User talk:Greg Fasolino

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am CTSWyneken. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
 * Create a User page

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. --CTSWyneken 01:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)(talk)


 * Hey, I just wanted to thank you for taking an interest in the Deathrock article. Like I said on the Talk Page, it's great seeing folks who were so a part of the early scene helping out. I also really enjoyed your article in the first Drop Dead Magazine... there's a lot of history there that i hadn't heard anyone cover before. There seems to be this reluctance from folks who were a part of the earlier goth and punk scenes to discuss the history of it, so its refreshing to get it first hand. Well anyways, hope to see more edits from you.--Adrift* 19:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

List of post-punk bands
I hardly want to start a conflict, but is there a reason why, at List of post-punk bands, you keep replacing all red links that have gone to articles deleted as CSD#7 and AFD decisions? - Warthog Demon  05:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for not being as knowledgeable on technical Wiki issues. I have no idea what a CSD#7 is. What I do know an enormous amount about is post-punk music. I've been writing about it for over 25 years, and have been deeply involved with this topic as a journalist, music magazine editor, and musician. The links you deleted that I restored had never "gone to articles deleted"---separate articles never existed for them. This list of post-punk artists has many bands listed that deserve their own article but one has not been created yet. However, this is supposed to be an authoritative list of bands that significantly contributed to the genre of post-punk. Their historic merit and influence is not always apparent unless you take the time to Google them. There are many other bands on the list that do not have a separate article, and you did not delete these---the choices seemed arbitrary. Also, there are quite a few very minor and obscure artists that DO have a separate page, but were nowhere remotely as important or influential as some of the oens deleted. It seems counterproductive and a disservice to history and those seeking real information to base such a list on random and arbitrary methods, rather than the judgment of people who actually have some real knowledge of the music and its history. I would be happy to further explain and list references for any of the band listings you objected to.

P.K. 14 verified as post-punk via reliable sources. Do not revert.

 * P.K. 14 verified as post-punk via reliable sources. Do not revert. Read the sources on the article. Your opinions are WP:OR; the sources on the article always and everywhere trump your WP:OR. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Brave Destiny Article
Dear Greg, Some editors who seem to have hostility toward Terrance Lindall are trying to delete Brave Destiny from wikipedia. Can you and you other editor friends protect it by voting to keep?Immunonuclear (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I voted. I also took the opportunity to reorganize and rewrite the article, which to be frank, was a bit of a mess and not in line with Wikipedia standards. Hope that helps the cause as well.

Many Thanks. It looks like it might get voted down anyway. But the effort was made. Notability is not decided by numbers on Wiki, just what was influential in the outside world. And it WAS very influential. In future years, if Wiki continues, others will recreate the article, I am sure. Best RegardsImmunonuclear (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

45 Grave
I have reverted your edit, sorry. For two reasons: first of all you removed a link to a reliable source, and second, you replaced it with a link to a personal website. If you can rephrase it without removing my source and what it verifies, I don't have that much of a problem with it--though I wish you'd find a more reliable source. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but here's the problem. The source you are citing is not a serious, reliable source. It's some guy writing a review in his book, who obviously didn't have a very clear understanding of the admittedly confusing early history of 45 Grave. However, there is an excellent reason why this Wiki article originally made it clear that Vox Pop were a separate band who did not precede 45 Grave, but existed at the same time. It's because anyone who was a serious 45 Grave fan already knew this fact. Jeff Dahl is an important music figure in his own right and Vox Pop were primarily his band, and he had nothing to do with 45 Grave. The article you cite....anybody can publish a book and make up facts. How is that less reliable that the web article I cited which not only goes into immense and much more credible detail on exactly what/who Vox Pop was, but quotes all of the musicians involved? Why choose to deliberately spread misinformation by citing one throwaway incorrect line in a fairly obscure book? WHat makes it "reliable"? Especially if the author gets a major point wrong?

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to 45 Grave. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain to me: 1) How I added any content? The content was already in the WIkipedia article and had been there for a long, long time. You were the one who decided to add a statement that is contradicted in every other source on the band that one can find on the internet. 2. How is an interview with one of the members of the band that the article is about, not a valid source? The book you cited was not about 45 Grave. It had one page only dealing with only one member of that band. 3. What makes the book you cited a valid source, but the interview is not? Who knows more about the band in question, an author who in writing about a dead musician in one page of his book, made a factual error about the musician's band....or one of the founding members of the band itself? 4. Why are you so intent on putting this bit of misinformation into the 45 Grave article? I mean, Google the band. Look at their website. Read some old interviews. Check out the timelines and discographies in Discogs. It should be fairly obvious to any reasonable person that Vox Pop was not 45 Grave's original name. So why do you insist on trying to shoehorn in this statement when it's not true? By the way, Drmies, what are YOUR credentials? I've been writing about music professionally since 1984, and have been published in Creem, Newsday, The Big Takeover, Reflex, High Times, New York Review of Records, and many music magazines and newspapers. I take the editing I do here seriously as I tend to only work on articles where I am very familiar with the subject and the subject's history. I do not want people to look up 45 Grave, a band I've been following since 1982, and obtain misinformation. Correct, true historical facts are important which is why I asked, what is your reason for trying to put this incorrect factual statement in here? Are you trying to vandalize the article? I do not intend to back down and will keep putting in another source. Here's some more: http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=45_grave http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=jeff_dahl_group The Trouser Press Record Guides are considered an authoritative source that certainly trumps an author making a throwaway comment about the origins of bands he is not well versed in.Greg Fasolino (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Life's too short to get irate, despite the fact that your comments to me were verging on nasty. I'd rather reach a productive solution to this issue. While it's clear I know more about 45 Grave than you do, it's also clear you know more about Wikipedia than I do. So I will ask you, what do you suggest? I think I've explained to you pretty well how and why the assertion is incorrect. An equivalent example would be for someone to assert that Hot Tuna began as Jefferson Airplane, or that The Creatures began as Siouxsie and the Banshees. In a current example, no one would say Atoms for Peace started as Radiohead, would they? Atoms for Peace are certainly related to Radiohead, as they share a subset of members, but it's a separate project, would you agree? Vox Pop and 45 Grave are the same thing. I am sure the author of that book you cited meant well, but he was obviously writing about hundreds of musicians in that book, and you can surely agree (I've worked in publishing) that no book like that is entirely free of all factual errors, especially small ones. He probably was on deadline and didn't realize his wording was in error. I mean, he wasn't incorrect in noting a relationship between the bands; it's the "started as" that is problematic and incorrect. Maybe you don't like the fact that the sources I cited prior were from blogs, but I hope in the interest of truth you at least bothered to read them. Why would something an author wrote in a multi-subject book be considered unassailable? What source did HE reference to make that assertion? Are you telling me that every word in every book published by a reputable publishing house is 100% factually perfect and can never be subject to error or critique? You also didn't answer my question about why interview statements by the actual band members involved are not credible. I'd really like an answer to that. Maybe I am Wiki-ignorant, but I see references to such interviews placed in articles every day, without any negative comments from fellow editors. Here's a hypothetical: One published book about a variety of musicians happens to mention a particular album by a band, says that a certain song was written about subject A, but musician John Smith who was in said band clearly explains in all his online interviews that the song was actually written about subject B. You are writing a Wiki entry on this song. Am I to understand then that the author who maybe has the most cursory knowledge of this band, should take preference as a source over the person who actually wrote the song? That seems kind of preposterous to me, no? Anyway, there is no other bio of 45 Grave anywhere else on the internet aside from the book you cited, that makes this assertion about Vox Pop. Here's another hypothetical: Author John Doe writes a book, and he makes a mistake. A small factoid in the book is incorrect. Nobody else has printed anything specifically dealing with this topic because Doe is the only one who made this error. How then would someone go about proving (to the satisfaction of someone such as yourself) that this bit of trivia is incorrect? How can you prove a negative? What would satisfy you in order to ensure false information is not enshrined in this Wiki article? I am taking the time to write you here, at length, because I'd rather try and make a sensible joint fix to this rather than engage in any more pointless back and forth reversions. I respectfully ask for a solution that satisfies you as far as sourcing but satisfies the truth as well. I'd be happy to cite the Trouser Press books, though I'd also like to know why the interview was not sufficient, for future reference. I look forward to your response. Greg Fasolino (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying. FWIW, I think the fixes you just made to the article serve to ameliorate the "wrongness" of the original assertion. "It formed out of another band" could be considered accurate wording, whereas "Originally called Vox Pop" was simply wrong (another aspect that makes the latter claim impossible is that the earliest official recordings/releases by 45 Grave predate some of the Vox Pop recordings/releases; a glance at the respective band's discographies makes it apparent they were two contemporaneous bands, one of which developed as a side project of another, rather than one band that changed names in a linear fashion). So, the article is fine now as it is, as far as I am concerned. I am still a bit confused though, as to how one book can take precedence over all other published biographies and articles on a band. It's not like 45 Grave have never been written about. The book in question is recent and does not go into depth of this particular subject, nor does the author cite any reference (unless it's in the bibliography, which you would know or not) for his offhand assertion. I would humbly say again, anyone can publish a book and not all books are wholly impeachable sources, or would you disagree? (what about the zillions of books published by reputable houses that deal in false conspiracy theories, creationism, aliens, whatever...). In this particular field, I've been published in music books myself---I wrote over 40 entries in the last two Trouser Press Record Guide books (including the 45 Grave entry)---and I can state that not every word in every one of those 40 reviews or the hundreds of reviews in those books by others have proven to be completely 100% accurate. Revisions and corrections are always inevitable in works on artists and releases. The book you cited stated a fact that contradicted not only prior books (such as those Trouser Press volumes) but every other biography of both 45 Grave and Vox Pop, so why would it automatically take precedence over the entire breadth of prior journalism on the subject? Also FWIW, I wrote to the author, Jeremy Simmonds, via Facebook, as perhaps he can clarify why he wrote that, and maybe an admission that he flubbed the reference would be helpful. I'd also be curious to know how one would go about proving a negative. For example, I write a book that is published, a biography of 1980s California punk bands, in which I offhandedly assert that 45 Grave bassist Rob Ritter was a murderer. This isn't refuted in any other book mentioning the band, as it's something I made up, and the band is obscure enough that nobody is up in arms about it (in print), and the person in question is dead. SOmeone then adds that factoid to a Wikipedia article on the band. Why would my book take precedence on this "fact" when all prior bios and internet sources say otherwise? I'm just wondering, isn't there some weight to the body of prior material as opposed to a single, unproven source? best Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Greg, the basic setup is simple: published works are generally reliable, websites not so much. (That it was already there and you re-added it is beside the point.) You are welcome to take your case to WP:RSN, the noticeboard for reliable sources. My problem with your edit is this--you removed the source I added. What you could have done was read it to see what was there and what it verifies, and add whatever comes out of yours, but you had to revert again and remove the book I added. You may not like that book or whatever, but it's published and we attach value to that. Please see Verifiability. Now, I've been trying to clean up a bunch of articles related to Steve Wynn and The Dream Syndicate and I've been doing it by adding book references and news articles. The LA Times, though, I can only get from 1986 on. If you wish to really improve these articles, and make them better by Wikipedia's standards, that's the work that needs to be done: reliable sources, and tweaking the text in agreement with it. Again, if you want to bring it in your source that's fine, though it's not the best, but you can't do so at the expense of the reference to the book: simply put, it has precedence because it was published. Does that explain matters? See also WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Greg, please, shorter paragraphs. I grew up in the 80s and don't have the attention span anymore. If you add such properly referenced information that kind of stuff can be set straight. They don't need to be available online, but they need to be cited with the proper bibliographic information so they can be judged. I saw you added wikilinks for Cutler; I wrote him up yesterday, with his beatnik-neatnik guitar. As for your hypothetical: if that book gets published by a reputable press we have to assume that they did proper fact checking, because that's what reputable presses do. It's for that reason that we don't generally accepted self-published books, and that we look closely at books that editors add if they wrote it themselves. I blocked someone yesterday for doing that--adding a book he wrote published by an unknown press, ostensibly for the purpose of selling it (it came with an Amazon link) and pushing his own point of view. Oh, as for the band's name--I don't doubt the story of the button, but the source isn't that great and it's clear from the interview that the guy can get some mileage out of it considering that they're apparently fighting over who has the rights to the name. I don't think our article should get into that at the moment, by the way, so let's leave that as it is--but that's why I said "according to". Drmies (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Marissa Nadler page
Hello Greg, thanks for pointing out the wrong use of quotation marks in the Marissa Nadler page. I guess the confusion comes from British English vs. American English, as we tend to use single quotation marks here. Karst 11:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC) No problem, and I had also forgotten the differing usages between UK/US on that issue.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, as you can see on the talk page, I changed a lot today because I think the page needs some major fleshing out. Hope it's an improvement Nicolo Machiavelli (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Banshees
Thanks for correcting these articles. Could you also take a look at the Siouxsie and the Banshees article? I saw that you haven't contributed to this article yet. Carliertwo (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Matango
My sentence was unintelligible? It had one wrong bit of phrasing, and you act like I said 'It are am DVD released' or something like that. As to the titles, sorry--I bought the set, and it included all 3 films. When I tried to find it again just this month, I learned it was now out of print. I was trying to add information about the DVD release, not spam the article with diet and mortgage ads.Gojirob (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, your sentence was unintelligible. Read it again: "It was featured in a three-pack with Varan and The Mysterians is currently out of print." It doesn't make grammatical sense. It's not the job of other Wiki editors to try and figure out what you were trying to say...it's your job to make sure you don't add sentences that make no grammatical sense. That's why I simply reverted it instead of trying to fix it. Also, you listed two others films, but listed one of them under an incorrect title, and you didn't put them in italics, either. You shouldn't add links if you're not going to take the extra minute to Google the correct names of the film you are citing. That's the point here---it's better not to add information unless you plan on adding correct information. Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Harassment
I was just taking a closer look at the talk page on Serratos and that you mention being harassed by the IP, who is presumably Preppy12 as well. Take a look at this page, if you can be fairly certain that the person harassing you off-Wiki is this IP editor, follow the processes as you feel necessary. Cannolis (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No idea how I would prove this, but it was pretty obvious to me. Immediately after the article protection ended and this person's vandalism began again, and I removed their edits, I received a series of harassing comments on my YouTube page from someone named "A Volcano" (https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCocoalicia). I use my real name on both Wikipedia and YouTube so it's easy for anyone to find me. This "A Volcano" aka Cocoalicia's only activity on YouTube aside from the comments to me, was liking a Christian Serratos video. So, it's fairly obvious he or she got annoyed at having their edits removed again, and looked me up online. I blocked them so no further comments have been made, but I thought it may be important to mention this in light of the weird personal attacks and bizarre accusations this person has made about me.Greg Fasolino (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I did a little digging of my own. Apparently the actress's mother is actually named Alicia Serratos and her Twitter page references the above YouTube moniker: https://twitter.com/cocoalicia. I have no idea whether the vandalizing editor here is actually Mrs. Serratos, or someone impersonating her; either way it's quite weird. The stuff that was mentioned in your post (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APreppy12&diff=633303047&oldid=633272869) is very strange, not sure what to think, but if this was really a member of the actress's family I would think she'd have a lawyer or agent contact you rather than make bizarre accusations.Greg Fasolino (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, this editor in question changed names again, from Preppy12 to 24.205.34.177. They attempted the same weird edits and this time were reverted by another editor.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian Caple
Against WP:REDLINK, you have now three times removed the link to him.

