User talk:JD554/Archive 5

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for February 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Spaceman promo covers
I was wondering why did you revert back the edits? The tracklist has the listing for the promo so i added the promo cover as well. Suede67 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree but aren't the promo singles and official single (released to the public) different? They have separate track listings, and separate covers as well. For example, if an album is released in the UK with a certain cover, and in US with a different cover, wouldn't it be of interest of having both covers on the article for that album? I hope I'm making enough sense. Suede67 (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not significantly, of course, but a nice tidbit I guess. But yes, ultimately it doesn't add much, just adds color to the article. I guess you prevail here! Suede67 (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure no problem! :) Suede67 (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you abusing edit reverts?
I left a comment for you on the discussion page of The Smiths.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't very often give rollback access so I double-checked and edits in question are neither rollback nor undos without specific edit summaries. Issue seems resolved. Agathoclea (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon "Reviews" discussion
There's currently a great deal of edit warring going on in regards to the reviews section of the infobox in No Line on the Horizon. Your input on the talk page regarding this matter would be much appreciated. The relevent discussion can be found here. Thanks, MelicansMatkin (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you know
Hey there, I noticed that you've managed to get two articles featured as part of WP:Did You Know; since you know the process better than I do, I was wondering if you would be able to help me get White as Snow (song) nominated? It's currently at about 1200 characters, minus formatting, sections, and references. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've moved the hook up into the lead and managed to expand it a bit more. From looking at the DYK rules, I think that the only potential obstacle in there is the 1500 characters minimum limit. If I can expand it past that then I think it will be okay. Thanks for your help! MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Note): It's at 1636 characters now, minus what is not allowed. I'll go and nominate it then! MelicansMatkin (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the good news is that every aspect was verified and the hook has been established as being DYK ready; is there anything further I need to do, and is it a guarantee that the hook will appear on the page? MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to try and get more Did You Know's created. Though looking at the link you sent me, I think I already qualify for the Triple Crown. MelicansMatkin (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Album Cover Fur
Thanks for the help. I'll try using that from now on. As a matter of etiquette - do I reply on your talk page or on mine ?. As yu can probably tell, I'm still finding my way around. Thanks again tuxlie  11:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

One other thing - how do I use AlbumCover Fur if I've already uploaded the picture. Thanks tuxlie  11:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The raincoats
Ok, I'm done with Reckoning for now (not as long as I thought it would be), so I'll probably get back to work on Unknown Pleasures tomorrow night. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, what do you think of Reckoning so far? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad you can't access YouTube, because I've been spending the last hour comparing the Live Aid performances of Queen and U2. U2 loses points because of Bono's awful, awful mullet. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a great quote in U2 by U2 where Bono says there's still people who refuse to like the band because of their haircuts in the 80s. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, looks like I'll only be working on Unknown Pleasures and Reckoning for the foreseeable future, so I should have good progress on the former. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I've just been stressed out dealing with the two most thankless articles I help maintain. I feel less stressed now and don't think I'll be cutting back, but don't be surprised if I curtail my activity for a bit in the near future in the event that things flare up again. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem with that is I don't drink. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like hell. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You Brits sure love Bowie. I for one have never really become a fan of his; I have the greatest hits CD, but he's never compelled me. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have you know I really enjoy Top Gear, Simon Pegg, and making fun of the Gallagher brothers. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, never got around to seeing that one, but I'll take your advice. Timothy Dalton in Hot Fuzz is one of the greatest performances in the history of mankind, in my humble opinion. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have a pretty decent university library around here. Need a source for anything? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My library doesn't have that unfortunately. We do have some backissues of Spin and Mojo. I was reading a feature on the Bunnymen from a Spin issue published this year, but I don't think there was anything in it that would help you. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's lame. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my case I have a tendency to buy compilations of music videos. I recommend you do the same. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, it looks like the next project collaboration will be Automatic for the People (unless something changes between now and Thursday). Can you be on standby to fix up the charts? I want to see if we can get this article up to GA standard in a week. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: feel free to participate in the Collaboration of the Week selection. Details are in the link right above this comment. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll be sticking mainly to the recording and music details, so if you want to start on the charts, go ahead. Also feel free to work on the "Release and reception" section, because most of what is needed to source from is on the web anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We should probably ditch the singles positions, since seven(!) songs ultimately charted worldwide, and it'll just be a nightmare. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought my R.E.M. bio had the New Zealand chart positions, but seems I was mistaken. Don't we have enough to fulfill the charts guideline recommended maximum anyway? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm: the R.E.M. bio I own doesn't really focus on the recording of the album (instead focusing on the songs and general tenor), and I can only view parts of the Black and Fletcher books through Google Book Search and Amazon.com. This is a stifle difficult. Looks like I'll have to call in some interlibrary loan favors. In the meantime, i'll probably shift focus to creating a Music section. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would've thought that Bowie would've sold more in the US, but maybe they just haven't got around to certifying everything. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite: back catalogues have some of the strongest sales here. For example, Led Zeppelin IV and AC/DC's Black in Black are perennial sellers, and that's why they have both sold over twenty million copies in the US each. What I think is actually happening is that Bowie's labels haven't bothered to ask for more certifications. As I understand it, the record label has to pay/request for the RIAA to count the albums again, and some artists just don't care. For further thought: Nirvana's Nevermind was certified ten times platinum early this decade, and as it's in the top five back catalogue sellers, I would assume another million or so copies have been shipped by this point. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article might interest you. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * However, I would have expected that Ziggy Stardust would be at least platinum. That it's only gold is the most surprising thing. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How wonderful, a Cramps video is playing on VH1 classic right now. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bikini Girls With Machine Guns". It seems to be the only Cramps video VH1 has in its rotation, as I've seen it a nubmer of times, but I can't recall ever seeing any other Cramps promo. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't quite figured out how to work the Time and "New York Times reviews into the body of Automatic for the People''. Do you want to take a stab at it? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, can you redo the charts section for Monster (R.E.M. album)? It doesn't have to be anytime soon; I was just reminded that I had started work on the article a long time ago. I think I stopped because I was confused by the personnel credits. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a bad idea, but I can't quite put my finger on why. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I imagine Bowie reading "Peter and the wolf" would sound an awful lot like the time he sang "Hickory Dickory Dock" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently preoccupied with the job hunt/financial woes, which explains my recent absences. Still, I intend to finish my share of the work on Unknown Pleasures during this week. In the meantime, could you do me a favor and keep a watch on my FAs (aside from R.E.M. and Loveless (album), which are pretty low-traffic)? I'm trying to keep stress levels to a minimum. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Evergreen (album)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Professional reviews
Thanks for the heads up. I (foolishly) assumed that every publication that used a scale from one and up to ten points should be presented as stars in the infobox. Will keep in mind in the future! -- Lufster (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown jewels
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie - from DYK to FL, nice work. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Years of Refusal
I saw you removed the external link again, referring to this guideline. I really have no problem with this. I just would like to understand you. Is it because the link should be worked into the article itself, as you said in the first edit summary, or is it because of one of the numbered reasons mentioned in the guideline?


