User talk:Papa November/Archive 2

Stub sorting
Thanks for helping on the last few – I don't really have any "Spirit of Christmas" left! :D Bubba hotep 10:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Job done! Thanks again. Bubba hotep 11:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Electronic music

 * If you are receiving this message, you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Electronic music. We need more active members at WikiProject Electronic music.  So please tell your friends who like electronic music and are willing to put in hours writing about it.  If there are any suggestions for features for this Wikiproject I will help out with them and see what I can do.  Please add any projects you are working on to the list - I will gladly help out with them as best I can.  Since the original project founder has been MIA for 9 months or so, I'm declaring myself pseudo-king and cheerleader of this Wikiproject.  Basically, that probably means that I'm just going to do the most work related to this project for now.  Please tell your wiki real-life friends who are interested in electronic music about this wikiproject!  We need active members!  Wickethewok 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:Noimageforcd.gif]]
I've just speedied it. I only made it because some user took the "no image available" image from Amazon.com, and I needed something to replace it with :) Thanks.  Ral315 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox conversion
I find it quite ironic (and not a little amusing) that the infobox on this page needed converting! Perhaps it's just my sense of humour... :D Bubba hotep 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha likewise :) Alex valavanis 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

iTunes Greatest Hits, iTunes Greatest Hits, Pt. II, and iTunes Greatest Hits, Pt. III
I have a question, I created these 3 pages because I created these mixtapes/ compilations because they are REAL!!!! There's no website becuase it's not a big business mixtape. So why can't they stay, they're real! Dislecksik 00:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that removing the prod tag is the correct way to dispute the proposed deletion. You're not supposed to put it back. Instead, it's supposed to go to the full AfD process. However, per WP:SNOW, I'm not gonna mess with it at this point. eaolson 00:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth AfDing, since it doesn't stand a snowball's chance of staying. But if they're de-prodded again, I'd take them to AfD. eaolson 00:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evanescence
Konnichi-wa, Alex-san! Just letting you know that, even though it's not really a big deal or anything, this edit by an IP was pure vandalism. The odds of the entire band dying on Valentine's Day and nobody saying anything about it on the news, forums/fansites, etc are extremely small. Well, hope to see you around and happy editing! // Decaimiento Poético  19:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile
Hi, do you want to take another look at the ...Meanwhile page and see if I've done those references OK. Thanks Grimhim 02:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alex, I'm having a hard time deciding why you have tagged some album articles with unref when they clearly have sources and references within the external links and infobox. Bubba hotep 10:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Bizarre Ride II
Shit, I wrote that entire thing, man. It got turned down for FA, so I'm done with it. Good luck though. --PDTantisocial 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Era Vulgaris (album) assessment
Yo, thanks for your unbiased assessment of the Era Vulgaris article, much appreciated. Skomorokh 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks: Hidden Tracks
Thanks for your rating. Can you give me some idea of what would elevate the article to a GA? It's extremely cited for a fairly minor tangent, I've unsnarled most of the language issues, etc., so where can I go from here? -Thespian 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. re: "I think it would read much better as an article if the lists were converted to prose wherever possible."; I found, since the page essentially enumerates tracks, it is actually much harder to sort out in prose. Take a look at the two revisions you can see through here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hidden_track&diff=125366465&oldid=125365310


 * When it was pulled into a prose format, I found it hard for readability and clarity. It's a personal taste, I guess; I can't find anything on editing something like this into prose, and I'm at an impasse because I genuinely can't regob lists back into paragraphs for form, when I took them out of paragraphs because I felt they were impossible to follow then. I certainly prefer prose (which is why each section starts with an explanation instead of diving into the list), but I do think it doesn't work for this information. I guess I'll see if something occurs to me later, because I can't actually do the work you think the article needs (and no one else is likely to; people mostly just use it as a dumping ground to post 'my favourite band has a hidden track'

stuff).-Thespian 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fornika
Hey there, you've assessed Fornika as stub class, and gave as one of the reasons "album credits". What do you mean by album credits? Thank you (Me-pawel 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your answer, so I'll get started on this then. (Me-pawel 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

