't know how much clearer a reference to the United World Chart can be. The reason I do this work before getting it on the spam blacklist is that it's confusing to people. They make another change in the article, and then can't save it because it contains the blacklisted URL. If I get all references out of article space first, that doesn't happen.Didn't notice one issue: "Global Top 40" is a mirror of the UWC album chart. I'll see if I can make that clearer in the listing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

MEssage on my talk page
Hi there,

I have protected and blanked the page already.

The Helpful  One  16:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

wp:album
(re. an edit to Third (Soft Machine album))

The project guidelines are not law, although some editors unfortunately seem to treat them as if they were. You shouldn't give them so much weight - common sense trumps the album project. Flowerparty ☀ 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with the standards for splitting albums sides using section headings, even though this album has one entry per side. The listing looks "familiar" compared to other articles about albums.  I am not over-riding my own common sense with project guidelines; I like the appearance of the article, and was quoting the project instructions for weight.  I think I did test-remove the track numbering at one time to see if I liked the look of that, and I didn't.  Sorry we're disagreeing, but I just don't see anything wrong with headings. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Just your edit summary suggested you were reverting against your better judgment. I don't mind the headings, but they do clutter up the toc somewhat. And for no real benefit - why would you want to jump to "side three", specifically? I prefer just to use bold text myself. Flowerparty ☀ 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It!
Did that cause you pain? I just couldn't resist - sorry. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only when I laugh. Thanks for asking. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "New! New!" "No, no, it's 'Ni'..." "... New!" You sir, have the best name EVER. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is (It's one of my favorite songs ever,) but your name is a billion times better. :) And keep up the great Pink Floyd work, as well! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Comprised"
"To comprise" means "to consist of", so there's no need to keep the "of": see http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/comprise -- The Anome (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct! I missed that. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Response on Feedback
Thanks for reviewing the Foundation for California Community Colleges draft. I have taken your advice and will see if I can post a stub after my username change takes effect. Fccc wiki (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict?
I was going to come here and thank you for your efforts in continuing the discussion, and making sure my fears (that the discussion would end and the guidelines cease to evolve) were unfounded. But then I noticed that you stopped participating. This doesn't seem like a coincidence. This was at the same time that I admitted that I was a bit upset. (Maybe I shouldn't have said that you "correctly detected the harshness of my original statement." I don't really know how harsh you thought I was being.) Would it help if I told you that I was over it? I stated my unhappiness with your actions, and you defended yourself over those actions. I made one last defense of my statement (hoping that it wouldn't be taken as trying to get the last word in), and we continued to hone the guidelines. That all seemed reasonable to me. But... I'm a consensus builder, but I should have recognized your preference for bold action, and tempered my response. -Freekee (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't stopped participating. You seemed to think I was taking too much control, so I stepped back to let others make the next proposal.  I already responded to what has been said so far, and when there is more discussion I will respond to that.  You complained that I acted too fast, but now, if you think things are moving too slow, you know how I felt!  Anyway, there is a big difference between suggestions like "maybe we should say something along the lines of..." vs. "here is an exact proposed wording...", and when I see the latter, I will support it if I agree with it.  The page is always on my watchlist.  Even if I were to drop out (frequently I'm away from WP for a week at a time), that doesn't mean the guideline must cease to evolve.  You or anyone else can keep it going, and implement further changes. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. My specific concern was that once a change was made to the guidelines, consensus for further change would be difficult to get. I'm not sure exactly why the discussion there ceased, but I'll bring it back up again today, and see what happens. -Freekee (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing me that favour
In relation to alerting NawlinWiki about the question i left on his article sub page. Unfortunately it seems he still has not noticed it and will probably not reply anyway. I would have appreciated some sort of acknowledgement at least for anyone who asks someone a question but i guess it being the festive season and people being so busy today i understand. At the end of the day i guess we are here to build the encyclopedia and not to ask people questions. Regardless maybe you can ask Nawlin does he have any plans to remove the semi on his talk page. Other users who have their page protected have a seperate subpage for anons and new users. It would seem by indef. protecting your talk page then surely the vandals have won. Thanks again and Merry Christmas 115.128.14.143 (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I read your message ^_^. And i left a note for all admins at the WP:AN page :) 115.128.2.158 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tomorrow3.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tomorrow3.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dave Lawson
Re. your adding "Dave Lawson - keyboards" to Tubular Bells, do you have any more information about this? I've never heard of him, and quite a lot has been written about the album. His website doesn't say what he did on the album (as far as I could see), could he have just been an engineer or consultant? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say I was slightly surprised by Lawson's claim, as I have three CD versions of the album and have never seen the credit before. But Dave Lawson was a key member of the 70s band, Greenslade, who were a second-tier prog-rock band of a similar style to Camel.  I'd like to see Lawson's claim either proved or refuted before the claim is removed from this entry.  Can we leave it there for a week, rather than simply remove it because neither of us had heard of Lawson's involvement before? Thegn (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would question why the WP article specifies "keyboards" when Lawson's article doesn't name an instrument, nor specifically says he played on the album. As for leaving it up for a week, is this because you are making enquiries during this time, via Lawson's site or Oldfield's?  (Oldfield has several official and fan sites with message boards.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have sent Mr. Lawson an email, and will let you know if I get a reply. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I got a reply! But there is a big problem.  Here is what his email says:


 * "Thanks for getting in touch. I did not play on Tubular Bells and my only involvement with the album was through my friendship with Mike. I had recently bought a Synclavier, at that time it was 'cutting edge' technology and unsurpassed sonically. I gave Mike some of these sounds which were incorrectly titled as Fairbell samples, the programmer concerned probably re-sampled these sounds into Mike's Fairlight sampler. These ended up on the album and as they were clearly my original sounds I had felt I had contributed to the final tracks. Adrian Thomas who worked for Mike for some considerable time can verify these events."


 * The problem is that the equipment he mentions, did not exist in 1972/3. A very early version of the Synclavier existed sometime between 1975 and 1979; the article at WP just says 1975 but if you go to the external "history" link at the bottom, it says a computer that it was based on, was developed in 1975, and the first "Synclavier I" was created sometime later.  It also says that it wasn't until the "Synclavier II", available in 1979, that it received wide public attention, and that happened in the 1980s, and even that version had mono sound; a stereo sampling version did not appear until 1984.  Also, the Fairlight sampler was first marketed in 1979.  I'm going to presume "Fairbell samples" means Fairlight's own samples of bell sounds, in which case I wonder if the album is actually Tubular Bells II which, as I recall, uses sampled bells instead of the real thing.  I prefer not to write back to him and tell him he must be thinking of a completely different album. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aw, what the heck, I wrote back and told him about it. (I'll probably never get him to autograph a cover for me now!) :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's turned into an intriguing little story, I hope you get another reply from him. :) --TubularWorld (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're right about his being confused. For me, the Synclavier came from New England Digital, and I wasn't aware of it until Pat Metheny's Offramp.  The Fairlight came from Australia, and I first heard that on a Kate Bush album, possibly Hounds of Love.  Both of these are digital instruments dependent on MIDI, micro-chips and computers, and I just cannot imagine them being around in 1973/4 when Oldfield made Tubular Bells, which never gets more electronic than a Farfisa, as I recall.  I saw Tubular Bells performed on the BBC at the time, presumably by members of Hatfield & the North, Henry Cow etc, and there wasn't a synth in sight.  I suggest we strike Mr Lawson off the Tubular Bells musician list, as lending someone an instrument hardly counts for a credit.  Besides, I've just been listening to another Greenslade CD on my way in to work this morning, and Mr Lawson had one of the most annoying voices in prog-rock. Thegn (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Got another reply saying he thinks I'm right, and will change the album on his website. Actually, I'm not so sure I was right in saying it's TB2.  If the work was done when Synclaviers and Fairlights were new, it could be an earlier album.  "Long thin metallic hanging tubes" were used on "The Wind Chimes", "Amarok", and probably other songs.  BTW, we can't decide whether or not to include him based on the quality of his voice.  If we did that, I wouldn't be here. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Next archive: January to December 2009