 * Hi, yes it is because the information contained in the link could (and maybe should) be added to the reception part of the article. WP:ELNO#1 applies because if the information was to be added to the article, it wouldn't stop it from becoming FA-class. I hope that helps, --JD554 (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser"

I'll leave a message on the talk page then, that there is more information on this site which could be worked into the article. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Blood sugar sex magik
The articles for By the way, one hot minute, californication, and stadium arcadium list the bsides as well as the itunes bonus tracks, so i put them to maintain contnuity, also the 4 b sides appeared on multiple singles and it's pretty confusing as which appeared on which? what do you say? Suede67 (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes! Surprising I missed that! So you;re saying if i put that box separately, there's no problem? Suede67 (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Done! :) Suede67 (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

At KROQ
Then the solution is to move it to another section of the template and the discography, not to remove it. I listed it under "albums" because it doesn't fit anywhere else — it doesn't belong under "singles", because "At KROQ" isn't the name of a song on the release (and, in fact, for that very reason it's incorrect to call it a "single" at all), but it does exist, and therefore has to be reflected somewhere in both the template and the discography. I'm not wedded to having it listed as an album instead of something else, but it can't come off the template or the discography entirely — if you don't like having it listed as an album, find or create a different section for it rather than removing it altogether. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I put it where I felt it fit best under the circumstances. You're the person who disagreed with my assessment and simply removed it instead. The onus to find another place in the template and article for it is on the person who doesn't want it to be listed where it is, not the person who put it where he genuinely felt it was best placed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the usual standard on Wikipedia to list and template EPs as being separate things from albums (they are "albums"; they're just a shorter type of album.) We describe an EP as an EP in its own article, certainly, but there's no requirement for a discography or a template to have a separate little "EPs" ghetto instead of just listing EPs directly under the album lists. So it's not about whether I felt "able" to do that or not — it simply wasn't necessary. Which isn't to say I'll revert it now, because this is already getting sillier than it's worth — but you're not free to make this about what I did or didn't do, because what I did was wholly consistent with Wikipedia practice. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. I guess we were sitting on opposite sides of a difference in language use between the UK and NA — I guess it can be tricky at times when there isn't always an exact clearcut line between short EPs and singles on one end, and longer EPs and albums on the other. To me, the definition of a single requires that the release in question consists of a title track (which is often, but obviously not always, previously available on another longer release) and one or more B-sides, and a release that isn't titled for and primarily meant to promote one specific song would therefore be a mini-album rather than a single, but I guess I can see how other people might consider the length of the release to be relevant as well. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf
Thanks for expanding the article, especially replacing my Danish source (unfortunately the only one I have) with an English one. By the way, which English Bowie biography would you recommend me to read, if any? Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I will put Buckley's book on my list of potential bedroom table candidates. I am sure the Berlin book will be an interesting read; I went there 2 years ago and it's still a fascinating, very special city. I can only imagine what an amazing place it was to be in back in the 1970's when the cold war was as it's coldest. Btw, you didn't yet express your opinion on the compromise I proposed last night over at Peter – please let me know your opinion. – IbLeo (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Emily Williams discography
I understand you deleting this discography. But, if I was to create a discography for an artist that has a small article, but the discography has ten releases, would you delete that? Just asking, because I want to get it to featured-list status. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:The Cure discography
I'll add the information in, but I don't own the book. And the note is for the fact the Kent Report was only accepted as the official Australian chart publication until 1988 when the ARIA Charts started collecting their own information, and as the Cure were active throughout that period, I decided to specify that from 1989 onwards (as the ARIA Charts started in late 1988), the chart positions were from the ARIA Charts.  Ss112  (Talk here!) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I was getting it around the wrong way. Because the link is to ARIA Charts, I decided to specify in the note that pre-1989 information was from the Kent Music Report.  Ss 112  11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoformatting
Did you notice that the autoformatting poll you commented on is about a new style of autoformatting that does not create links? From your rationale it does not seem so. –Henning Makholm (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New FL criteria discussion: Final phase
Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion 0422  17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Brightside
So do you actually like The Killers? I remember you made a disparaging comment about "Human" before. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Still looking. The funny thing is I do have a job, and once that I really like. It just doesn't pay very much, and since my savings are gone now, I need a second job.  Once everything is stable and I know that my future is ok, then I'm going to come back to editing with a vengeance.


 * There's two great Killers songs: "Mr. Brightside" and "When You Were Young". The rest hasn't impressed me. But man, those songs are fantastic. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't "List-Class" seem like the most useless thing ever? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is The Adult Net any good? WesleyDodds (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Some o' them Ziggy song pages should be redirects. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with all the Roxy Music song stub AfDs? That's why WP:BOLD is a good thing. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's likely I might be back to regular editing levels as soon as next week. But we'll see. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to look out for the tracklisting section for Reckoning. Some editors want to make it more complicated than it needs to be, and some unsourced and/or trivial info is being added (the fact that the band gave vinyl album sides cute names is really only of interest to die-hard R.E.M. fans). WesleyDodds (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you're headed off for holiday soon. The good sort, or the trudging sort? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you run into Sigur Ros over there. Before you take off, would you be up for managing the chart positions for The Bends? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Pixies image is fine. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The new Pixies pic. Really no reason to have a fair use image in the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of applications sent out, some interviews and some rejections. Right now the most annoying thing is not being able to afford buying something to eat on the daily walk home. 09:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel rusty. That recording section I wrote for The Bends could be better, but it's a start. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you haven't noticed by now, I tend to check out my Wiki-buddies' edit histories and pitch in where I can. Go ahead and run through The Bends article if you like. I have a book checked out from the library, so I might as well finish up the page soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done for now; time for bed. If you want to any reviews to the prose, feel free. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems pretty useless to me, especially since we have the discography page and the song/singles categories. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:DISCOGS
The new layout is now aligned correctly. It has a link, at the bottom-right of the page, to the list of the project's members/participants, see WikiProject Discographies/Participants. The layout now also has a link to the proposed style guidelines for artist discography under the "Tasks" heading on the left panel. If you dislike the layout arrangement, or if something displeases you about it, feel free to change it around. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for March 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack White article
I was just trying to clarify between the barre chord shapes, because playing the high notes of an E shaped barre chorde with your little finger is physically impossible!! It cannot happen, unless you are re-tuning those two strings on your guitar, so if you are rejecting my edits, you should at least clarify that particular part of the page, or else you are going to confuse a lot of guitar players who end up reading it as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.128.204 (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Question
This user and I are having a minor problem about whether or not "Vivid: Kissing You, Sparkling, Joyful Smile" should be listed as a single for Best & USA. The user is saying that it doesn't count as a single for the album because it was used to promote the artist tour (which he hasn't proved a source for). Then he says because all three songs aren't included on the album it doesn't count as a single for Best & USA. I replied saying that since a song was included it's a single, because this has happened in the past with the artist singles. For example "Key of Heart / Dotch. "Key of Heart" was included on the album Made in Twenty (20), "Dotch" was not. Anyway I probably strayed from the point, but to prevent a edit war I want to known if it counts as a single. ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 11:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Morrissey
It was made at the time of the comeback record but it was not about the comeback record or the comeback period; it was about Morrissey. It is no more unique information than, say, the Independent quote included in the lead. If that can stay in the lead, why not the Pitchfork quote? Grunge6910 (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thanks! :) Yes, I have no life. :-D --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Queerty
Can Queerty be used in the "Professional Review" section? I asked on WP:ALBUMS talk but no one has answered yet. ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. ~Moon~ 月 と  暁 ~Sunrise~ 13:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read
On my user talk page I prefer to have new messages posted at the bottom. Please start a new section at the bottom in future. --Sky Attacker (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher
UNSOURCED INFORMATION WHY DO YOU SAY THAT THE REFERENCE WAS FINE SURELY, IF YOU DONT BELIEVE THE SITE ITS TAKEN FROM THE GUY WHO WRITES IT HAS HAD HIS WORK PUBLISHED BY GUINNESS (YOU KNOW THE WORLD RECORD PEOPLE) I WOULD PRESUME THAT WOULD COUNT A SOURCED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperhunt (talk • contribs) 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

but to be the 25th greatest guitarist off all time in rolling stones magazines opinion is ref; the edge's page of u2, there are many of these ridiculous comments on the site that mean absolutely nothing but because they come a famous magazine they are fine when they are just opinions, and to be the 52nd most successful writer is actually quite an achievement. i refer you to isbn-13 978190494107 isbn-10 1904994105  guinness book of british hit singles 19th edition 2005 page 364 kind regards jasper hunt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperhunt (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Something Is Squeezing My Skull
Hi,

I noticed that you removed some information I added to the "Something Is Squeezing My Skull" page about airplay. I think the airplay of a current single with an article is a notable (perhaps the most notable piece of information until its chart positions is determined) piece of information about the single. There are examples of airplay details being discussed in wikipedia (e.g. "Don't Speak"). I was wondering why you don't consider airplay information notable.

Thanks

Acegikmo1 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Your point is well-taken about the need to avoid simply listing all stations that have played the song. However, I believe that if a prominent radio station (e.g. BBC Radio 1 in the UK, or perhaps KROQ in the United States) plays a song in particularly heavy rotation, such a fact is worth mentioning.  I think this is especially relevant for the UK, where there aren't as many radio stations.  I think a good example of playlisting by a major radio station being discussed in a song's article comes from Real Love (John Lennon song).  What do you think?


 * Acegikmo1 (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bands
Please note: The rule of thumb is that [in American English] a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural.