As you can see from the recent AfD for Caple, there was some support for his notability (3 people saying "Of course, he's a notable producer" vs two saying "I've never heard of this guy and what's a producer?") even though the article was summarily deleted under claims that it was a copyvio. None of that is a reason to start edit-warring against WP:REDLINK and it's certainly not a constructive action, should someone be trying to recreate a viable article on him.

As to his notability, then do you simply claim he's unnotable? Are you familiar with his work? Why do you think that Prettiest Thing is an article of such individual merit that it has to be protected from dire redlinks, yet its producer is impossible to claim notability for? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so hell-bent on creating a link to a deleted article? Redlinks are not as useful now as in the early days of Wikipedia; they are generally not recommended unless an article is actually being planned or very likely to be created. In this case, you apparently lost the debate on the article in question, so what is the intense urgency to put in a redlink to an article that was JUST deleted? Instead, since you feel Caple IS notable, why not put your energy instead into creating a better article for him that proves his notability? Greg Fasolino (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bug (1975 film)
I see that you reverted my change to Bug (1975 film) that changed the link for Thomas White to Thomas White. Thomas White is a disambiguation page, and should not have any pages linking to it. Since there is no page on the writer, the link should either be a redlink to a possible page for the writer or should not be linked at all. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Chill-out man :-(
Hey, first of all, thanks for correct my english. I'm not a native speaker but I made my best to write relatively well. Unfortunally, I tend to commit such errors, so thanks again.

And well... say that The Cure represents better a "havier" goth sound don't make much sense, since your music is more focused on New Wave. Generally, I see the band being described as gothic more because of the visual\appearance rather the music itself... and the sentence talks primarily about the sound. It's funny because your argument (The Cure are a far more representative band for gothic rock than The BP) is just "conjecture/personal" too, the same way as you pointed early. On the other side, in the article of The Birthday Party itself you can see some reference, strongly highlighting the dark, heavy sound, and that citation too: "Their music was classified by critic Simon Reynolds as gothic rock.[1].

PS, only a funfact: I'm not a The Cure hater. In fact... I personaly prefer them that the TBP! So its not exaaactly a "personal" thing, hehe.

And well... relax man, its just a article, no need to became mad or something. We can come to a nice agreement and nail down! :-)

peace

177.95.6.44 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not mad at all. I do take Wikipedia seriously, though. It's an encyclopedia and meant to be as authoritative, accurate and objective as possible. The Birthday Party, while a great band, are a bit of an outlier and not musically typical of the gothic rock genre. They are surely part of it, but if anything, their sound, along with The Cramps, spawned psychobilly, and they were obviously a big influence on fellow Australian bands. But...they have no synths and their guitars are scratchy and noisy, not gloomy. Objectively speaking, the bands that most typify the mainstream of goth are Bauhaus, Joy Division, Banshees, Sisters of Mercy, The Cure, Christian Death etc. Not the Birthday Party. This isn't my personal conjecture. The bands that were heavily inspired by or imitated the Birthday Party, like Inca Babies, Moodists, Scientists, Ausgang, Triffids, Bone Orchard etc. are not really typical or mainstream goth bands either. Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Monster That Challenged the World
Sorry if I am being too abrupt in my editing, as I really don't have much interest in the article and certainly appreciate the changes you have made, and hope I haven't messed up your edits too much. See Talk:The Monster That Challenged the World. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC) No problem, Bzuk. You did mess up one thing, your last edit was a sequence error, but I just fixed it. The stylistic issue is up for discussion on the talk page, let me know your thoughts.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Giant Claw
Greg, take a look; I stumbled onto this film and its stablemate, The Night the World Exploded. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks! I made a few corrections on it. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Issues
Greetings. Could you point out where it says on WP that "references do not belong in infobox"? I've never seen this rule before. Also, how is it that an album is released by an artist as well as by a label? To me it sounds odd for an album to have been released by both entities, when it is the artist's work through which the label distributed it on a specific date. Grammatical nuances, heh. I'm not trying to be hostile—just curious, as I am also keen on grammatical edits around here. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXREF. It's not a rule per se, but it is discouraged, and editors are encouraged to use references in the article itself first and foremost. Refs clutter the infobox and make it less readable. Facts should be referenced in the article itself.Greg Fasolino (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"Through" may not be ungrammatical English, but it nonstandard and unclear. Look at any review or article in a major music publication, and you will see "by" or "on." Look at any Wiki article on a very prominent band or artist or record, and you will see "by" or "on." I assume "through" is a recent affectation by UK/European editors but Wiki is supposed to use clear, standard writing, not regional variations.Greg Fasolino (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

On album lengths, reference is completely unnecessary. Wiki strives for uniform approaches. Since we are talking about a metal album, do an experiment. Pick 10 (or 20) of the most famous metal albums of all time. Look up their Wiki articles. Are their album lengths in infoboxes referenced? Since they are not, then that should be the standard approach.Greg Fasolino (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see. Maybe it's just another of those BrEng/AmEng naggles (re:"by/on/through"). In which case, I'm certainly not about to dig my feet in with that stuff anymore, following a recent encounter with a very abrasive and unfriendly U.S.-centric editor who had no concept of WP:CIV or WP:NEGOTIATION. You seem a level-headed fellow, so I'm happy to concede.


