User talk:PetSounds/Archive 001

Back to Brian's Archive Contents and Index

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 15 Jun 2005 and 16 Jul 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 22:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Great work with your contributions
I've seen your username appear a few times in Recent Changes of late, so I thought I'd check back to see how you were going since your intial welcome. I'm very impressed and I'm awarding you the Exceptional Newcomer Award. Feel free to display it on your user page with pride.



-- Longhair | Talk 12:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much Longhair! Much appreciated...

-- PetSounds | Talk 13:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Great edit summary at Green Day. Now I understand. And thank you for not being miffed by my previous reversion. Upon reflection, the qualifications are an enhancement if we can add them consistently throughout. I will raise this at Talk:Green Day.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 12:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No worries. :-) &mdash;PetSounds 5:42, 22 Jun 2005


 * I just wanted to drop you a note about Mike Garcia. Regarding Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (which is still protected), Mike reverted it 7 times (while being banned for violating the 3RR noless) because he doesn't understand the difference between a copyright date and a release date.  This may be the case if he reverts again (I have no clue if the first release album has 1990 or 1991 on the case).  Please feel free to read the B&T talk page, my talk page and Danny's talk page for more info. Cburnett June 28, 2005 19:16 (UTC)


 * I seem to have predicted the future: Mike reverted. My suggestion is to not revert and draw a consensus on the talk page. Cburnett June 28, 2005 19:41 (UTC)

1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours
Please stop changing 1990 to 1991 to Green Day's first album 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours and how do you know it was released in July 1991? allmusic.com didn't say that. I'm sorry but your information is wrong. The album was released, copyrighted and published in 1990. Even their official website and the page at Rate Your Music agrees with 1990 and the CD (if you don't have it). If you continue changing it again, I have no other choice but to report you. -- Mike Garcia | talk 19:41, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And Mike continues to make threats to other users. Perhaps your last couple revert wars have instilled more civility. Cburnett June 28, 2005 20:09 (UTC)


 * Cburnett, are there any options I can pursue with this person? Because I've presented the amazon release date link (definitive proof) and yet he keeps vandalizing the contents.  Or should I wait til he's banned once again? (I can see why it's happened, after what I've read)  PetSounds 28 June 2005 20:12 (UTC)


 * PetSounds, you have been reported at AMA Requests for Assistance about 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours. Please explain the meaning why you keep re-writing the incorrect release date. -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:18, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Mike, you need to understand that the date on cases is only the copyright date and nothing more unless explicitly stated. This is twice in one week you fail to understand this.


 * PetSounds, if Mike continues to insist on reverting the page (it would seem that my warning of being banned stopped him from going onto his fourth revert) then you're in the same boat I am with Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Cburnett June 28, 2005 20:38 (UTC)


 * Yes, the album does say 1990 on it PetSounds, see: . As I answered you at AMA Requests for Assistance. -- Mike Garcia | talk 28 June 2005 20:45 (UTC)


 * The link is invalid. But, again, the date on the case is the copyright date, NOT the release date. The copyright date is 100% wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Cburnett June 28, 2005 20:49 (UTC)


 * No, Cburnett, you don't understand. The album was orginally released in 1990 and it does make it a 1990 album. Please see the source above. I don't care if it's the copyright or release date. -- Mike Garcia | talk 28 June 2005 20:55 (UTC)


 * You don't get it Mike. WIKIPEDIA cares if it's the release date. I care if it's the release date.


 * FYI, Petsounds. I banned Mike after leaving a warning on his talk page. This is his second ban in a week's span for the same reason. I'm sure it would have been a 3rd time if he didn't do his work on Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure as an anonymous. Consider this your warning. Since you are relatively new here consider this a lesson in the three revert rule. This rule is an electric fence that you do not cross (please read the page). Cburnett June 28, 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Coldplay discography
Please refer to the Coldplay discussion page and stop making unecessary changes to the main discography section. There's too many chart positions in that section, and I have moved them to their appropriate singles infoboxes.--Madchester June 28, 2005 20:24 (UTC)