If the nouns were indeed referring to something which is plural, then "are" could be used. Though things like White Stripes and are not referring to individuals within being individually stripes which are white. Members of a band are simply so, members of a greater whole which acts as a single entity. Therefore, the band "is" going to play a show. Jack and Meg "are" members of a band which "is" the White Stripes. A member of the Pittsburgh Steeler on the other hand can act individually and is itself a Pittsburgh Steeler, as such the Pittsburgh could utilise both. The team (as a collection of players immediately so referred to) are going to play a game, or the team (as simply the entity which refers not directly to players) is going to Detroit.

Regardless, bands from the United States use "is" and bands from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland utilise "are". It is the established practice. 75.158.207.234 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I should say White Stripes is not a plural noun. It is simply a noun. There is no difference between a band called White Stripe and a band called White Stripes, it is not referring to anything in plurality, rather simply the band name. It is not a collection of anything which the name embodies.


 * As for the Steelers, it is a football team in the same regard as the Tranmere Rovers is a football club. It is a single entity, which when not referring to its members as a collection of members, is itself. However, football players are capable of acting independently within the confines of their team and need not follow the organised method in which the team is designed to operate. As such, when speaking of the team as players who play, one must take into account the players act differently. Therefore, the Steelers are a team when we speak of such. Band members, while playing individually, cannot be separated from a greater whole. Members act as a whole, playing the music which the band as a whole has created. If a member of the band deviates from the music which has been organised (and such deviation is itself not and aspect of the band) then the member in question has removed themselves from what the band is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.207.234 (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Which would be the advantage of the a priori nature of language. One need not "show" anything to relate something about language, rather one need only utilise deductive reasoning.


 * 1. A band is a single unit entity which is not defined by its constituent parts.
 * 2. Band is an appropriate definition for The White Stripes.
 * 3. Therefore, a single unit entity which is not defined by its constituent parts is and appropriate definition for the White Stripes.
 * 4. Single unit entities not defined by constituent parts, are incapable of being referred to as a relation to such parts.
 * 5. Therefore, single unit entities act as whole.
 * 6. The White Stripes acts as a whole.
 * 7. Therefore, The White Stripes as not defined by constituent parts is something which acts.
 * 8. Therefore, The White Stripes is a band.


 * This is a valid argument, it is up to you now to discern whether it is also sound. 75.158.207.234 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not shown such a defeating argument, rather only referenced sentences which may in fact not relate to what is in question. You would need to show band names such as The White Stripes to be plural of something. The very fact the name references the existence of multiple stripes which are white, does not necessitate the band relates to anything which is either striped or white. Indeed, what you have referenced does not deal with what has been outlined in the proof above. I should think to detail such a proof unsound, you would need to provide an account against number four, which you have not. 75.158.207.234 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Skeleteen/Kyle Justin
Hey, that's understandable and I'm totally fine with that. I started the article before I joined the group but since I joined I haven't been editing it due to the policies about conflict of interest. I would just assume it be deleted. I didn't understand the purpose behind wikipedia's music project until now, and I don't feel the article is in anyway encyclopedic and is more promotional than anything. We're an up-and-coming band, we're getting out of the studio in a month and touring afterwards, so maybe we'll garner some worthy press. Wish us luck and good luck to you! – Godblessyrblackheart  (talk)  16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I started an article for my boyfriend Kyle Justin and he has expressed interest in having it removed from wikipedia, for many reasons, but mainly because we don't want to be lumped into a catagory of fame-junkies on wikipedia who self-promote and break the conflict-of-interest policy. Like I said, I didn't understand wikipedia until quite some time after I started the articles. Is there anyway you could nominate that article for deletion as well? They are way too self-promotional and bio-like. Most of the citations are controlled by the band or are simple non-major music blogs. The only newsprint I see is Orlando Weekly, which is only online now. Thanks! – Godblessyrblackheart  (talk)  16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism
Thanks for the clarification (on my talk) about which timestamp you meant. This policy gives free passes to people who vandalize many pages very quickly before being caught, but that's how Wikipedia rolls. Whereas I would rather anon-block the entire Abdulaziz 212.138.0.0/16 immediately. - Frankie (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job dealing with vandalism at The Killers discography. Thanks! –MT 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * I am often most taken by those ideas that make me go, "Duh! Why didn't I think of that?" I didn't. I've been writing album articles for years, and I never have. So, thank you. Muchly. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to deletion discussion
I know I should talk about The People from Planet Cheese on the talk page. And I did. I also mentioned it on my user page. Oxguy3 (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Silver
I'm still looking for work. Yep. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, up for sorting out the charts for "How Soon Is Now?"? Those myriad sections about the covers need to be condensed and merged, too.  I really need to get on referencing the recording background while I still have the Goddard book on me. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm considering removing the infobox for the Sandie Shaw cover of "Hand in Glove" and trimming down the section a bit, although to be fair that version actually made the pop charts while the original didn't. What do you think?
 * I've heard Sandie Shaw's verison by watching her TOTP performance on Youtube (backed by the musos in the Smiths). "Stilted" is how I'd describe her version. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You got chart info for the Sandie Shaw version? I think this article might be close to GA standard. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What's with Morrissey and his need to constantly issue compilations? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

you reverted an edit i did...
hey JD554, you reverted an edit i did this morning. i copied and pasted information from two other articles to restart another article that was removed for some reason. i'm referring to the skeleteen article. i thought i did a good job of finding reliable sources and putting up references. i thought i added new references that didn't seem to be there before that were worthy, so could you tell me what i did wrong? is it just not notable, like is that what it is? because if that's a fact then that's a fact. but, i would like to see this article up there, at least part of it, in some form, because i believe this is a notable group. i feel that the band meet the notability criteria. the sources are worthy enough for wikipedia, are they not?

altsounds.com is an international alternative online music community and so is beatcrave (they do news, interviews, reviews and have a corporate office) and i think they're both considered reliable online news sources. (?) there are more but those are the 2 important ones i got from a google search. >>>>

71.72.231.204 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

i just wanted to point out in case what i said seemed unfriendly, i'm just trying to figure this out and ask for help. thanks JD554! >>>>

71.72.231.204 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I didn't assume you were being unfriendly. I reverted your change to the Skeleteen article because it had recently been deleted per this discussion. Of the new references you added, altsounds.com is a forum which contains user provided information and anyone can become a user, and beatcrave.com is a blog which appears to be run simply by music fans. Both of these are considered to be self-published sources by Wikipedia and cannot be considered to reliable sources. I hope that helps. I've replied on your talk page as well. --JD554 (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

jd, i understand what you mean with references that come from forums with user provided information, which anyone can become a user of.

beatcrave.com is not that, it's run by a staff of 8 editors (a head editor, 2 associate editors, and 5 others). though it is in blog format it's a website for music news, interviews, and such.

altsounds.com is a site run by 7 editors, 2 bosses and 5 associate editors. altsounds isn't blog format at all. i believe they both fit the criteria for the reliable sources policy you linked. if you could, please read their "about us" pages to verify that information.

so, with all this said, is there some sort of consensus we can come to about the article, with at least part of it up there? i believe the references fit the criteria and policies that you linked. and, i think the group skeleteen is notable, and i'd like to see them up here because they do a lot of good and charitable stuff. the other editors in the deletion-discussion you linked mentioned they considered it a "weak delete", and that it appears that the band is notable enough for wikipedia's standards. so, not to be long winded, what can we do about putting the article up or some mention of them, anything? i've been looking into other bands on here and some of the stuff i've seen is completely promotional, referencing myspace links and blogs and often having no citations. i didn't write what was up there, i simply gave it better references and edited it to make it more encyclopedic, because it deserves to be up there.

thanks for entertaining this discussion. it's appreciated. :) i think i have a revolving IP address, so i will try to figure out how to register a name when i have more time.  >>>>