 * As for track listing refs, the reason I started adding them to album articles a long time ago (first as hidden notes in track listings, then infobox refs) is because some editors tried incorrectly changing duration/track times, whereas I had the disc at hand to disprove such changes—hence I figured a ref for the disc itself was something worthwhile to throw in there. Now that someone has finally voiced a valid opinion on it, I will no longer do so. Call it over-ref'ing on my part in an attempt to comply rigidly with WP:CHALLENGE, if you get what I mean. I will note, however, that infobox genres often do need refs due to persistent disputes (example). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I always try to be non-abrasive and reasonable :)
 * On the infobox refs, I see what you mean about disputes but I still don't get why the disputed information would not be referenced in the actual text, by priority, as per Wiki preferences. For example, the release date is ref'd in the infobox, yet the exact same release date is noted in the article lead, with no ref. The ref should go to the listing in the story lead, not the same date listing in the infobox. As for the genre wars, again, that information is better listed in the article, and ref'd there. If I was editing that article, I would remove all the refs from the infobox genres, and add a sentence in the lead saying: Metropolis Pt. 2: Scenes from a Memory has been described by reviewers as progressive metal(insert ref) and progressive rock(insert ref). This accomplishes the exact same thing but complies with Wiki preference to keep the infobox clean.Greg Fasolino (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

C/e on Metallica albums
Hey, thanks for taking care on both Metallica albums. I'm planning to significantly expand them during the summer, so I won't hesitate to ask you if I'm not sure over the grammar or something. Just to note that the band is being referred in third person singular, thus it would be its album instead of their. Thanks again and good luck.--Retrohead (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. thanks Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the c/e, but I have few suggestions:


 * In its first mentioning in the article, the person should be linked and attributed with its role in the band and its full name. Thus we should have "inviting bassist Cliff Burton and guitarist Kirk Hammett for rehearsals", not "inviting Burton and guitarist Kirk Hammett". Then the reader should be presented with Mensch's and Brautigam's names in the last paragraph of 'Background and recording' (it is their introduction).
 * For aesthetical reasons, sometimes it is not the best options to divide all the songs from 'Music and lyrics'. They were grouped "Side A" and "Side B". Same reason (aesthetics) for 'Live performances'.
 * I see you've changed all the sentences to past tense. This is generally correct, but not in all cases. For example, it can be "Martin Popoff considers/considered MoP the greatest heavy metal album". I would go with considers because he still thinks that, although his book was published years ago.
 * Numbers (especially in the lead) should be written with letters (twentieth, not 20th; number two, not No.2).
 * Terms that are related to the subject should be linked in their first mentioning. For example, "thrash metal" should be linked in the opening sentence of 'Background', but "skateboarding" shouldn't because it is ordinary word and not specifically related to the subject.
 * All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. "In its first mentioning in the article, the person should be linked and attributed.." Correct, but Burton was ALREADY linked and attributed. Same with Mensch and Brautigam. You only use full name and Wiki link on the first reference.
 * 2. That's your opinion. Most people listen to albums these days as a whole, not as sides A and B. It makes more aesthetic sense (and is easier to read) if each song is separated.
 * 3. "Numbers (especially in the lead) should be written with letters". Totally incorrect! All numbers above 9 should always be written as numerals, unless they start a sentence. This is basic copy-editing 101, and I should know because I work as a proofreader and copy-editor. Cheers Greg Fasolino (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I spent a LOT of time fixing things on that page that were incorrect. Reverting all of my work was not cool and rendered much of the changes incorrect. Why don't you address individual changes instead?Greg Fasolino (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to create animosity between us. I appreciate your input and I never doubted your intentions. I'll revert only the changes I disagree with. The lead serves as a summary to the article, not as a part of the article's body. The article begins with the first section ('Background' in this case), which should re–introduce the persons. Separating the tracks is unnecessary (my opinion). Separating the songs is your suggestion/preference, not a rule written in stone.--Retrohead (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * PS—"Battery" still refers to artillery battery, it did not refer (referred) only in 1986; 1986 even today is seen as great year for thrash metal, not only in the past; "skateboarding" is a common word and not necessarily related to the subject (why not link setlist, artwork, November, etc.); why did you remove the cite from the infobox since the singles's release date is nowhere mentioned in the article (WP:INFOBOXREF)?--Retrohead (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * PPS—Regarding the The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited, you should have noticed that only the first letter should be capitalized in the section's title (brief history should be with small letters), though I prefer the title to be "Background and recording" as suggested in MOS:ALBUM.--Retrohead (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No animosity. Much of what you say here is fine, I'll just note what isn't. 1. The lead is the first paragraph of an article, not a separate thing entirely, and counts as part of the body of an article, unlike say, an infobox or a track listing. So no reintroduction with Wiki links and full names should be done; this is standard in all major Wiki articles I;ve read or edited. 2. You are separating the tracks, but you're separating them by vinyl LP side, which is (today) a totally non-standard format. So either collate them all together, as on a CD or digital album, or separate each track. Your separation is nonstandard and Wiki editors should strive for the most common, standard formatting in articles. 3. Per Wikipedia preferences, references should go in the body, not the infobox. Infobox refs should be avoided. I moved the reference to its proper place, when discussing the fact that the single was issued in France only. That's where it belongs, not in the infobox. 4. Not sure what you mean on the $5.98 article, to my knowledge, I did not change any section titles. Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Now that I actually looked, your comment is somewhat disingenuous, as it looks like you reverted everything again, with no explanations and nothing to back it up. I have left anything that is personal preference; however, many of your reversions are clearly against grammar, spelling, linking and number rules, and those have been individually corrected and plainly and fully noted as to why the change was made. If you want to change them again, I suggest providing some actual rules or references to support your incorrect assertions.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * MOS:ALBUM doesn't provide a section called "Equipment". Since this is a very small section, I suggest merging it to "Recording" (since the equipment is used for recording, right?). Second thing, 100% of the literature I consulted implies that no singles were released from Master of Puppets. Mentioning an isolated case (the title track being released in France) is not lead-worthy, according to me. Third thing, I unintentionally reverted a few of your corrections in "Music and lyrics" because when you separate (or merge) a paragraph into two, all of it appears red on the screen. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine on the equipment, then. On the single, that is crucial, because the article clearly states in two places that the band released no singles whatsoever, and that's false. A single was release, just in France and as a promo in the US. If you don't want to clarify this, then the references to "released no singles" have to be changed, as they are incorrect. It also contradicts the infobox, which clearly lists the French single. That contradiction is unacceptable. I would suggest mentioning the isolated single later in the article then. If you want to not mention it at all, then the infobox single info has to be removed as well to avoid contradiction. Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC) I made the most parsimonious change; moved the clarification on the title track single from the lead to a later section. Hope that helps. Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." My opinion–Burton's role in the band is a significant information and should not be present only in the lead. Furthermore, the lead serves as a summary of the article, not a part of its body.--Retrohead (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I read this and it does not say or suggest that the lead is separate from the article or its body. It summarizes, but is part of the article ("first part of the article") itself. This also says nothing about linking or using full names as if the lead was a separate entity. I have no issue with you mentioning Burton's role in the band more than once. My issue was with redundant linking. Can you find any authoritative or official word on that?Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you ok with mentioning full name of the other persons mentioned there?--Retrohead (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, you have not established any kind of official policy that would say the the lead is an exception to the rule of Wiki linking on first reference. This is not a wholly unacceptable, egregious case of error, as with the MOP single issue, so I am not going to edit war with you on this, but you have not really provided any solid reason why the names mentioned in the lead should be repeated in full again, either.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, can you please explain why you keep trying to obfuscate and remove clarification of the single release of MOP's title track? There's no lack of clarity here, the Wiki page for the song clearly delineates the single's release (official in France, promo in US), which exactly matches confirmation on the band's official website (http://www.metallica.com/releases/master-of-puppets-single.asp) and Discogs. Your edits put the article into contradiction with the infobox mention of the single, with the single's Wiki page, and with the references. You have been reasonable so far but this makes zero sense and seems quite random on your part. Our goal as editors is clarity and confirmation; your edits on this have the opposite effect. Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's why. Martin Popoff wrote that the band opted for some serious touring instead of releasing a single or a video for MoP. Per the source's weight (the one you cited is a fan's website that hardly is more reliable source than Popoff) I assume that the France release was an isolated case (was it present on the charts, did it get radio play?).--Retrohead (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * First, the band's own official website discography outweighs Mr. Popoff as a source. Second, his comment is contextual; his meaning clearly is that they did not release a single in their main market, the US. Are you disputing that the single exists? If so, you need to first dispute the existence of the single's Wiki page, and the listing of the single in the album's infobox. In that case, I am sure numerous additional references can be obtained confirming the existence of the single. It is clearly unacceptable to have any of these articles contradict themselves or each other, or to have the article rely on one person (Popoff) above official discographies, or to put a Wikipedia article in the position of denying the existence of something that clearly existed. The official Metallica discography reference confirms the single was released. That is unimpeachable. If you want to clarify Popoff's statement that he was referring solely to the US, be my guest. But unless you can prove that the sources cited are false and the Wiki page for the single is fictitious, the burden is on you. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Guess what? I checked and Popoff's book ITSELF confirms the single's release. See below. So...an unclarified, contextual comment of Popoff's is not the final word, the band's website and Popoff's own discography are. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Look here:
 * Can you quote what the book says because it shows blank page when I click on it? And by the way, you are citing a different book. (500 greatest metal albums was by me and you listed the Metallica bio). And I posted a question above regarding the lead.--Retrohead (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot copy it for you as it is a Google preview, but it is a reproduction of page 184 of "Metallica: The Complete Illustrated History" by Martin Popoff. The headline is SINGLES. It lists all of the band's singles. "Master of Puppets" is listed as the band's sixth single, after the promo of "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and preceding "Harvester of Sorrow." It says: Master of Pupperts (Part 1) b/w Master of Puppets (Part 2); U.S. Elektra ED 5139 promo; also officially released in France as a single by Music for Nations b/w Welcome Home Sanitarium. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, got it. I removed the fan's webiste (Discogs) from the article and dropped the single's label because that belongs to the song's article. Also moved it a little bellow to be less jarring.--Retrohead (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Works for me.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad we're through this.--Retrohead (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * same :) Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Beach Blvd
Hi. I get it, and yes, the cover art says "1990", but according to an article by Mike Boehm in LA Times of 19 July 1991, that Beach Blvd extended version on CD was actually released in 1991 and I quote:

""Twelve years after the album first appeared on vinyl, Fields' Posh Boy label has released an expanded, 29-song compact-disc version of "Beach Blvd." To mark the occasion, Rik L Rik, the Crowd and the Simpletones will play a "Return to Beach Blvd" concert tonight [July 19, 1991] at the Old World Festival Hall in Huntington Beach.""