Doremi Fasol Latido
Hi, you've stuck Quotefarm on this & Ifully understand what you mean. However you asked previously for the quotes to be integrated in the text. Any suggestions as to how I/we balance this out? Any articles I could look at with good examples of integrating quotes? Remember, this is a 35 year old album so there's not much to cite except interviews by the band members. A quotefarm is probably to a certain extent unavoidable but I want to get this article improved to it's best possible level so the rest of the notable Hawkwind albums can be brought up to the same level. Megamanic 06:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done some work on it - can you spare a moment to see if you think it's better? Put any suggestions on The "Doremi" talk page so all the other editors can see what's happening.  Thanks Megamanic 08:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on Kid A
Thanks for your explanation, that would be great if you can find a way to work the quote into the text itself. That one quote from Greenwood is pretty to the point, I think. It's important to have in there in some form, since there's a lot of misunderstanding over what it means when an album is called "electronic", and it is not an album of Aphex Twin/Autechre style "electronica" (at least, not mostly). There are surely a lot of keyboards too, but what really made the album electronic was that the recording process was self-consciously electronic, and processed- whatever instruments they were using. Only part of the time were those instruments synths and drum machines. Other times they were strings, sax, organ, all less electronic than an electric guitar. But the end product was electronic because of the way they manipulated the sounds.

And it's true, the article was way too long before, but I think in condensing it a bit of the important stuff has been lost. There is no context for certain parts anymore, especially when ALL direct quotes are removed, which isn't a practice that's associated with good writing of encyclopedias or anything else. It is much less informative for a reader who does not already have a background in the topic, than it was. Maybe at some time someone should go back and read the old version (say from early March this year?), compare it to this one and see if there was anything lost that should be put back in.

But I also was surprised that U2 article was allowed to have such extensive quotes in the boxes. It can have the effect of being a "puff piece" on the subject, when the artist's words are given such attention. I didn't want to do that at all when I edited this article, and I can't see how that number of block quotes in the U2 article will pass featured, but you can also go too far in the other direction, trying to limit an article to hard facts, when the article isn't just about hard facts, but also about an artistic product and the reaction to it. You've done a good job in reducing the size of this page since March, but then I look at some of the other featured articles- the range of styles allowed is very wide, especially for pop culture articles. I think we at Wikipedia set objectivity standards that are self defeating sometimes. I was reading the newspaper today, the main news section of a respected paper, and noticing a lot of flair in the writing of articles about the most coldly serious subjects, like killings in Sudan, or high level diplomatic meetings- little phrases and mildly subjective descriptions and direct quotes, things that would surely be removed from Wikipedia by an editor trying to get an article to featured, but which when combined in a certain way, do NOT compromise neutrality, but in fact help get the facts across clearer, and are really what would make any article deserving of being "featured", rather than just noted as being reasonably factual.

I don't think this one will make featured, simply because it's a dry article, that after the relentless edits for length, now comes across like random facts that have been put together, without a sense of purpose to them. Compare this to the main Radiohead article (or at least how it was several weeks ago, I haven't looked at it since) and you see the difference, that article has also been subjected to many edits to ensure NPOV tone and concision, and could use still more, but it still has flow and context. "Encyclopedic" doesn't mean flat and dull. Not that the old Kid A article would have made featured either, and it wasn't exactly brilliantly written, just more comprehensively written, but we need a balance. The standards are applied in such a haphazard way. The main impediment to getting featured is always going to be the sources, anyway.

Thanks for all your hard work, though. :) I admit this is personal since I also did a lot of work from late last year to March in getting all the information in there, and I wish it had evolved in a slightly different way that could have reduced the size but still retained the flow better (and even some of the pictures). But it became "ErleGrey's" article for a while and now it's "your" article. Soon someone else will find it and exert their vision! 172.168.185.203 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More Kid A
Oh god. I feel bad! I am quite tired, and I COMPLETELY messed up. I made an edit on his talk page apologizing, and I truly hope he gets it. I clicked the wrong button, reverted good edits, and I feel bad about it. It's half past 4 in the morning here, and I shouldn't even be up and online anymore right now! Please, express my apologies further if the user doesn't accept mine, and thank you for the heads up! Jmlk17 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate the benefit of the doubt by the way.  I'm much more used to people completely freaking out when a mistake is made.  It's very refreshing to have the opposite.  I believe this calls for a "cheers"! :) Jmlk17 10:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)