71.79.14.213 (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you show how those websites meet WP:RS? One definitely is a blog and the other is user submitted content, both of which fail WP:SPS. --JD554 (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't look back in anger single release date
You changed DLBIA's release year to 1995 on the Wonderwall page...but check the WTSMG page, DLBIA was released on February 19th, 1996. Yes, the song itself came out in 1995 on the album, but the single came out in 1996.Kohran (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A Message (of Anger!!)
Yo idiot, why did you delete the "Glass of Water" page?? Huh?? it took me like an hour to find good information and put it on there. Don't delete any of my pages again. You hear me Dipstick??. Sincerely--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude sorry about the "personal attack", but DON'T delete my pages. Instead, make them better. If they don't live up to regular standards the just help the page and make BETTER, DON'T delete it, make it BETTER--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because i make you all P.O.'d dosen't mean you should nominate my (awesome) article's for deletion. DO YOU HEAR ME?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Ansehnlisch (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please dont make it a canidate for speedy deletion. Ya know you can edit it and make it better to ya know. But please, I don't mess with you no more if you don't mess with me no more. OK????--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that delete thing on the PCFFA file. I didn't mean to delete it I just wanted to delete the file.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey JD554, this might no be the best idea but, is there any way I could merge my articles (Postcards from Far Away ect.) to the Prospekt's March and or merge the song articles in to one big article? Please tell me about this idea. See ya soon!!--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sweet! but one thing you didnt mention is if I could make the song pages into one big page (I would not have Life in Technicolor II, Lost+, or Lovers in Japan (Osaka Sun Mix) listed on the page). Could I?--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What I was thinking about doing is making the Postcards from Far Away page into "Prospekt's March Songs" (or a title something like that), then add the information from the Glass of Water page to that, The add information for "Rainy Day", "Prospekt's March/Poppyfields" and "Now My Feet Won't Touch The Ground". Sound Good?--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What I am going to do is make the track listing section the area with the song's descriptions, infoboxes, ect. Sound good?--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits
Sorry if I inappropriately added things. I've posted a follow-up to your Albums Project response on the talk page, so I'd appreciate your further consideration. I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing, because it seems that, considering context and the rules of wiki in general, Stereo Subversion should easily be considered an appropriate source. Thanks! (Kroessman (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

A Request
Ok, JD554, instead of You and me not likeing each other, and you always nominating my articles for deletion, can we put that aside and HELP each other with things? I don't won't to fight with you the whole time I am a wikipedia user. It's you that is always the person nominating my article for deletion. I mean, I could understand if it was a different person every time, but please, I don't like that you're the only one doing that so please, can we just forget about all that and become "friends"(as in just chat. No I am not a stalker, nor do I want to meet you in person, nor will I give you any personal information that I shan't share)?--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A Message
JD554, I am going to make you my wikipedian mentor. Sound Cool??--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

T.I. discography
We have an emergency situation on our hands, 84.109.254.154 has repeatedly vandalized the T.I. discography article by altering the chart position. Are you able to undo his bad edits? Look at these |1, |2, |3, |4. This guy won't stop after his edits are undid, he needs to be blocked indefinetly. Hometown Kid (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2009 (ET)

Swiss Music Chart
I'm sorry which bit of the website, apart from the webaddress, uses "Swiss Music Charts"??? http://swisscharts.com/. See also: http://hitparade.ch/index.asp

The entire website is in German (one of the official languages of Switzerland, English is not) and clearly gives the name of the charts on the left as "Schweizer Hitparade". Rafablu88 (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Noted. In that case, it should be "Swiss Charts" only and not "Swiss Music Chart", with the German wording added in brackets after. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Already amended. Rafablu88 (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Massive Attack
This edit removed three comments from the article talk page. No explanation given. Would also appreciate a pointer as to which wikiproject Massive Attack, Portished, Trick, et al belong? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Smith
Surely, when referring to a person's family, it helps to differentiate between individuals through the use of first names.

It is exasperating that you reverted edits that took well over a half hour because you took a stylistic issue with the use of first names. The edits were carefully thought out and a result of having followed Smith's career for years. I am awaiting an explanation for your policing and your refusal to permit needed clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.35.78 (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes because WP:NAMES states: "For subsequent uses, refer to relatives by given name for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing." (my bold) The way the article was worded wasn't confusing, so there was no need to change Smith to Robert. Also the previous wording was clearer and more encyclopaedic than a number of the other change you made. I can only apologise if you feel exasperated when changes are made, but the caveat at the bottom of the page when you are editing says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." --JD554 (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think academic style and encyclopedic style are incompatible, unless encyclopedias are meant to be redundant and written exclusively for fourth graders. Your fuzzy explanation suggests a careless deletion, rather than a legitimate concern. If you want to be responsible with your policing, invest the time to be more specific next time, and if you don't have the time to be specific, perhaps you should not take on this responsibility. It seems to me that you neglected to pay attention to the edits either because of the stylistic issue you took or perhaps the content of the edits did not suit your personal preferences. Firstly, the changes I made to the "Early Years" section warranted the use of Smith's first name. Also in this section it states, "He [Smith] was an accomplished student who maintained high marks, but after he began playing guitar at the age of 11 his primary focus quickly became his music." Maintaining "high marks" before the age of 11 does not make one an "accomplished student". It is both a laughable and an irrelevant claim. It is sufficient to state that he shifted focus once he started to play the guitar. Also, Smith cites Claude Debussy, Ravel, Satie and Chopin amidst his influences (Guitares et Claviers 1989), and I don't see why you deleted these additions.


 * Why is the use of Smith's first name warranted? I've shown you why it isn't, but you haven't tried to say why it is. Sure a student can be accomplished before the age of 11, explain why not. If Smith has cited Debussy, Ravel, Satie and Chopin then don't provide a reference here, provide in the text of the article when you add it, see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE.

1) I was referring to the edits you reverted, not the wiki page as it stands: I stated, "the changes I made...warranted the use of Smith's first name." These edits included reorganizing the information chronologically (birth, early education, marriage), adding supplementary details and deleting redundancy.  Generally speaking, my choice to refer to an individual by first name or surname depends entirely on the context.  You were welcome to revise my edits to state Smith's surname, if you deemed it more appropriate.  It would have taken you a minute to make these changes, but you chose to revert the edits in entirety with a click of a button, wielding your wiki power without pause. 2) I had added Debussy to the list of other influences, and I followed the format as it stands on the current Wiki Page. As you may have noticed but chose to ignore in your policing, the entire section needs formatting. I do take your point about my latest edit, however, if your real concern was following wiki formatting, most of this section should be deleted 'cos it clearly does not follow guidelines. but you neither corrected the formatting nor deleted the info altogether, and this tells me your recent reverts were either biased and petty or careless.

3) What made Smith an "accomplished student" before the age of 11? Did he compose a sonata? Did he find a cure for cancer?  Did he nurse someone to health? Did he win a wrestling match?  Did he rescue a lost cat?  Did he win a spelling bee? The wiki page states he received "high marks".  Who cares about Smith's "high marks" in the 5th grade? If you think that's relevant, fine, but unless you're a boastful relative of Smith circa 1969, calling him an "accomplished student" based solely on his 5th class "high marks" is comic, especially given that he's a star with an illustrious career that spans over thirty years.      —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.35.78 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, in the section on "Stage Persona and Image", it states, "Smith helped popularize the "goth" style of dress...." Smith's "get up", if you will, certainly contributes to his goth image, but it's a far cry to claim that he "helped popularize" the look. This is the sort of mythmaking that Smith finds off-putting, and rightfully so because it collapses him into a category that overlooks his superb wit and playfulness, evident in his oeuvre. He has repeatedly disavowed the goth tag, as cited in the wiki page, and I can provide further examples if needed. If you have data on Robert Smith's influence on goth fashion, by all means, revise my error.


 * Smith may find it off-putting, but it is what has happened.