Maybe I should have said "produced in 1990 (instead of edited), but released until 1991", or something like that.

I guess I got a little messed up about how to say that.

Your comments and corrections are always thanked. LFdoR (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think that is a good source about the concert, but since it does not definitely state an exact release date for the CD, or even clearly state the year ("Twelve years after" could be considered ambiguous), I would not use it as the primary source, as every other listing online says 1990. The CD label is much more definitive. Greg Fasolino (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree, thank you. LFdoR (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Need your opinion on cover art scans as source of reliable information
Hi again, almost three weeks ago the user Binksternet made some corrections on the article Red Cross (EP) and left this comment:

""(Rate Your Music and Discogs are not reliable per WikiProject_Albums/Sources.)""

Of course, I read carefully that directive or rule, or whatever it's called. I quote:

""Websites with user-generated content should never be used as sources since they have little or no editorial oversight. This may include other general wiki-style sites such as Wikia, and album-related sites such as Discogs or Rate Your Music. This is also important to be cautious of on websites that publish user-submitted album reviews. For sites such as AbsolutePunk, Sputnikmusic, and Jesus Freak Hideout, be sure to select only the staff-written reviews.""

Then, I replied to Mr. Binksternet in his talk page:

""Yes, Rate Your Music and Discogs might not be reliable as for their user-posted music reviews and ratings. That's fine, however, I use such online databases to consult basic data such as track listings, catalogue numbers, etc., but I mostly use them for collecting the highly reliable info printed on the cover art itself, that at least in the case of Discogs are quite legible scans and photographs from the originals that I haven't found in any other website. Besides, AllMusic leaves a lot to be desired.""

He, in turn, answered me:

""I like the Discogs scans of labels and album art; I agree they are often helpful. Unfortunately, images are easily doctored, which means they can omit information or they can add spurious information. I get your point about track lists.""

Are the scans often helpful but not reliable?

In the light of this, maybe we should mistrust everything, that infallible foil-hat Pope with a lot of medals, Wikipedia and the very air we breathe included.

I would really appreciate your views on this. LFdoR (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, while it is surely not infallible, I have found very, very few errors on Discogs and use it almost daily as a reference for my work. I get the point about not using it as a primary source but as you said, it usually prints labels, LP and single sleeves and disc labels, etc., and that info is useful. Especially when talking about albums or singles that do not have much or any mainstream press.Greg Fasolino (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why to compare several sources is crucial for detecting errors and inconsistencies, but on the other hand, can be difficult (sometimes very hard) as regards early punk rock and hardcore punk to meet Wikipedia's requirements. And in this case the lack of mainstream press doesn't mean irrelevance. Besides, that warning relates to user-posted ratings and reviews (some of them quite lucid, IMO), no regarding uploaded images. Thanks again! LFdoR (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Frank Gambale and possible COI
Greetings. Just wanting to get an outside perspective on what do at the article for guitarist Frank Gambale, which may have a small-scale COI about to brew up. A user who has registered under the same name, and claims to be the man himself or a representative of his (1), has added content stating outright that Gambale is the originator of the sweep picking technique, when it is quite well known that other guitarists used the technique in some shape or form long before him (1). The user has tried twice to add this self-serving content (as well as listing multiple websites in the infobox), and I have little doubt that they will try again. Should that happen, is it a case for WP:COIN? I've never been that route before, so any advice if possible would be appreciated. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Never been in that situation quite yet; if I had issues, I worked them out in Talk. But sounds problematic; if its him, he doesnt seem familiar with Wiki rules.Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Kill 'Em All
Hey Greg, I wanted to ask you does the lead in Kill 'Em All make sense after I reshuffled it? Another editor I asked suggested to begin with the album's legacy, but I'd like to hear your opinion if the lead makes sense now?--Retrohead (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) One more thing—is Babylon the only populated place on Long Island? I'm not an expert on New York's landscape, and I appologize if my question may seem inane.--Retrohead (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC) "Long Island has an estimated population of 7.75 million in 2013. It is the most populated island in any U.S. territory or state and the 17th most populous island in the world, beating Ireland and Jamaica. If Long Island were a state, it would by the 13th most populous and first in terms of population density with 5,402 people per square mile, or 2,086 people per square kilometer. It is one of the most densely populated regions in the country. Long Island has 39% of the total population of the state of New York. " Greg Fasolino (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at it, sure. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it reads fine.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not inane at all. And no, Babylon is just one town of many and not even the biggest one. Long Island is one of the most densely populated places in the U.S.

One more favor. Can you offer an opinion at Featured article candidates/Master of Puppets/archive4 whether a sentence can start with a year (third point).--Retrohead (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with starting a sentence with a year. Some antiquated style book argue against it but it's valid nowadays. Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Greg, are you up for a co-nomination of Kill 'Em All for featured article? I think you can better handle the c/e notes than me.--Retrohead (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for trying to fix some of the issues Lachan Foley is causing. I'm mainly concerned with Sonic Youth as of now, though I know the problem is much larger than that. Hopefully the AN/I will resolve this and a true repair can begin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem, happy to help. And yeah, he's causing a lot of problems on a lot of pages and many editors are quite aggravated with him. I see that he has been suspended in the past due to genre warring and disruption---perhaps one of the editors in question can file a complaint. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is actually an AN/I currently active. Not sure if it's your thing to comment on it, but I was just making you aware. Best of luck to you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did comment in two places there just now, thank you. Greg Fasolino (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Zombie Lake
Hi Greg, I appreciate your edits to Zombie Lake, but the calling out of editors who should "|Try reading a newspaper or an actual encyclopedia before making poor stylistic changes" are uncivil and uncalled for. Not everyone is a writer (like your user page indicates you are), but everyone is free to edit wikipedia. I'm happy you've improved Zombie Lake's content now (your edits have made it much better!), but either way, take it easy. It's Zombie Lake after all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Sorry if you felt insulted. No, not everyone is a writer, and yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it's frustrating when grammar, spelling, punctuation errors etc. are FIXED and then someone changes them to be incorrect again. I mean, everyone makes mistakes, we are all human. But I think Wiki editors should also be more careful with those changes if they aren't well-versed in the basics. For example, it takes almost no time or effort to go on the internet and check the spelling of a word. You could have checked "flamethrower" and realized my spelling was correct instead of making a change that was incorrect. And yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be encouraging good writing and proper punctuation. People who write poorly or are sloppy with punctuation and grammar should at least try to edit carefully. No offense given or taken, just an observation. Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are without a doubt correct there. My main concern was the removal of some information. I don't remember if it was I who wrote that plot or not, but I'll keep a better eye on that information. Thanks for your help!Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Lachlan Foley, is he already back with this ip?
Lachlan Foley, is he already back with this ip?
 * Not sure. Hope not!Greg Fasolino (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * apparently, he has got a new profile see here. Carliertwo (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If thats him...ugh! Greg Fasolino (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RE: Lead vs. body re: Wiki links
Hi Greg Fasolino and thank you for your interest in improving the articles, here you can find the linking guidelines. According to the guidelines, "Consider including links where readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, at the openings of new sections, in the cells of tables, and in image captions. But note below that as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article." It is useful to wikilink again in the body of the article because readers might want to skip the lead using the table of contents. As examples, several featured articles like Marquee Moon or OK Computer use them in the body of the article. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I did revert several other clear grammar errors etc.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Monster of Piedra's Blanca's collaberation
I was just wondering if you would be willing to collaborate with me on expanding The Monster of Piedras Blancas, there is more information that could be added to the article, especially the release,plot, and reception sections.I can help expand the plot and reception sections but there needs to be information added on the film's theatrical and home media releases. Please let me know if you are interested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Kiss Them
What this source supports is not correct. This drumbeat was conceived and made available by the engineers of Roland and every owner of this machine had access to it on TR 909. This author of av club had to base this information on Wikipedia which has been advanced this for years without any reliable source. The miracle of internet is that a wrong information becomes true as soon as it is reproduced on a website. Carliertwo (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then it's good you've corrected it. It's a shame we can't find a proper reference for this but better to have it accurate than wrong.Greg Fasolino (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have found this video of 2 mins on youtube in which an owner of a TR 909, makes a demonstration, explaining that it was used for many hits including Schooly's PSK. Thanks for making the changes on the article but it would be better if one erased the av club source which was falsely based on an inaccurate, previously unsourced, wikipedia information. Carliertwo (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update, the guy in this video is Joe Mansfield who wrote a book about this drum machine in 2013.Carliertwo (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is another source still based on Joe Mansfield 's recent book here, it is clearly said that the tr909 "provided" the bare bones for Schoolly'D "PSK". So it is not a sample but rather sounds and rhythms provided by a beat box machine.Carliertwo (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete the source. As far as semantics and music terminology go, it all depends on exactly how the beat was created. If the exact beat used in "PSK" was preprogrammed into the machine as a "stock" beat, and Schoolly D just recorded it as is, and then later, the Banshees did the same thing, using the original stock rhythm and just recording it without any changes, then yes, it would be as you say and not a sample. However, it's still not entirely clear to me if Schoolly altered or rearranged this beat in any way while recording it. None of the sources seem to clarify this---does the video you mention? With the Banshees it's also not clear to me if they went straight to the machine's preprogrammed stock beat and recorded that, or if they sampled it from "PSK." If their recording was in any way taken from "PSK"'s recording, it's a sample no matter where the beat came from originally. I am assuming that isn;t the case but you don't seem to have a clear knowledge of these issues either, and you don't seem to totally grasp the English use of the word "sample." I can sample the drum machine beat from any song and it is then a "sample." It's only not a sample if I record it myself, straight from the drum machine itself.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