Block
You have been temporarily blocked from editing due to revert warring. See Three-revert rule. Note that User:Mike Garcia has also been temporarily blocked for the same reason. Please try to discuss disagreements with other editors on article or user talk pages, and ask third parties for feedback/advise in case of unresolved disputes in the future. Please try to edit with more Civility in the future. Thank you. -- Infrogmation June 28, 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Hi PetSounds: I have restored the release dates to the article. I see that several people have explained matters to Mike. I am sorry that you reached such a point of exasperation that you breached 3RR. I imagine that this will not happen again now that you know the rule. Personally, I avoid reverting anything more than once without discussion, and that is not once every 24 hours, that is once and forever. In this case, I believe that Mike is being intransigent and unreasonable, but that does not justify multiple reverts. Multiple reverts tend to entrench positions. I am now off to check out those certifications that you mentioned.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 05:59 (UTC)

Officializing the page? Is that what I did? It sounds impressive! Seriously, I am, glad that your block was lifted. I considered it myself but knew that I would not be around long enough this evening to discuss it properly with your blocker. I trust that you have "Only revert once" etched on your heart.&mdash;Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)

I sure do! Thanks again Theo... PetSounds 29 June 2005 22:12 (UTC)

Good to see you back
Sorry to see you were blocked last night. I probably would have unblocked you, but alas I'm not an admin. Did you get a warning about the 3 revert rule beforehand? It seems what happened is that Cburnett left you a warning about it on your talk page, but it got lost thanks to the edit conflict bug since the upgrade. Anyway Mike was blocked for 2 days, so that's a good thing. the wub  "?/!"  29 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)

Hey, thanks.... No, I never received that warning (or at least, hadn't seen it in time). No worries, now I'm aware. I just hope we don't have another repeat once Mike returns... It's pointless on his part. PetSounds 29 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Track listing lines
I don't know if its you either, but I have run into the same problem with the == == around track listing and used the === === already as well. Thanks for the question. Cbing01 30 June 2005 20:38 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't me. I'm just going around trying to sort it out. I already hit all the Green Day and Beck albums. Working on The Beatles now. PetSounds 30 June 2005 20:40 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that you did not have to erase A Western Harvest By Moonlight or the stuff linking to it, since a decent article for that still needs to be created.

More Western Harvest chatter
The fact that it is an EP and not a full length album is irrelevant (The Radiohead chronology lists EPs alongside with full albums, as does the Nirvana chronology), as is the fact that it had such a limited run. Golden Feelings had a far smaller run, and The Banjo Story was never released to the public, but both are placed in the official chronology. Beck has also stated in interviews that A Western Harvest Field by Moonlight was his first proper release, so I think its inclusion is more than warrented. I just wish I could get an official release date. Beck's sites says 1994, and AMG has it Mid-1995. I think I'll go with Beck's site...--Weebot 1 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't even know WHY Golden Feelings and The Banjo Story are there....they aren't even official. As far as I - and the general public seem to be concerned - all the Geffen material, including Stereopathetic Soul Manure and One Foot in the Grave are official albums. Something that has a limited run and put on vinyl (now that's obscure) can't really be considered an official or proper release, since NO one can have access to it. I just don't think it should be listed between his regular albums.... Why don't you create an "unofficial" list the main Beck page below his proper releases and put Banjo Story, Golden Feelings and Western Harvest there? This way the link can be accessed from his regular page.... Heck, I think I'll do it now.... PetSounds 1 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Blanking
Hello, PetSounds. Was this blanking intentional or accidental? Please be more careful next time. Thanks, Sango  123  July 6, 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Image contributions
Hi, thanks for all of your helpful image contributions. Please see Image copyright tags, for how to properly tag your images with a copyright tag. I have added to some of your recent uploads. You can use that tag and for albums and DVDs, respectively. Thanks again. <> Who ? &iquest; ? 7 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I'm new here and I'm still learning my way around.... Cheers. PetSounds 7 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. <> Who ? &iquest; ?  7 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)

Weezer's Make Believe
Hey, I saw you deleted my changes to the Weezer-Make Believe article. I really think it's fair to say it was released to mixed reviews by both fans (especially older ones) and critics - I have seen some very negative reviews, and some older Weezer fans I know hate it, but some positive ones too. I mean, that Metacritic site which I had mentioned averages all of the reviews as a 49 out of 100, that's very middle of the road. It got 4 stars from Rolling stone, but you can't discount bad reviews just because you like Weezer or the album. Awiseman