4) Your statement is arguable, and while I disagree with you, I don't deny that there is a kernel of truth to it. My point is you are overstating the case. If you look at footage of The Cure concerts, it is evident that the band attracts an eclectic crowd, unlike say Siouxsie Sioux or Sisters of Mercy.  The Cure's Goth following is a minor but conspicuous segment, for obvious reasons.  Maybe the Goth scene across the pond is dead, but Goth teens still hang out in packs in my old neighborhood in New York, so I've had a chance to observe Goth fashion in all its glory first hand.  Perhaps we can agree that Goth is a misunderstood subculture, and that there is a philosophy behind Goth fashion, so it isn't just about wearing black.  And so, Morrissey who doesn't walk around in smeared lipstick but sings "I wear black on the outside 'cos black is how I feel on the inside" would be a better fit than Smith who's been unequivocal in denying Goth overtones. Also Smith wears red lipstick, which is more about "theatricality" in the vein of Bjork or Bowie and dates back to post-punk, glam and new wave. As Gallup has pointed out Smith never wore black lipstick or painted his nails black. also, i've seen him in sneakers not black boots. And lastly, Smith states, "We [The Cure] were a raincoat band, but we were never goth. A lot of the photos of me wearing a rosary or a crucifix or something is exclusive to the eighteen-month period that I was playing with the Banshees, because they determined that I should wear their uniform, which I had to go along with because it wasn't my group" (Details July 1997). As an aside, since when is EW photo gallery a sound source? I don't doubt you'll find many in "respectable" music press who are either lazy of thought or stupid enough to overlook the breadth of The Cure's oeuvre and Smith's persona and conflate it into Goth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.35.78 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On that note, Smith wrote "Lovesong" as wedding present for Mary Poole, whom he dated at fifteen and married a decade later, and she makes a brief appearance in "Just Like Heaven" and "Mint Car" videos. It's a sweet detail that also complicates his "miserable" image, and I'm having trouble understanding your issue with it.


 * A sweet detail it may be, but this is an encyclopaedia, suffice to say he married her. The "Love Song" wedding present is more pertinent to Love Song

5) Way to invent random rules. If you're going to make that argument, why list his siblings, why mention his "high marks"?  These particulars about Poole, Smith put forth, are relevant to his biography because they offer a brief detail of her influence on his work and complicate his image.  She is mentioned only in relevance to Smith.  see Obama's wiki page for example; it is locked for editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Song_(The_Cure) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Like_Heaven_(song)

Lastly, I updated Smith's literary references in the "Songwriting Style" section and replaced vague language such as "themes of depression" with more specific terms such as trauma, despair and resignation. And I added the theme of faith, which is also apparent in his work during the pornography era. If you want to further refine the terms, that's fair (I understand that's how wikipedia works, and thank you anyway for belaboring the obvious in your response). but your compulsion to revert to fuzzy language leaves me puzzled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.35.78 (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Trauma, despair and resignation are all better covered by simply saying depression. --JD554 (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

6) It tells me little about why or how his music is "sad". I'm hardly calling for Dickensian detail, but "simply saying depression" is so broad an umbrella term that it is rendered superficial and cliché.

Excuse me?
You just posted this on my page:

" Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Swords (album), without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. JD554 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)"

My edit to that article was adding one thing. I added ONE thing: the "No_cover.png" image, since there currently is no album cover. What are you talking about? Adding the no cover art image to a template I have done countless times previously. Vandalism? Right, dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan-S79 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit history for Swords (album) shows you made two edits not one, as does your edit history. The second edit, as you say, added a "no image" picture; however, the first edit removed the notability template without fixing the problem or giving a reason. --JD554 (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bringing it back to Jove
Hey, think this peer review might be up your alley. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the singles from the latest Killers album feature fresco portraits of all the band members as sleeve designs. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One of my favorite pasttimes on Wikipedia these days is browsing through food articles, seeking out deliciousness I'd like to try. Any UK-specific recommendations? So far I'm not too impressed with Yorkshire pudding. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a band I listened to today called We Were Promised Jetpacks that you might like. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: Tin Machine? Not as great as the article would have you believe.  Bowie might have been listening to the Pixies at the time, but Tin Machine sounds like a third-rate retread of his glam days with terrible 80s production. I'm watching the videos on YouTube right now and am thoroughly not impressed.  I count at least two videos that contain a gratuitous amount of audience member stage-diving. In 1989! Definitely trying too hard. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, not sure if you could help, but I'm trying to track down verification that the Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs edition of Reckoning was a remastered recording. I've scoured my book and found nothing, and I can't find anything online about the release at all aside from record store listings and eBay auctions, so I doubt the wisdom of even mentioning it in the article without decent sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: my tracklist discourse. I got "Radio Friendly Unit Shifter" mixed up with "Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol . . ." Forgive me, for I am often up late. Regardless, secondary source material on the "Radio Friendly Unit Shifter" is scant, which most of the details being what specific day it was recorded, and the fact that it's really noisy, which is true of like half the album. From a macro view (which is how I always approach album articles, since they are complete whole works, and because not every song will garner substantial commentary), it not being mentioned in the article isn't the end of the world, because the article would still fulfill FA criteria 1b, as a result of FA criteria 1c. Yeah, the song is on the album, which is self-evident, but then again, the fact that the album is packaged in a clear plastic CD tray is self-evident too, if you get my analogy.  However, the fact that "Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol . . ." is a bonus track on non-US copies of the album, and is the only recording to appear on the album not recorded with Steve Albini is notable, so that's noted in the prose, even if the song itself is not notable enough to warrant its own article. By the way, I hope people (including you) get what I'm trying to do with the tracklisting discussion, namely to get our collective selves to explicitly delineate why we need something that we've taken for granted for so long as mandatory for album pages without anyone stopping to think and say "Why?". I mean, I'm not trying to be a dick . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Commentary: this strikes me as a really bad idea, for a number of reasons. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mind sorting out the charts for "Panic"? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's one of those things that's "obvious" but not necessarily notable. I used to post on a Nirvana message board, and when that song first came out, everyone pointed out the similarity. But a bunch of fan chatter does not mean something is true or even verifiable, of course. This is how Wiki guidelines have improved my life! WesleyDodds (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This means I can get Nevermind ready for a GA nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything you think I should focus on in the article in the long-term run-up to try and get Nevermind on the Main Page for the album's 20th anniversary? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an odd thing is all the sources I read about Nevermind focus on how it brought alt-rock as a whole to a mainstream, and not specifically grunge; it's probably because it's assumed. The 1993 New York Times article on grunge probably says something about it. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the proper cleanup tag to add to this would be. I doubt the main site indicated as a reference is a RS at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I never noticed that that song has a comma in the title. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read blog posts by people who insist that Morrissey isn't fat. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer me honestly: would it be perfectly suitable from a quality perspective for me to just get a Bunnymen compilation instead of buying the cream of the individual albums? Money is tight these days, after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Allmusic not have verification for all the David Bowie video album chart placings you had to remove? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you view Youtube yet? Because if so. . .. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, I love "Gold". It works if you imagine it as an unused James Bond theme. It's "True" that has no redeeming value. Also: . WesleyDodds (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You into Ultravox at all? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How was the trip? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Who would've thought that Bowie woud lead to the Sisters? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for May 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Skipton
Link titleYou reverted my edit about adding the category People from Skipton from the article commenting there is no need for this. Why not? There is a section in the article about notable people born there so why not refer people to the category which lists them and more? Note that the format of my edit did not add the article on Skipton to the category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Because it isn't normal to use categories as "see also" items. Anyone listed in the category who isn't in the article should be added, it is then redundant to point to a category which simply lists the people. --JD554 (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Bradford. By your argument all 240 people in the Category:People from Bradford should be listed in the main article.  Or the article on Leeds where 359 names should be listed.  Neither of these articles do that.  Instead one refers to the category (ok in the section to which it relates not the see also) and the other a separate article List of people from Leeds.  By a rigid adherence to what you say all categories that are lists of people from XYZ are redundant because the names they contain should appear in the article relating about XYZ.  NtheP (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle but at what point does it become too many? Using the category at least keeps the article up to date with additions made to the category. NtheP (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonas Retards
I didn't create a page titled "Jonas Retards", I just made a redirect of that title to the Jonas Brothers page. Someone else must of created it Cause I Didn't. Also some one put on a redirect link to the Jonas Brothers page that they "Suck ass".--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IT> WASN'T> ME!!!!!!!!!. I know what I did and all I did was a redirect. I am for sure dude--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary defaultsort
My bot is currently fixing this error list and yes, it is an unnecessary edit, I think it could be a false positive or someone already fixed it. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Promo singles
You can 2 list promo singles. They do qualify as singles. These ones on the DD album pages had a pysical release, so just leave the promo singles listed.Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those promo singles had a pysical release they sold (I'm pretty sure about the latter) or DJs would have them. They weren't not just radio only singles. The bands only radio only promo was "The Krush Brothers LSD Edit" which I didn't list because (1. it's a radio only single and (2. the site where I got my info (no it's not a fansite) dosen't list it. Sorry, I didn't mean to talk to you like an idiot. Apology accepted?.