They wrote the songs, they didn't "find" them
Not a criticism, but in UK English (mine, I believe I wrote that), the band found that five of the songs were "pop" and "upbeat" makes perfect sense, as they found out/realised afterwards that the new stuff was split down the middle. Beatpoet (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not really understood though, that they realized this after, or during. And whether that makes sense in colloquial British English or not, it's not clear and encyclopedic writing, it's conversational writing. "Realized after" is clear in any context. "Found out" is not. Did someone else tell them? How can they have "found out" what their own compositions were? The verb "found" in non-colloquial/non-slang usage really should be reserved for ***discovery***, not analysis.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for everything!!! Greg.
Thanks for everything, Greg!!! LFdoR 23:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sioux
I'm not going to edit war about something so trivial, and I still think you're incorrect, but I'm curious about your edit summary here: — particularly "check the Banshees singles here". Unless I'm overlooking something I see no example of a Banshees song title that was altered or changed because it contains a parenthetical about "such and such version" or "blah blah remix". Which one(s) are you referring to? The *only* example I can think of is "Hong Kong Garden", which appears on the Marie Antoinette soundtrack on iTunes with "(With Strings Intro)". Surely this does not mean that the song's title is now "Hong Kong Garden (With Strings Intro)"? - eo (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any time a song is remixed or issued in an altered version, whatever is listed on the release is considered part of the official title of that particular track. Note that I say track, not "song"; you are conflating these two things. A song can have many official track titles. And when covered by other artists, sometimes the title is changed radically (for example, The Stooges' "1970" and The Damned's "I Feel Alright" are the same exact song, but have different official titles as the latter band released their cover of the former under a new title). In fact, a song can have more than one title on a particular album, for example (fictitious), an album can have songs whose full and correct titles (all going inside the quotes, per all proofreading and copy-editing stylebooks) would be, "Random Song (Intro)" and "Random Song (Outro)". Remixed versions are known by their full released track names, depending on what is shown on the release itself. Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Examples from the Banshees Wiki pages, for titles such as "Spellbound (Extended)", "Mittageisen (Metal Postcard)" and "O Baby (Manhattan Mix)":
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spellbound_%28Siouxsie_and_the_Banshees_song%29
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittageisen
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_to_Face_%28Siouxsie_and_the_Banshees_song%29
 * I do get what youre saying here, but still I think the formatting is wrong. The quotation marks indicate the song's title... anything after that would be the name of its particular version.  For every example that you show me of your preferred version (like those above), there are many others that are displayed in my preferred version.  Three such examples are below (all have a plethora of officially released remixes), and additionally, all three of them were promoted to "featured article" on Wikipedia and displayed as examples at WP:SONGS:
 * 4 Minutes
 * Hollaback Girl
 * Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)
 * — eo (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all Wikipedia editors have a background in proofreading or copy-editing, and may not be aware of standard stylebooks used in news media and publications. I can only do my part to indicate not what I "prefer," but what is the standard in professional editing. A track title is a track title, no matter which "version" it is. Otherwise (apart from standardization issues), you run into the tangled and unclear zone where individual editors decide whether a part of a track title in parentheses is a "version" or not, not to mention the instances where other parts of the track name are changed. The clear standard solution is that each track has its own unique title. As a music artist myself, I can assure you that the released remixes of my bands have distinct titles from the original tracks.Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Lost in the Sun (song)
I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but I don't understand why you keep reverting my edit—you know which one I'm taking about. Not only "persons" can receive things. The most commonly used example of this is with movies: films can receive awards, attention, etc. Search "the film received", like I did, and you will see numerous examples of movies with this wording. Please further explain. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Because I work as an editor and proofreader for a living, and I can assure you that your sentence is and was grammatically incorrect. Maybe it works for you as a casual slang sentence, but it's not standard, clear, encyclopedic English, which is what we need to use on Wikipedia. Yes, a film can receive an award. Why? Because an award is something that is **given**. Something can receive awards, attention, accolades, criticism...anything that is "given". Videos are not given, and they are not received. They are something that is created. So no, there is absolutely no way a song can receive a video. That's like saying a book received a movie, or a slice of beef received a hamburger. It's nonsensical. Please show me any professional (i.e., a source-quality book, magazine, newspaper etc.) that has ever used the construction "song received a video." It doesn't exist. Again, we need to use standard English and clear language, which this isn't. Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "Ward's emotional single has also received a proper music video". Here is a "professional (magazine)" that used the phrase: Carbrera (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess journalism (my degree and former profession) isn't what it used to be. That is terrible writing and whoever is proofreading Billboard these days should be ashamed. That said, the fact that you found a single instance of a sloppy writer using this nonstandard, slang terminology still doesn't mean it's good English, and more importantly, it certainly doesn't mean we should use it on Wikipedia. As I've explained now several times, writing on Wikipedia does not strive to be colorful or "different." It is supposed to be simple, clear and easily understood by any average reader, i.e., "encyclopedic." When in doubt, use standard terms and standard sentence constructions.Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Milk


-- Carbrera (talk) has given you a large glass of milk, for assisting with various messy articles. Milk somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a glass of milk, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!


 * :D Greg Fasolino (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you and same! Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes L.A. (songwriting credits)
Hi, Greg:

I arranged the songwriting tandems using a lyricist/composer criterion.

All the best. LFdoR 18:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Works for me! :) Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Wardruna
Hi user Greg Fasolino. Thanks for your quick response. I just saw that the article Wardruna is categorized as "stub" on the talk page. I hope you are still willing to write on the article, so we can enhance it together if you would like to. The norwegian and the german article about that topic would be affected as well. As I'm not familar with the english wikipedia just a short question: is it common, to just link websites on the references list (instead of real references)? Greetings, --ICCCC (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! And no, they should be either real references, or under External Links. I am fixing that now. Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Join Hands
McKay may have used both flanger and phased effects on that song. He had a lot of effects apparently. Are you sure of what you advance? I could combine both sources in one sentence. Carliertwo (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Writers who are not musicians (and especially those who are not guitarists) often get confused and use the wrong terminology for effects pedals; this was especially common back in the 1970s. McKay did not actually use many pedals, just a few, and there is no evidence (in any sources, or to any musician's ears) that he ever used a phaser, which is a very uncommon pedal in post-punk music. Flanger pedals, on the other hand, were common and McKay was well known for his pioneering use of the MXR flanger pedal. The Wiki article on flanging even comments on McKay's historic use of the flanger. As a post-punk guitarist myself, who has played this song and replicated McKay's tones for research purposes, its clearly a flanging effect, not a phased effect. My anecdotal evidence is not a source however, but I would suggest:
 * http://www.audio-joy.com/What-effect-on-Siouxsie-and-the-Banshees-quot-Placebo-Effect-quot_10912515.html ("it's a MXR flanger with the sweep turned off"...exactly so).
 * http://souciant.com/2012/04/a-brief-history-of-deathrock-part-ii/ ("Siouxsie and the Banshees’ second LP, 1979’s still-underrated Join Hands, premiered songs like “Premature Burial” with a heavy use of flanger by guitarist John McKay; this guitar sound would become a staple sound of dark punk and goth bands across the Atlantic. UK")
 * In any case, journalists who are not musicians do make mistakes. It's better to go with the correct source than try to mention both in a contradictory manner that promulgates an error. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Jon Savage says in his review for "Poppy Day" that "McKay's phased guitar scythed out". Is Savage right ? Carliertwo (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said before, older music critics especially in the 1970s often mixed these up, often I'd guess because in the 1960s and early 1970s, phasers were more common (Hendrix and psychedelic bands particularly) and flangers were rare. Post-punk and the 1980s in general saw flangers become a lot more popular and common. Simon Reynolds said (in http://www.untiedundone.com/012906a.html) quite accurately "Guitarist John McKay's flange resembles a Cold Wave update of 1967 style phasing." I listened to "Poppy Day" again; unlike those other tracks the guitar is very low in the mix so I can't say with assurance if it's phasing or flanging (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvScdOldfc8) but my guess again is that McKay (who was a minimalist, he did not go onstage with a huge shoegaze-style board full of pedals) used the MXR flanger on this as well, and not a phaser. There's ample evidence he used the MXR flanger, and no evidence at all he ever used a phaser pedal. But quote it if you must.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me on Join Hands. The article has been promoted to GA. Carliertwo (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Press
I appreciate your opinion that you don't think the list of live bands who played at the fist ever AP music awards is irrelevant, but I would have to disagree. If listing those bands is irrelevant then so should listing Fall Out Boy as artist of the year. Listing at least some of the bands that played live, shows how different alternative press is. Their defining feature is their appreciation for small unknown bands and giving them a stage. I'd like to put my edit back up, i thinks it perfectly relevant by showing the kinds of bands that Alternative Press supports and showcases. Kenziebrethauer (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Kenziebrethauer. I still don't think its incredibly relevant, as many bands play at many magazine parties each years, and we do not list them all on Wikipedia, as that's not the point of the encyclopedic article. But I added it back, corrected for proper Wikipedia style. Just so you know, stylized band names (like lowercase) are not posted that way here, and we do not capitalize words like "the" in band names. Cheers. Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Come again?
In both these diffs and  you undid stuff I did, while doing the exact malfeances you ascribed to me. How does that work? I do see you subsequently did some clean up. I had my doubts about One the Juggler too. My feeling was that the 2016 Morley comp should be placed chronologically but I'm not going to mess. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An accident, which is why I cleaned it up. I'm not sure if it was you or another editor who incorrectly changed the associated artists, but that category specifically is for former or subsequent bands the members were in, side project bands, etc.; and ideally these should be mentioned in the article and/or referenced. They shared no members with Sex Pistols so that was clearly an error, and I could find no connection to One the Juggler. As for the Morley comp, I agree with you and have just reworked it. Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as I say, you specifically reversed me when in fact my edit was to undo the exact same change you were trying to undo. A little more care might be in order. Apart from that, keep up the good work! Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Accidents happen, best not to get irritated when they are rectified within minutes. But good work on your part as well.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello!
Hey Greg! I'm only here to ask a favor of you, so feel free to ignore this if you're not interested–I promise I won't be offended. Your copy-editing on articles created by myself in the past were (and still are) extremely helpful, so if you wouldn't mind and perhaps had some free time on your hands, could you take a look at this featured article candidate for me and maybe leave some comments? Like I said, don't feel like you have to do this. Thank you very much. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. Very busy at work right now but I will take a look when I can.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible Collaboration
Hello Greg. I love the editing work that you do on this site and I was wondering if you would like to collaborate with me on expanding (and editing) the article on the famous horror icon Leatherface. I have already created a user draft for this purpose and Bignole and I have been working hard on expanding it. However I need more people to work on this project because of the general scope of it is too much for two people. I will include a link to the draft here, just let me know if you're in on this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Nickname titles
Hi Greg. Regarding your recent edits to the Adolescents articles, would you mind pointing out the MOS that says nicknames for albums should be treated as titles? The title of this album is Adolescents, but it's commonly referred to as the "blue album" because the cover is blue. Since "blue album" isn't its title, my inclination is not to capitalize it. Most of the sources I'm using to work on the article don't capitalize "blue album" when they use that phrase. I can see an argument for capitalizing since it's sort of a nickname, but I don't see italicizing it as The Blue Album the way you did. Can you point me to a guidelines or MOS that covers this? I see inconsistency in the comparative examples I'm looking at: In Weezer (1994 album), The Blue Album is currently italicized, but in The Beatles (album) "White Album" is not (both are GAs).