Your last warning on 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours by Green Day
PetSounds, please don't change 1990 to 1991 for 1,039/Smoothed Out Slappy Hours again, you have the wrong information. Unconvinced? Please see the source again before changing/reverting: and you better not change/revert it again this time. If you do it, I'm gonna be tracking you off, so don't have me do it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 16:25, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo
Please see my question/remark at Talk:Sweetheart of the Rodeo. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Just saw your name around
..on the recent changes page. Thought I'd give ya' a call. I too am a fellow Beach Boys nutcase (all the album writeups, from the absolutely awesome, but still lacking important information and a picture, to the probably featured, but still needing work, I feel, to the crap wouldn't mind some co-assistance between the two of us. Together I reckon we could make them look real good. What do you think? I've worked in varying capacities on all these articles, so I don't mind what happens.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Bobo192 | Edits


 * Now that is cool. Some of these articles need real work.. but to be honest, I think if we work on them in order or something, to some kind of standard, so we start working on Surfin' Safari, and go all the way through to Still Cruisin', SIP, and S+S Vol 1.. come to think of it, S+S Vol 2 needs some work..


 * To be honest, part of me says that the article needs a sweet little bootlegs section.. (but don't tell anyone.. that way, nobody will know. Bobo192 | Edits


 * As I wrote that, I think I agreed immediately - though I think possibly think there is one we might be able to get away talking about which is the Vigotone bootleg of all of the sections on the original forms... something which says something in the form of: "there is somewhere which lists all the recording session's main sections for Smile", [but that it indeed is a bootleg] (a statement which in that form shouldn't really be touched with a ten foot porbeagle, obviously). Thank you. Bobo192 | Edits (incidentally, you may feel safer removing this message in the future, just in case, as you say, something might be wrong..)


 * That's cool, it's just that the last time I knew (ie, when I put the description of the album cover in there), the actual cover itself hadn't been uploaded. It's my fault for not checking it had been since. Bobo192 | Edits


 * No no, you're mistaken. That is just a general me, it's just my being guilty of having far too much information at my fingertips. I should definitely simplify to the basics, particularly with the earlier albums. If we could work more encyclopaedically on the tracks (particularly with a view simply to when they were recorded and if they were released as a single, if nothing else.. I think that would be adequate. If you show me what you have in mind, that would be cool. Bobo192 | Edits


 * Sweet work. Unless (last minute thought) it would be easier simply to list the singles beneath the track listing, like this. Bobo192 | Edits

Singles

 * Surfin' Safari b/w County Fair (Capitol 4777, June 4 1962 #14)
 * Surfin' b/w Luau (X; Candix 301 #75)

The Beach Boys Today
That's really cool - and probably a lot more than I could have done. I did have a passing thought last night about this idea and whether it was worth it - any tracks within any albums which we would want to go into detail about, make them a separate heading (above the track listing) and then talk about them in that way. For example, the Smiley Smile version of Good Vibrations (which to be honest, I can't listen to any more without thinking of Brian's 2004 version.. Obviously this wouldn't have to be the case for all tracks. Or would it? That would be awesome if we could, but sadly nobody apart from us two would probably care for it. Bobo192 | Edits


 * I'm not saying it's wrong. The opposite, in fact. I think the interest lies not in what people want to know, what people need to know... but what we, as self-confessed experts in the field, think people should know - as much as possible. In that way, maybe there are some people who would care for it - maybe it's them that are the people we should reach out to. Thoughts? Bobo192 | Edits

Wikification
Which in fairness we'd probably only do to those tracks which already have articles. You're right, I think I'm going to crazy in trying to be over the top about this. I mean, there'd only be a certain number of tracks we'd probably want to talk about, right? Good Vibrations, most, if not all on Pet Sounds, those already Wikified, viz California Girls, Fun, Fun, Fun, God Only Knows, Heroes and Villains, Kokomo and Sail On Sailor. I don't know. Maybe we actually don't need to talk about any others? In a way, that would be a pity, but in another, it's a perfect compromise for elegance. Bobo192 | Edits

Bob Dylan revisions -- Please STOP!
I have no polite way to put this. Stop screwing up the Bob Dylan pages. I don't know what references you're using, but they're really unreliable. For example:

You changed the title of one album from "At Budokan" to "Bob Dylan At Budokan" -- even though the original title is the one which appeared on the LPs, is the one which appears on the CD release, and is the official title used on Dylan's official website.