Civilization Phaze III References -> Notes
You said this edit was unnecessary. I'm sorry, but a translation of the name of a song isn't a reference. It's a note. "Notes" is the proper name for that section. ≤ alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, it's . It's not an HTML tag you're closing. Second, it doesn't work, it just shows a blank space. ≤ alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks weird but it's the correct thing, so it's okay. Thank you. ≤ alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Snow Patrol
Never realized so much could still be done. Just had a query. A "band" should be singular, I think, they're ONE entity. Shouldn't "has" be used, instead of "hasn't"? Suede67 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Man Who Sold the World
Hey, its been a long time. Shouldn't The Man Who Sold the World direct to the album rather than the song? Its more logical that way, and I think that's the standard practice too. Also, you should start moving stuff from your temp page to [David Bowie discography. Even if you aren't done with it yet, the temp page is currently a million times better than the actual article itself :) indopug (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi mate, I was wondering, having seen your great work on the David Bowie discography, if you could help me with trying to take List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK) to featured list status. I need some help on writing a lede, finding suitable pictures. I am also having trouble with the table at the bottom of the article, with 4 charity singles released in the 1980s. Let me know on my talk page if you can help. Thanks. 03 md  01:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for June 2009
SoxBot (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay
i dunno why you reverted my edit to that article about that shitty coldplay song. it was not vandalism, it's a bonafide fact. look it up.99.153.29.112 (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * i just got a message that the above is a "personal attack"... please explain.99.153.29.112 (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of David Bowie discography
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Merge/separation of different versions of same song
As somebody who appears to be interested in song articles you might be interested to know there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separation of different versions of the same song. You are invited to comment. Regards,--Richhoncho (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?
I mistakenly created Template:Snow_Patrol1 when I thought I was using the sandbox. I tagged it for deletion, but so far it hasnt been deleted. Can you initiate a speedy deletion? Thanks. Suede67 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Suede67 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again! I created User Suede67/Remember by mistake, I forgot to use a colon, used a space instead. Can you nominate f=f for speedy again? Thanks. Suede67 (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you did it or not, but it's been deleted already. Suede67 (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great help! Suede67 (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pic Copyright
I don't know exactlly what info to put (and I don't want to read the page about how to with liscensing aggrement on pics).--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Riceboy Sleeps
Oh, I'm very sorry, I'll just leave it there then. ≤ alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 16:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, then good luck with finding another source (unless the information is re-posted to http://jonsiandalex.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvareo (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

the New Order thing
So when exactly was the week ban supposed to end? I think our friend may have jumped the gun, but would like a second opinion before doing anything, or perhaps just let it rest. I also re-added 2007 as the end of the years active with a weak citation (the Contact Music slug about the Mojo article); was there more on when New Order split in the Mojo article? -- Foetusized (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Dear Sir or Ma'am... After looking up what in the heck sockpuppetry could mean, and reading the evidence, I am finding it hard to not be angry. I have been a long time reader of Wikipedia, although rarely an editor, and so never set up an account. I recently noticed that information on the Wayne Massey page had disappeared and so viewed the history and became compelled to chime in because I thought what was happening was wrong. I therefore set up an account to be able to effectively communicate my views in discussion. Simple as that. Looks like you want to discredit any descenting views. (Cdmass (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

Strawberry Swing
Hey, this was a while ago, but it wasn't really appropriate to give Dans a last warning for that first personal attack, because he just said a simple "screw you", which while definitely inappropriate, was not grounds for a warning that tells him he gets blocked the next time he does it. A better warning would have been a level 2 or 3, and some more communication next time, other than a templated warning. Finger z  02:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok, the rationale behind placing the last warning makes more sense now. I started a thread on ANI about it, because Dans launched another personal attack after you left the last warning on his page, but I was unsure of whether the final warning was warranted, so I took it to ANI so the admins could discuss about whether to block. The thread is at WP:ANI. You might want to explain your rationale for placing the final warning on his page, because some editors consider the seemingly overly harsh warning as a reason for not blocking. Finger  z  15:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chauffeur
Heavy night last night :) ??--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2009
SoxBot (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Strawberry Swing Atricle

 * Dear JD554, Even though Strawberry Swing is protected untill..well I guess it actualy becomes a single. I do have a article that I made in my sandbox and I would like you to check it out and tell me what else is missing and if there is anything that I can do to make it better. I plan on putting the article on the real Strawberry Swing page once the single officialy comes out. feel free to edit it if you wish. (It would be nice if I had the cover art, but I dont know how to do that) User:Coldplay Expert/Strawberry Swing Thanks!--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use Message
Hi there - re your message today, I assume you mean I need to use one of these new templates, rather than using plain text for the rationale? At the time the picture was uploaded, such templates were not mandatory, that's why it isn't there. Can you help me out by linking me to the right template? Or at least to the page where such templates live? Cheers. :-) --DaveG12345 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I will do this later today... --DaveG12345 (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I fixed that and so I removed the CSD tag, but let me know if you see any other issues that invalidate this tag removal - somebody had shoved this image onto British Rock - which was obviously an invalid use, and so I have removed it from there, and edit summary asks them not to replace it without discussion first. Cheers again for the help. --DaveG12345 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bowie discography
Here we go: These are from internal print data but you can cite the pdf files online as they all follow the same nomenclature. See my A Weekend in the City cite. Rafablu88 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BPI Certified Awards 1989: Tin Machine Gold, no awards for TMII in 1991.
 * BPI Certified Awards 1997: Earthling Silver, there's a further column which states Gold but with no date.
 * Thanks for those. Sorry to be a pain, but are there similar PDFs for the other ones I already have listed? --JD554 (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * TBH, I don't know what to tell you. In all probability, yes. But, I don't know if the search you did only brought up the awards data or the sales. If it's awards, then you can cite them the same way, but if not then I suggest you keep them as they are and add Note: Subscription required to the ref, especially considering you (and maybe others) had witnessed such information to be true at the source before it became non-free. I'm sure no-one would be complain. I wouldn't. Rafablu88  14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your help. --JD554 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

NMA - my amendments
Actually I was responsible for the original comments (made from a different computer though), and I deleted them after plucking up the courage to amend the article, as I answered my own question. I think I improved the article - and I cited my sources. Hope this is OK, regards Lee86.142.138.187 (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll create an account shortly so I can contribute more...thanks and regards...86.142.138.187 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of The Cure
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:The Cure/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

pain't it black
YOU HAVE CAUSED ENOUGH PROBLEMS OVER THE WHOLE "PAINT IT, BLACK" ISSUE ALREADY; PLEASE STAY AWAY FROM IT. USER:Das Ansehnlisch IS NOW BLOCKED FOR HIS PART IN THE WHOLE FIASCO. PLEASE DON'T MAKE ANY MORE TROUBLE. R ad io pa th y  •talk•  16:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you're contesting the speedy; do you realise that it took ten hours yesterday to clean up your mess? And now you have the gall to disrupt even more?  Just desist immediately or you will be blocked.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm flabbergasted you think it was my mess. Das Ansehnlisch started the whole problem and then when I started to try to get it fixed, you made the mess of things. Good luck trying to get me blocked. --JD554 (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea any of the backstory of what's going on at the article, but Radiopathy claims retirement at this point. I've made a comment at the disambig page talk page if you get a chance, I'd love to know what's going on. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My Talk, Page
Stay away. I don't appreciate your sense of humour, and don't wish to have to collaborate with you if I can avoid it. R ad <font color="#009966">io <font color="#009999">pa <font color="#1E99CC">th <font color="#67B2DE ">y  •talk•  19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice, this was a genuine sentiment. I guess it was a waste of time. --JD554 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Fischer file
Right! That slipped my mind, I'll add another rationale just now, thanks for the reminder! Suede67 (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
JD554 I have a quick question for you....well actially its three questions. The first one is, If I make a sandbox article on the Unreleased Coldplay DVD "How We Saw The World" can I put the Album art on it? Next question, why cant I put album art on my sandbox articles like Strawberry Swing, is it a copyright infringment or something? And three, do you think that the idea of "How We Saw The World" is a good one? Do you think that it could end up as a real article if it has enough resources (How many) Thanks if you can answer this.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. And I have not started the article but I plan to soon. Oh and by the way. Can My sandbox article on Strawberry Swing become a real article on Sep. 14 when the single becomes available officially?--Coldplay Expert (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok I understand now. But how far do you think that User:Coldplay Expert/Strawberry Swing has to go before it can be a real article. Im pretty sure that it will chart so thats a plus.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you asked for that article in my sandbox, here it is. User:Coldplay Expert/How We Saw The World Pt. 1 and My article on Strawberry Swing has been mentioned in the media. (In Rolling Stone).--Coldplay Expert (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok then Ill just leave it as a sandbox article and ill make a mention about it on their main page under X&Y is that ok? and im pretty sure that one the single is released, strawberry swing will becom notable enough to gain its own article. So as of right now, on sep. 14 I will make it a real article. (Unless it is not covered enough in the media) hows that?--Coldplay Expert (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know but I just thought that that would be a good date to publish it.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and also...what do you think about User:Coldplay Expert/Latin America Tour? Guitarherochristopher belives that it is ready and I think that it could use one or two more sources. What is your opinion on this? Do you think that it is a good idea?--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FLC
Hello, I resolved the issues you pointed out at Featured list candidates/Lily Allen discography/archive1. Would you please take another look and state your support/oppose? Thank you.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for August 2009
SoxBot (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd request
This might seem wierd but can you delete this page for me? User:Coldplay Expert/List of unreleased Coldplay songs the reason being is that me and Guitarherochristopher already have a page on it called User:Coldplay Expert/Guitarherochristopher/List of unreleased Coldplay songs--Coldplay Expert (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