Thanks for pointing out WP:THECAPS, by the way. I wasn't aware of that, and I think it's a new guideline since I cut back on my behind-the-scenes Wikipedia participation several years ago. It used to be the consensus that we capitalized "The" mid-sentence if it was part of the band name proper, like The Beatles, and not if it wasn't, like the Ramones, but I see that's changed. I don't watch for those sorts of discussions anymore, so the pointer is appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I personally, as a professional copyeditor, would say italics are needed and the Weezer example is superior. Why? Because a nickname title is still a title, and a specific one; it's just a casual or unofficial title. Saying "the blue album" is fine in a conversation in which you are describing colors of different album covers. When you are referring to a ***specific*** album, it's an alternate or casual title that refers to just one album, making it a proper noun, though not an "official" one. The capitalization part is even more clear: Here's an odd but apt comparison. If we are discussing a man with red hair whose actual name is James Johnson, and his nickname is Jim "Red" Johnson, you wouldn't ever lowercase "Red," even if you are using it alone. It would be "Hey Red, how are you?" Never "Hey red." It's a proper (nick)name.

I would add these as similar examples of significant albums in which Car, Scratch, Melt and Security are unofficial/nickname titles for albums which are always listed in caps and itals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gabriel_(1977_album) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gabriel_(1978_album) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gabriel_(1980_album) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gabriel_(1982_album)


 * As for WP:THECAPS, personally I dislike it. If it were up to me, it would always be the way you describe ("The example of The Beatles), but wiki is clear on their version so I stick to it.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the response. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Concern
Hi Greg. Quick note re. Is it just me or does their wholesale alteration of 50s/60s movie dates, pretty much unsourced, set off any alarm bells for you too? I noticed you'd reverted at least one of their changes. Keri (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will look into it ASAP, Keri. I did notice the one I changed, which was inappropriate alteration. Greg Fasolino (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE
Due to this edit, please review MOS:DATERANGE as it has changed. Thank you, -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 14:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Gary Gilmore's Eyes
Thanks for tidying the newly-added cover section. I've scarcely heard of some of the artists the Finnish user added, and only checked one or two links to see if the IP's edits were valid. It was poorly written English. Kudos.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I scarcely work on music articles; I didn't know song titles should be in quotes, and album titles in italics. I'll try and keep that in mind. Thx!--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :) Greg Fasolino (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Oxford comma
Are you sure about the use of "the"? I've been here for a year and I'm still trying to figure that out. I see "the Beatles" more than "The Beatles". That's something I would like to get straight.

You may be right about precedence re: the Andy Chase article and the Oxford comma, but from high school until yesterday, my most recent reading of Bryan Garner's Modern American Usage, I was taught that it's better to use the Oxford comma. Omitting it can lead to ambiguity. Using it does not. I don't know why there are people on Wikipedia (not you) who are afraid of using the Oxford comma. Maybe they don't know how. I see the absence of the Oxford comma as a sign of fear and ignorance, comparable to people using "impact" as a verb because they don't know how to choose between "affect" and "effect", and so they default to "impact". It, like, really impacted me, dude. Or whatever.

Are you the Greg Fasolino who went to St. John's? I saw your Facebook page via Google (I don't belong to Facebook). You have some nice accomplishments. I still have my Italian grandfather's mandolin, though I was never able to play it. V. difficult. –Vmavanti (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Yes, Wikipedia is very clear on the use of "the" in band names when they appear in the middle of a sentence. Personally, I do not like it and prefer "The", but that's the rule. "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues." You can look it up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music#Names_.28definite_article.29
 * On the Oxford comma, Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent. This means either is fine, but normal practice is precedence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

I prefer no Oxfords as I have a journalism degree and work in news PR. Newspapers and other news media do not use Oxfords.
 * Yes, I attended St. John's from 1983-87. :) Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Green Fuz article
Thanks for your assistance on the Green Fuz article. As I mentioned on the garage rock taskforce talk page, the article still needed some further work when I stepped away yesterday. My eyes were getting crossed! As a relatively new editor (1 1/2 years now), I obviously misunderstood the "associated acts" section of the infobox; as I was adding several bands that used to appear with Green Fuz. Frankzappatwin (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for commenting here. Yeah, "associated acts" means side or solo projects, former/subsequent bands that the members were in, etc. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, my dad was in the St John's class of '49 or '50. Frankzappatwin (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Bauhaus
I didn't write most of those sentences, I just moved them around because they were in the wrong places. Thanks for continuing to improve the article, but I don't see why the attitude was called for. Lynchenberg (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Lynchenberg, I was not referring or directing my editorial comments to our at you, and no offense was intended. I try to be as explanatory as possible when making changes, and in this case, some of the changes were due to awkward phrasing in the text, whoever wrote it originally.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Deftones (album)" Page Query
You misunderstood what I meant about the comma, thus it wasn't necessary in that instance because there was a colon in use instead. If you didn't notice, I corrected the erroneous nature of that of the comma following the colon. But yeah, the album 'White Pony' wasn't mentioned or denoted on the page prior or afterward, so it needed to be hyperlinked as it's the first documentation of it. I never knew that words hyperlinked needed to be italicized, however. -- Bl1tzkrieg1940 (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing me. First, a comma is preferable to a colon in everyday, simple sentences unless there's a list of items. "its predecessor, Deftones" is better writing than "it's predecessor: Deftones. The colon is overly "loud" for a simple sentence. Second, hyperlinked words do not need to be italicized. That's not what I said. Album titles, whether hyperlinked or not, must ALWAYS be italicized. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I never received any sort of notification for this response. After a while with no response, I just stopped looking. Oh well. When I said that I wasn't aware of the "hyperlinking/'Wikilinking" debacle, I was actually completely unknown to either possibility. So, it wasn't meant to misinterpret what you said. Nonetheless, thank you for making that known. — Bl1tzkrieg1940 (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem! Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI
There is a ANI here about my edits on Siouxsie related articles that may interest you. thanks for reading. Carliertwo (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you! You made my day! :) Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1695 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The Manitou
I can't believe you want to edit war over ref placement at The Manitou. The preference, by the way, is not to have refs in the lead. There is no policy backing your preference. Stop WP:edit warring over this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been editing consistently here on Wikipedia for 11 years and have been a major contributor to hundreds of horror film articles, and you are the first person who has ever tried to deny a clear Wikipedia statement that it is preferred not to use references in the infobox. Infoboxes should remain as uncluttered as possible. I can show you the statement in MOS: "Editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article." Well, that is exactly what I did. The fact belongs in the article body. As for your contention "the preference...is not to have refs in the lead," please show me where in MOS it says this. I just checked, and the MOS section on leads says "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." It merely states that in larger, complex articles where info in the lead is repeated in the body, to consider "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." MOS says nowhere that references should instead go in the infobox. I am not edit warring, YOU are, as I am citing Wikipedia MOS preferences and you are trying to impose your own. Greg Fasolino (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If you've been editing here for 11 years, you should know that repeatedly reverting the same edit is edit warring, even if you believe you are right. Per WP:EDITWAR: An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. So you clearly have no problem going against WP policy, based on your statement above. And you are only claiming a preference as justification for your warring, not a policy. "Editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article" obviously allows for exceptions. It's incredible that you would edit war using that as justification.