You removed the "incomplete" tag from the album list on the Dylan discography page -- there are at least 6 albums that still aren't included, mostly fairly rare releases from outside the North American market, but also at least two which have been distributed in the NA market. There are also several albums which were issued in multiple editions that need additional notes.

Your additions regarding the "Dylan" album are almost entirely wrong. It's taken almost entirely from the "New Morning" sessions, not the "Self Portrait" sessions. It has been issued on CD, but not in the North American market, and it wasn't deleted from the catalog, but until recently was available on cassette. It's not "universally" considered his worst album; there are repeated online arguments on this point, with "Dylan," "Dylan & The Dead," and "Down In The Groove" all having their champions. I'm not sure where you got those songwriting credits, either; "Ballad Of Ira Hayes" was written by Peter LaFarge, and "Spanish Is The Loving Tongue" may be public domain, but it should be credited to Charles Badger Clark.

Why in God's name did you change the image of "Blood On The Tracks" from the original release to the recent SACD version but leave the caption identifying it as the LP in place? Why change it at all?

Way too many of your textual additions that I've looked at are NPOV-violating. This isn't the place to express your aesthetic opinions, or mine.

And I'm really piqued that without justification you deleted the information regarding dates, etc, for sales milestones that I spent a considerable amount of time adding to the Dylan album discography page. The information (indicating long-term sales patterns) is often discussed and requested online, and supports comments made in other Dylan-related pages.

The graphics and formatting you added to many of the pages is certainly useful. But it's more than offset by the amount of misinformation you've added.

And learn to use the "show preview" function in page editing.

Monicasdude 01:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate Bob Dylan revisions -- Please STOP!
I still have no polite way to put this. Stop screwing up the Bob Dylan pages. I don't know what references you're using, but they're really unreliable. You don't respond to any of the factual issues I raise, and saying that you prefer your version of an album title to the official version is a ridiculous thing to say in the context of an encyclopedia.

For example:

You changed the title of one album from "At Budokan" to "Bob Dylan At Budokan" -- even though the original title is the one which appeared on the LPs, is the one which appears on the CD release, and is the official title used on Dylan's official website.

You removed the "incomplete" tag from the album list on the Dylan discography page -- there are at least 6 albums that still aren't included, mostly fairly rare releases from outside the North American market, but also at least two which have been distributed in the NA market. There are also several albums which were issued in multiple editions that need additional notes.

Your additions regarding the "Dylan" album are almost entirely wrong. It's taken almost entirely from the "New Morning" sessions, not the "Self Portrait" sessions. It has been issued on CD, but not in the North American market, and it wasn't deleted from the catalog, but until recently was available on cassette. It's not "universally" considered his worst album; there are repeated online arguments on this point, with "Dylan," "Dylan & The Dead," and "Down In The Groove" all having their champions. I'm not sure where you got those songwriting credits, either; "Ballad Of Ira Hayes" was written by Peter LaFarge, and "Spanish Is The Loving Tongue" may be public domain, but it should be credited to Charles Badger Clark.

Why in God's name did you change the image of "Blood On The Tracks" from the original release to the recent SACD version but leave the caption identifying it as the LP in place? Why change it at all?

Way too many of your textual additions that I've looked at are NPOV-violating. This isn't the place to express your aesthetic opinions, or mine.

And I'm really piqued that without justification you deleted the information regarding dates, etc, for sales milestones that I spent a considerable amount of time adding to the Dylan album discography page. The information (indicating long-term sales patterns) is often discussed and requested online, and supports comments made in other Dylan-related pages.

The graphics and formatting you added to many of the pages is certainly useful. But it's more than offset by the amount of misinformation you've added.

And learn to use the "show preview" function in page editing.

Monicasdude