'Aim and Ignite' Reviews
I would like to expand the Aim and Ignite article, and I see that you've previously edited it. I am curious as to exactly why the rating from Pretty Much Amazing was removed from the infobox, especially since you didn't touch the rating from thetunemusic.com, which WikiProject Albums actually states "should not be included in album infoboxes." Did you just miss that review, or is there something just blatantly unreliable about Pretty Much Amazing? In terms of sources of critical reception, I would love to reference reviews from smaller online sites (since they seem to be the only ones reviewing this album), such as pluginmusic.com, eastscene.com, baeblemusic.com, emotionalpunk.com, etc. etc., but obviously not if they're going to be removed for being unprofessional. Many thanks! Tflynn17 (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RE
Tanks for the help. Oh and you should sign my signature page and get my barnstar that I just made. --<font color="SteelBlue" face="High Tower Text">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="High Tower Text">Expert  19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You're too modest
And to think I didn't even go out of way to make the comments. ;) It totally deserves them. Calling it an "Article" would be a slur in my book, more like a "Labour of Love". Well done, and also what's next? I've got Rock Movers & Shakers if you need stat help in the future. RB88 (T) 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: U2 pictures
Thanks, and no, not at all. I'm not too familiar with Commons, so that would be great. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Pink discography
heya, a couple of weeks ago you participated in the FLC discussion for the above article. there were alot of faults with the article when the the previous user nominated. they have now been resolved and i am going to re-nominate it, but before i do i was wondering if you could take a look and offer me your suggestions? thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

FL red link criterion discussion
See here. Cheeers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:PinkBelieveYouvideo.jpg
Reconsider the deletion. It does add an enormous ammount of information to the reader's understading, as it can not be replaced by prose. Nothing at the moment is available for the description of the video, nothing is known. Only this image can describe what's going on there. When that information will become available, be sure that this image will be replaced. Until then, I think it can be kept.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, fine, it can be deleted. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In which we discuss potentially overlong discography leads
Haha, well then I hope you never take on The Fall's discography ... indopug (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Interested In Wikipedia?
Wow! You Have A Lot Of Conversations On Wikipedia, JD554. Like Wikipedia? <font color="Red">iGUItARH3R0KHR!ZT0PH3R! _- = <font color="Yellow"> ₪    19:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Kind Of. <font color="Red">iGUItARH3R0KHR!ZT0PH3R! _- = <font color="Yellow"> ₪    19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse, I Do That. <font color="Red">iGUItARH3R0KHR!ZT0PH3R! _- = <font color="Yellow"> ₪    19:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Italian covers of Creep
On September 25th a couple of Italian covers of Creep had hit the web simoultaneusly. The first one, made by Vasco Rossi, a 57-years old mainstream rocker, has not been appreciated by Radiohead fans. Vasco Rossi made "Ad ogni costo" his new single, gaining the frontpage of italian tv and music magazines. The second one is probably an answer by a group of fans, who had translated in Italian the original lyrics of the song. Both versions have originated a very warm debate between Vasco's fans and Radiohead Italian fans. In my opinion, they are not "not notable covers". I know, i have a close perspective on Italy. But I do not want to start an editing battle. So, how may I do (i.e. references) --93.68.54.86 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

White Shadows
Dear JD554, you may already know this but I have a sandbox article on White Shadows located at User:Coldplay Expert/White Shadows. This song was merged to X&Y in the past because it was not notable. I have found out thought that the song did chart on the Mexican Top 100 at #87. (Back when you nominated Glass of Water for AFD you took it back because it charted.) So my question to you is, do you think that the song is good enough to become an article?-- <font color="SteelBlue" face="Loki Cola">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="Loki Cola">Expert  01:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not quite sure. I remember I read that it ccharted at #87 somewhere on the internet but I cant find it anymore. Ill try to find some mexican sites that deal with music for some more notability. (It only charted in mexico). If it does get to become an article, what will we use as the cover art. It was a radio only single so I dont know what the single art would be.-- <font color="SteelBlue" face="Loki Cola">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="Loki Cola">Expert  10:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Template
Yeah you can delete it, its not suppoesd to be a template.-- <font color="SteelBlue" face="Loki Cola">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="Loki Cola">Expert  16:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Latin America Tour II
Hey I just saw that Coldplay will have another Latin American Tour. Can I make another article called Latin America Tour II if a few reliable sources talk about it. Or is this part of the Viva La Vida Tour. I already made a drafe at User:Coldplay Expert/Latin America Tour II.-- <font color="SteelBlue" face="Loki Cola">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="Loki Cola">Expert  23:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I made the sandbox and I acidentally deleted it.-- <font color="SteelBlue" face="Loki Cola">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="Loki Cola">Expert  23:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

here it is User:Coldplay Expert/Latin American Tour II-- <font color="SteelBlue" face="Loki Cola">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="Loki Cola">Expert  00:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I was really trying to ask if the article should be called Latin America Tour II-- <font color="SteelBlue" face="Loki Cola">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="Loki Cola">Expert  10:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That will be the working title untill a real name comes out for the new tour. Im sure they will just call it Latin America Tour. If that happens then we will have to put a II after it because there already is one-- <font color="SteelBlue" face="Loki Cola">Coldplay <font color="Crimson" face="Loki Cola">Expert  10:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

HEY
Hello, I was wondering why you are being so smart by nominating EVERY SINGLE PAGE on my hidden page challenge. WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO DO THIS? I got the point the first time, so if you wouldn't mind, STOP EDITING MY TALK PAGE!!!!! Thank You-- Nemesis of  Reason  15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
JD554, Thanks For Reverting My Edit On Parachutes Tour! By The Way, Give Me WikiCookies. <font color="Red">iGUItARH3R0KHR!ZT0PH3R! _- = <font color="Yellow"> ₪    17:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam etc
Hey - you probably send a million of these out so may not remember mine, but I'm the albums editor of a music site called Drowned In Sound and I do put links to all our albums reviews onto wikipedia, including my own - it sort of falls to me to do it within my remit, but I think it's not unreasonable that our links are included, we're a pretty big website, we had 400,000+ individual readers last month. I do take your point about deleting other people's links, I've only done it when I know the website is a kind of sucky small one stretching the definition of 'professional' and probably not really helping visitors get too clear an opinion, but it's probably not my place to do so, fair enough.