 * Takes two to tango. You reverted my edit as many times as I did yours.Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The "clutter" created by one ref is less disruptive to the eye in the infobox than in the lead sentence of the article. And in the infobox its purpose is clear. I've dealt with many nationalistic edit warriors, and we always try to end it with a ref in the infobox. They wouldn't even realize what it's for if it's only in the lead. And putting it right after the name of the country in the lead sentence looks particularly ugly. Much better to have it in the Country field of the infobox. This is how it's done on many, many articles where there has been or may be contesting of nationality. I haven't seen you challenging this at any other page. Many discussions at WP:FILM regarded articles where this was done, so most people at WikiProject Film are aware of it. The only issue was consensus on what most sources said, not where to put the ref. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree wholeheartedely with everything you say here and all of your assertions, and your ideas go against everything I do in terms of trying to edit for better articles, and have been doing for many years with thanks from many other editors for my work. However, life is short and I have many other articles to edit (properly, with Wiki preferences regarding infobox refs in mind), so I will leave you to your (in my view, poor) editing choices. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The Manster
Some guy erased your latest contribution to THE MANSTER page.68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, "Some guy" here. I re-added the sources of the rest of the crew, which is in the infobox but was not sourced there. My bad. I removed the other black-and-white/colour mention because the source only states that the film was shot in black and white, not that this was notable or that other Japanese science fictions films were shot in color. Which isn't the case either way, Godzilla, Gamera, Invasion of the Neptune Men, Godzilla Raids Again.Half Human were all black-and-white. It's also not a Japanese production so...Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever you removed, it was not my contribution. All I did on that page recently was clean up someone else's text. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Metacritic scores
Hi. Per your edit to I Love You, It's Cool, if the score were permanent I might agree. However, Metacritic reviews are added all the time, even for older albums and are subject to change, so scores are currently "held". It's common parlance on Wikipedia for scores: see here. Yes, I know other phrasing of that nature existing doesn't necessarily make it correct, but I think it recognises their impermanent nature in the online world.  Ss 112  18:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Language moves on, LOL. I try to edit out slang and casual terminology in favor of clear, standard English whenever possible, and this seemed like one of those instances, but it does seem to have become a common use, so no prob. Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

AP style
Wikipedia has its own style guide, at WP:MOS. We do not follow AP Stylebook, on anything at all; that's a style guide for journalism and WP is not journalism or anything remotely similar to journalism (like marketing, which also follows news style). And AP style – if we used it, which we don't – would only apply to American English writing anyway, and Magazine (band) obviously has a strong national tie to the UK.

WP style is academic style, based almost entirely on Chicago Manual of Style and New Hart's Rules. "Wikipedia is not written in news style." —WP:NOT policy. MOS:COMMA is clear that we use a serial comma any time ambiguity or other inclarity results without one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  05:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It says nothing of the sort. Wiki allows editors to use whichever comma style they prefer (I mentioned AP as that is my preference, as a professional journalist) as long as it is consistent. There was no ambiguity in the sentence. Since I was editing the article before you were, and it previously did not use serial commas, your change was a personal preference and unsupported. I suggest you examine the link you posted: "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent;"Greg Fasolino (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Read it again. If ambiguity results without the serial comma, use the serial comma, rewrite the sentence to avoid the ambiguity, or rewrite to use separate sentences to avoid the ambiguity. "Just say 'screw it' and leave out the serial comma without rewriting" is not among the options. See also WP:WIKILAWYER while you're at it. If you persist in trying to willfully misinterpret MOS:SERIAL to permit deletion of or editwarring against serial commas we'll just rewrite MOS:SERIAL to be more emphatic. There is no actual loophole for you to exploit, because WP:POLICY pages are always to be interpreted to mean what they were intended to mean, not what their exact wording can maybe be tortured into meaning by intentionally misconstruing it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Crew
As a group it takes the singular verb - "claims that his crew was killed" - not the plural "were".

Bil EoGuy

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And this is in reference to what? Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty easy to find: . Usage varies by WP:ENGVAR, in that the plural is more frequent in British/Commonwealth English, but rare in North American – except where the verb in question is something that logically pertains to individuals, or in which the individual results in the group is being stressed, in which cases the plural would be more apt to be used. That clearly applies here; everyone dies their own death, so "his crew were killed" would be more sensible regardless of dialect. But "the fungus in the bathtub was cleaned out", because it's a mass noun in that context, even if a scientist with a microscope might show there were multiple fungi present. "His crew was spotted in Botswana" would be normal in North American writing (it's about the crew as an entity), but "were" would be more common in Commonwealth publications. E.g., in British writing you'll often see things like "The university were adamant about the propriety of their grant", while a US or Canadian one would use "was" and "its". Even they tend toward plural when the name of the entity is plural in form ("The Dallas Cowboys were the champions"). So,, if you're going around robotically changing "[collective noun phrase] were" to "[collective noun phrase] was", you're probably making a mistake (well, lots of mistakes).

Numbers above nine
Hi,

I saw you reverted my edits to the last two Banshees albums, saying numbers above nine should be written as numerals. Is that official Wiki policy? If so, could you please direct me to that? I'm looking at other artists' albums whose numbers are greater than nine are written in letters. If you could clear up the confusion for me, that would be greatly appreciated.--Shaneymike (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC) [The only thing remotely like it anywhere on WP is that WP:CITE permits any style that can be attested, to stop people from editwarring over MLA, APA, AMA, MHRA, Vancouver, Harvard, Chicago/Turabian, etc., citation styles – about which readers generally DGaF, but about which topically focused editors are apt to fight to the death if not restrained from doing so. Even ENGVAR doesn't go that far; you cannot write WP articles in pidgin English dialects, only major national varieties with an established formal style.] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to do so. First, check out MOS:NUMS. This is the relevant part:
 * Generally, in article text:
 * Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.
 * Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). Numbers between 21 and 99 are hyphenated (including when part of a larger number): fifty-six or fifty-six thousand but five hundred or five thousand.
 * Other numbers are given in numerals (3.75, 544) or in forms such as 21 million.
 * So, basically this is one of those cases where according to Wiki, either eleventh or 11th is equally correct. Therefore, there was no valid reason for you to change it. Normally, if Wiki offers a style option, you stick with what editors have already established. In this case, the article was already using numerals, which are valid, so it should stand. Personally, I only use numerals because that is the more universal usage (AP, for example...look at any print or online newspaper or magazine and you will always see 11 not eleven unless it's starting a sentence).Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to what you're speaking of please? BTW, I read a message left by User:SMcCandlish above and he says we Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be written in news style.--Shaneymike (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you're going to be editing Wikipedia you should generally make yourself acquainted with the Manual of Style and consult it for questions like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
 * This particular section is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers
 * I never said Wikipedia is supposed to be written in news style (though the Wiki MOS often does coincide with it), I said that I myself as a Wiki editor **prefer** news style, as this is a popular and respected option, and that Wikipedia, in this particular case, allows either style. When two styles are both permitted, Wiki generally prefers going with what the article already uses. Is that clearer? best Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And by link, I mean an internal link. Not an external link. --Shaneymike (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's generally considered rude to revert your personal editorial preferences when you haven't even done the basic first step of consulting Wiki's Manual of Style. Also, you asked "Well then, why aren't you applying your standard to other artists' albums articles rather than just this one"...I've explained this TWICE or more now. When two style options are considered equally valid by Wiki's MOS (in this case, 11th or eleventh), we stick with what the article already uses instead of changing it on a whim. Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think it looks awkward with numerals but I'll leave it as.--Shaneymike (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless, not sure why it would look awkward when you presumably see this usage on a regular basis any time you open a paper or magazine or look at any kind of internet news page. I mean, it's not like it something weird that is rarely seen, it's pretty basic and used all over the place. That's neither here no there, re: wiki. Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to concur with Greg on this. The fact of the matter is that the "standard" has shifted repeatedly over time (use numerals for 10 or more, for over ten, for 12 or more, etc.), and finally settled on the current wishy-washy wording.  A lot of editors think it looks awkward to use "11th", and a lot don't think that, so it's basically a stalemate.  Greg's correct per MOS:STYLERET (quoting ArbCom): "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." However, Greg may be laboring under the misimpression that this means "any style acceptable to anyone anywhere", when obviously it means "acceptable on Wikipedia"; I think this may have something to do with this "news style preference" stuff in this thread and the earlier one (to the extent that quality writing on WP coincides with news style it's because news style guides are coinciding on the same point with academic style guides, not because WP is imitating news – supposing the latter is a failure to understand the actual cause–effect chain). Maintaining an "any style found in print is acceptable" viewpoint is only going to lead someone into further conflict. Such an interpretation is literally impossible; if any and all styles attested somewhere in the world of English writing were automatically "acceptable" on Wikipedia, WP would have no MoS and have no WP:NOT policy, nor any rational need for them. The fact that these pages exist and are used means this interpretation is flat-out wrong. (Maybe it's not Greg's interpretation, but if it has been he wouldn't be the first try to impose it; this has been discussed and rejected repeatedly at WT:MOS among other venues.
 * Thanks, however I am not laboring under any misimpression. I basically said over and over, "when two styles are both permitted, Wiki generally prefers going with what the article already uses". I cited Wiki MOS, not AP Stylebook or Chicago MOS. As for "quality writing on WP coincides with news style it's because news style guides are coinciding on the same point with academic style guides, not because WP is imitating news" that was exactly what I told him above....they coincide sometimes, as in accepting the news standard on numerals. They do not always coincide. Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies for getting worked up, gentlemen. That may have been partly because I'm undergoing severe caffeine withdrawal right now. But still I keep getting mixed signals about what is acceptable here on Wikipedia with regards to album articles. First, I was told we were supposed to do separate chains for studio albums, live albums, compilation albums, etc. A few years later, I was told no it is now generally acceptable to keep all albums by an artist on one chain. Anyway, I'll let drop this matter and just let the chips falls where they do with regards to the 10th, 11th, and so on and so forth albums by AC/DC, The Cure, Depeche Mode, Tori Amos, etc.--Shaneymike (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry if I was harsh, I just tend to get impatient when other editors don't check Wiki MOS before getting into a debate on style. Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Darkthrone
You keep writing false information regarding Darkthrone's Transilvanian Hunger and Panzerfaust albums. Nocturno Culto performed only vocals. Fenriz wrote half the lyrics on TH and five tracks on Panzerfaust. All this information is available on the commentary discs which feature FENRIZ TELLING THIS EXACT INFORMATION. Please, do not repeat adding false information. Johndolby666 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, learn how Wikipedia works. Nobody was "writing false information". Your edits were reverted because you failed to reference the info with sources. I fixed it for you. You're welcome. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The Chameleons
Thanks for correction on the article. The source stated "Nostalgia (1981)", though that could just mean the date of recording, on consideration. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think a couple of sources have made this error, because all 3 songs on the Nostalgia 12" are from the same 1981 recording session. However, they only put out 2 songs on the original 7", and the full 3 song EP didnt come out until 3 years later. Unless youre a fan of the band or really look closely at the release dates its easy to not notice this. Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't have an intimate knowledge of the band. I heard the song "Nostalgia" recently and enjoyed it, decided to try to expand the article. Looking at the sources again, one states "their debut release, the three-track Nostalgia (1981)" and AllMusic states they "debuted with the EP Nostalgia". I also read one source which said Basically was their debut release, which confused me even more. Anyway, I have further expanded the article. Feel free to look it over and check if there are any other errors. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have written to the two sources in error; hopefully they can correct those so no one else is misled. I've been following the band since the first single came out in early 1982 and writing about them as a music journalist since 1984, and have not only been friends with members of the Chameleons, but have played in a band myself with a former ChameleonsVox member... so this glaring mistake really stuck out to me.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I went through and adjusted a few other errors: 1) the rift, both in 1987 and in 2003, was between Burgess and Fielding, not Burgess and Smithies. 2) The 2001 "American dates" was really only two promo appearances in California. The actual third and final US tour (others were 1984 and 1987) was fall 2002. Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further corrections. (Source stated lifelong friendship between Burgess and Smithies ended with the split of the band, though rift between Burgess and Fielding did make more sense to me as other sources stated Fielding was the main figure involved in the legal disputes.) And wow, that is interesting to know! May I ask what band that is? (I am a fan of post-punk, indie rock, dream pop, etc.) Also, thanks for writing to the sources! Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The band I referred to was The Harrow (http://theharrowmusic.com/), which I was in from 2013-2017. The Harrow's bassist/founder, my dear friend Frank Deserto, was the bassist for the 2010 ChameleonsVox US East Coast tour. I'm also friends with a number of other ChamsVox members.Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the information, very interesting! I will check out the Harrow too, thanks. I have also added a "Musical style" section to the article, by the way. I do not have your experience in the field of music journalism, and I have not been able to find many sources discussing the band, so please point out anything which does not make sense. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your Style additions all seemed accurate and well sourced to me! Also thanks for filling in where I forgot to include the name of the third "Script" single :) Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for your help! Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