Cheers

Andrzej —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrLukowski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

hi
This is Penguin Warchief, i'm looking for someone to help me learn to do edits and such, and since you seem to be on top of that sort of thing, i was wondering if maybe you could teach me something.-- <font color="Red" face="Times New Roman">Penguin <font color="Blue" face="Times New Roman">Warchief  15:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Charts
You say Billboard archives Canadian charts before 2007. Do you have a link for that? Canadian Hot 100 article says "The chart premiered in the Billboard issue dated June 16, 2007". I looked at the chart history for veteran artists and it doesn't show any of their songs before 2007 in Canada. I tried and access an "archive" from 2001 and it said "no chart data available".-- 12345abcxyz20082009 ( talk ) 16:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sortkeys
A misunderstanding Considering how you reverted my sorting of The Sisters of Mercy, I figured I should explain myself. By using, you can alphabetize this article to "Sister of Mercy" rather than having it show up at "The Sisters of Mercy." Sorting does not take away from leading articles; they will still appear in categories with the word "the" at the beginning, but they will appear under the letter S, which is appropriate for English. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorting and proper English WP:SORTKEY reads in part, "[S]ort keys are used to exclude prefixes that are... considered unimportant (such as "The")." The Beatles are sorted as "Beatles", The Rolling Stones are sorted as "Rolling Stones", etc. There is no compelling reason to ignore this convention in this case. Even if the band always insists upon using a non-standard style, this style guide trumps their preference for inclusion in categories at Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * RfC This is clearly not working and I don't think you understand the purpose of sorting or alphabetizing proper English. The "of" in their name should be capitalized to sort in categories. E.g. if there was such an article as "Sisters Through Mercy discography" it would come before Sisters of Mercy discography because "of" is lowercase and Wikimedia software puts lowercase letters after uppercase ones. It seems that you're being intransigent about this by appealing to an irrelevant standard (how the band styles their name and possibly alphabetize themselves?) versus the actual style guide at Wikipedia. I suppose that I'm going to go to RfC or some kind of dispute resolution unless you're willing to concede that 1.) alphabetical order should be standardized on Wikipedia irrespective of outside sources and 2.) there aren't any special exceptions for this one band amongst the thousands of discography articles. For what it's worth, I have no doubt that any kind of consensus will support the clear standard of ignoring leading articles and in favor of capitalizing "of" for proper alphabetizing. I'm reverting this one more time based on what I've written here and if you decide to revert again without at least appealing to some kind of guideline or prior consensus on Wikipedia, then I'm going to go through the steps of dispute resolution which seems like an unnecessarily complex process for a dispute that is actually very simple and clear-cut. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum In my haste, I did not notice that you only reverted the capitalization of the word "of" and not the word "the" leading the article's name, so much of what I wrote before is irrelevant. Forgive me for wasting your time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

*Cough Cough*
Here that damn brilliant nom I promised you: Featured topic candidates/Bloc Party albums/archive2 RB88 (T) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

fl?
If the two respected admins, with whom I've already spoken, have a problem with my reversions let them take it up with me. FLC has had years to figure red links out, the community deserves more than a week. I don't expect anything to come of another week or so but if there's a chance someone might appear with a good compromise it's worth it, especially when there's no downside. Please revert your reversion. Thanks you. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your intentions are good but you're only complicating things. Community input is a good thing and cutting it off because a couple editors are "tired" of it is not. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A handful of FLC regulars does not represent the entire community. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jude
Re: "rv, an encyclopaedia should present the facts not promulgate untruths."

First, WikiPedia doesn't present facts. It presents evidence.

In the case of "Hey Jude", the legal writing credit is for Lennon-McCartney, and there is solid, verifiable evidence to support that assertion including the song label and the BMI database. What evidence is there that it was written solely and completely by McCartney? Is there a source where McCartney says something as clear as "I wrote that song without any input from John. He should not have received a writing credit." If so, I've never seen it.

What I have seen is casual comments in interviews where McCartney says it is his song and similar comments in similar interview settings where Lennon agrees. In neither case, however, does either one say it was completely, 100% a McCartney song. There is also conversations on bootlegs where Lennon makes suggestions about the song as it develops in the studio, the sort of comments that a writing partner makes.

An infobox summary should be a non-controversial as possible. Putting the official credit there makes the most sense. The body of the article can cover the explain the other evidence. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles discography Featured list candidates
Hi, JD554! I have nominated this for FL. I would like for you to know that this could not have been done without you! You are absolutely vitally important to this project! Please show your support for us, on the link above, if you don't mind. Thanks my friend! Best, --Discographer (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My nomination has been withdrawn for now. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Grunge
Why am I being singled out here? See the [|talk page] of this article, the facts and my points have been continuously ignored. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I have followed wiki rules/guidelines on this and requested for editor assistance yesterday [|here]. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The new days
I might get an early listen to some new releases I figure you might dig. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, one of those ideas I e-mailed you about will be up soon. I'll e-mail you the nitty-gritty when it's out. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you update/source the chart positions for Live in Reading in Nirvana discography as they become available? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

New Look Userpage
JD554, How Do You Think Of My New Look Userpage? G U!T ARH3R 0 C HR ! S T0 PHER   _-=  03:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a ban notification. I am not amused. :)--Boeing7107isdelicious 10:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nirvana discography
I was able to find this. You can't preview the page, but the search result confirms that Mark Racco was a director for the "Lithium" video. – Zntrip 18:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Skunk Anansie discography
Hi!, as you recently assessed this article in the previous FL nomination, would it be okay if you could re-assess the second nomination? :). Cheers and many thanks!Marcus Bowen (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Space Oddity
Can you stop removing links to Discogs (and certain others) quoting that rule. It is not correct to use for removal reasoning. Discogs links have information a Featured Article simply wouldn't have — and that can include non-written things like pictures of the sleeve (back, front, vinyl/CD, booklet, run-outs, etc.) that are NOT allowed here under other rules you managed to ignore. Jimthing (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion
Hello, I thought that you might be interested? Wikipedia talk:Record charts For completeness of discussion please make any comments there.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshire Dales
Thank you for your advice not to confuse "The Yorkshire Dales" with the "Yorkshire Dales National Park". Having lived there for the past 30 odd years, it wasn't actually necessary, but I am sure that you were well-intentioned.

It is always difficult to put precise boundaries on an area, but the general understanding seems to be that the "Yorkshire Dales" covers the area within the Askrigg Block, providing a region with a distinctive topography and human geography. It definitely doesn't include Calderdale, and the article itself specifically excludes Calderdale. Airedale is more of a mute point, but my understanding is that part of the Aire valley within the Yorkshire Dales (as defined above) is known as Malhamdale, and that south of the area is known as Airedale. However, I know of no known point where one changes to the other so wouldn't like to be too definitive. --Langcliffe (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"I can assure you it is generally considered part of the Yorkshire Dales."

I just love your certainty! You were just as certain when you accused me of confusing the Yorkshire Dales with the Yorkshire Dales National Park. I really don't want to enter into a conversation dominated by dogmatic statements, so shall we agree to differ? After all, it ain't that important. --Langcliffe (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As you won't agree to differ, I look forward to seeing your references substantiating your certainty that I was confusing the Yorkshire Dales with the YDNP. --Langcliffe (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

=
I thought that I would finish up with being involved in a futile discussion when I saw your original insulting edit comment...

In your latest post you write: "Your edit summary would seem to indicate that is what you thought."

What I actually wrote was: "Airedale and Calderdale are outside the Yorkshire Dales area, and Bradford Dale is in the Peak District". How on earth could you conclude that I was confusing "the Yorkshire Dales" with the National Park" from that statement? I was actually fairly careful with my wording, as I realise that there often is confusion between the administrative area and the geographical area, and I had no desire to perpetuate it.

"Even if you didn't, it is irrelevant, as Airedale is verifiably in the Yorkshire Dales as I've shown."

Insulting people is never irrelevant in my book, so maybe that is another area where our views differ. But even so, Skipton is commonly known as 'Gateway to the Dales' (Google it, if you so wish). Gateways are at the entrance to something, not inside. Also. the article (not my words) says "The dales themselves are 'U' and 'V' shaped valleys, which were enlarged and shaped by glaciers" which definitely does not describe the area around Skipton which your references indicate. As I originally said, it's arguable both ways which is why I suggested that we should agree to differ. However, if you really need the satisfaction of thinking yourself 100% right, and me 100% wrong, please be my guest.

On a more general note, may I respectively suggest that you are a little more considered in your edit comments in future for the sake of the project? Contributors need to be encouraged, not rubbished. I have a reasonably thick skin and been around for a reasonable length of time, but I have heard of too many contributors put off when their first contributions have been reversed with patronising comments by experienced editors. --Langcliffe (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)