thank you ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  14:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The Head on the Door‎
Sorry, a bit hasty and irritated. Thanks for fixing!.  Rob van  vee  14:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! :) Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Department S
Why would I need to source something that has been reverted? Also, looking at all of those sources in the "associate acts" section... ExRat (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All of the other bands listed in Associated are mentioned in the article itself, and the connection explained. If there was indeed a connection to Bananarama (i.e, a current or former Dept. S member was also in Bananarama, or the two bands collaborated on a recording), it should first be mentioned within the article before adding to the infobox. However, you asserted no such actual association. A singer of one band co-writing a song that another band recorded and saying he likes them is not even remotely close to the criteria for Associated. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Bauhaus
I abandon the article by exhaustion. Thank you Vandid (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, you need to learn how Wikipedia works. There are tutorials here that explain how to do it. Maybe next time start with something small and learn to Wiki edit as you go? Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Circle Jerks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Flag ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Circle_Jerks check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Circle_Jerks?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Bow Wow Wow
I put a message for you & Egghead06 on the Your Box Set Pet talk page.Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm debating whether or not the I Want Candy Anthology is worthy of a wikipedia article.Johnny Spasm (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be. Would need to have some good references to back up that it was important enough or got enough attention/reviews to merit an article. If so, go for it! :) Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Injured, and unable to go to work for another week. I have nothing better to do than write Bow Wow Wow articles.Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha! Feel better Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I recently did a bunch of work on Annabella's article. It was, to say the very least, terrible. I like to think it looks a lot better now. Anyway, I'm currently in the process of completely dismantling Bow Wow Wow's article, and reworking it. Your help with either is welcome. Johnny Spasm (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how familiar you are with how Wikipedia generally works, or how editors are normally supposed to interact, but generally if you're going to "completely dismantle" a longrunning article that has been worked on for MANY years by other editors (including myself in this case), you should normally go to the Talk page first and make your case and try to get a consensus. Just barging and "dismantling" the work of other editors without discussion first is usually considered counterproductive and even rude. I would ask you kindly to keep this in mind as I don't want to get in a edit war with you, but on the other hand, its not your place to unilaterally decide an article is terrible and that you are entitled to dismantle it and ignore finding consensus.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * From Wiki's guidelines:

"Discuss contentious changes on a talk page: Mutual respect is the guiding behavioral principle of Wikipedia. Although everyone knows that their contributions may be edited by others, it is easier to accept changes when you understand the reasons for them. Discussing changes on the article's talk page before you make them can help reach consensus even faster, especially on controversial subjects. We have all the time in the world, so always make an effort to explain changes to other editors, and feel free to ask them to do the same. Undo others' edits with care: Undoing someone's work is a powerful tool, hence the three-revert rule that an editor should never undo the same content more than three times in twenty-four hours (ideally, even less). Try not to revert changes which are not obvious vandalism. If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary like "I disagree, I'll explain why on Talk", and immediately open a discussion on the accompanying talk page to discuss. If someone reverts your edits, do not just add them back without attempting discussion."
 * For what it's worth, I did not have an issue with the bulk of your changes, aside from some minor issues I corrected, and the overall thrust of your edits was an improvement rather than a "dismantle".
 * You took the word "dismantle" a little too literally. Regardless, Annabella's article had a header on it that asked for sources three years ago. No one decided to oblige the request for sources over these past three years, so I did. While doing so, I also noticed "Car Sex" was incorrectly listed as one word. The fact that Fever contained a cover of the song was not in the article. The fact that she was the inspiration for Kirsten Dunst's portrayal of Marie Antoinette was missing from the article. Super Boom and Willow Tree were also missing from the article. If the word "terrible" insults you, please substitute any euphemism you would like.Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the BBW article, not the Annabella Lwin one (which I havent had a chance to look at). I was complimenting your overall work on the BWW page.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added Original Recordings to the Your Cassette Pet article. Do you think I should upload the album cover, and add it to the infobox? Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I would recommend not doing so. Standard procedure on Wiki is to only add to that degree if its an actual reissue or alternate title for the same release, that type of thing. It's useful to mention it in the article, but it's a separate release, not a variant of the same basic release. Does that make sense? Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with what you said. I didn't think it did, but I wanted a second opinion. Do you know where it belongs in release chronology? I would guess that it was put together after I Want Candy, but again, that's a guess. Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I bought them when they were released, and in my memory, Original Recordings was a bit after I Want Candy. This seems to corroborate that: http://www.brudenellsocialclub.co.uk/archive/2012-04-24-bow-wow-wow/ Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If the point that her website has a reference to the new incarnation of Bow Wow Wow Gorman tours with comes off as a plug for Annabella in the article, it was unintentional. I was merely trying to make the point that she is not on board with it. Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was more that, it was already mentioned that he had formed the new lineup without her consent. It's not really necessary to provide her website statement on that, in full. It's not egregious, just something to be aware of. Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "McLaren DEFINITELY intended to cause controversy with the cover of See Jungle; I said it was likely. Here's an interview with Annabella confirming that opinion is shared. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1gAryoEhLA  Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is wholly irrelevant. I don't think you understand one of the most fundamental rules of Wikipedia editing. You cannot, CANNOT, insert your own speculation, editorializing, commentary, theorizing, etc etc. You may only post factual information, and even then it has to be backed up by sources. These aren't journalism articles or think pieces, or venues for you to discuss ideas about a band, they are encyclopedia articles. Please avoid any editorializing or theories.Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

semicolon
In response to your statement, "Actually, you are wrong. I should know, I am a professional proofreader and copy-editor," I graduated with a bachelor of the Arts in English. Unfortunately, I don't have a career where I get to use my degree, and use it solely on wikipedia.

Regardless of what wikipedia has rules about, the English language also has rules. This article explains the rules about semicolons:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon

Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)\
 * Yes, I know the English language also has rules. As I said, I do that for a living! Though you MUST check Wiki Manual of Style first, do you really not know how to do this? Here let me help you. Bookmark this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_StyleGreg Fasolino (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifically, when you have a sentence containing a list of items, and one of those items is broken in two by a comma (in this case, there were TWO such items, the first being <<>> and the second being <<>>). In such cases you are required to change the main comma set to semicolons, so that is is clear that "their recent hit single" refers to the song that follows and not the one before. I mean, maybe you should read a book first, or at least actually READ the article you are trying to quote from, because that article you list clearly states this. Scroll down to USE A SEMICOLON AS A SUPER-COMMA. Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The last book I read was The Disaster Artist. I find reading too static. Prefer writing. Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant a book on writing, the kind that covers all of the uses of semicolons. Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair use
Based upon that link you sent me, I reverted the order of Original Recordings & I want Candy in Bow Wow Wow's album chronology, and corrected infoboxes to correctly show chronology.

I put the Bow Wow Wow version of Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe in Annabella's article, and someone removed it, saying it violates "Fair use." I kinda disagree with that. To me, that image is fairly important when talking about the early days of Bow Wow Wow, and how Annabella was exploited. I won't argue; I just wanna know if I'm looking at this incorrectly. Either way, I posted this question on Annabella's talk page. Your input here or there would be appreciated.

Would it be a violation of Fair use to upload the album covers of albums that don't have articles for use in Bow Wow Wow related articles? In other words, while I don't believe that Original Recordings merits its own article, I would like to upload the cover for use in the Your Cassette Pet article. Likewise, I mentioned that there is a compilation album called I Want Candy that is unrelated to the original I Want Candy compilation in that article. I think the cover as a point of reference would be nice to have (especially since it uses Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe for the millionth time). None of the "Best of" collections have an article. Would it be all that much of a crime to upload any of their covers as reference points in the actual Bow Wow Wow article? Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Image use is one area of Wiki that I do not usually get very involved in. I personally agree with you on the Dejeuner image, that makes sense to me. On the album covers, I'd say no. Why would the cover of Original Recordings belong in an article on a wholly different release? Articles on music releases should only include images of that actual release, or images of the band if it is a very involved article. I'd suggest picking a dozen other artists you like and examining their Wiki pages and album Wiki pages to get a sense of what is standard. These are also good to look through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My thinking in uploading the cover of Original Recordings for use in the article on Your Cassette Pet is similar to my thinking in wanting the Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe in Annabella's article. It's mentioned, and I think it would make a decent reference point (although, I'll grant, not as relevant). Likewise, the Jim Varriale image for I want Candy was reversed, and used for Love, Peace & Harmony. I don't think it would harm the article to mention that, and provide the image to the reader. More importantly, I'm wondering if there is a rule on it. Especially since neither album has an article. Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I posted the question at Media copyright questions. I would love your contribution. Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

False Prophets
I imported the german copy. You may want to go in and clean up a bit. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)