User talk:PetSounds/Archive 002

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 16 Jul 2005 and 17 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.)

Wiping out Endless Summer
Hello, Pet Sounds. You seem to be trying to wipe out the Beach Boys Endless Summer compilation on the grounds that it is "not an official album". That may be the case now, but it was certainly not the case back in 1974 when it came out. Discographies and album articles don't just describe what is available now, they also describe what was available then, and as the article points out, Endless Summer was an important album in restoring their popularity and one of their best sellers ever. I will restore the mentions of these records with a note that they are no longer in print. I hope this is acceptable to you. Wasted Time R 01:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur
It's the only compilation to play an important part in their history. It should be listed. [Unsigned at 04:10, 16 July 2005 by L1759 ]

Stop vandalizing the Bob Dylan pages!
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. Your comments on several pages make clear that you neither respect consensus nor are you will to acknowledge well-documented facts.

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 insist in inserting an incorrect release date for John Wesley Harding, even though the correct date is listed in 4 in-print discographies, three on-line discographies, and Bob Dylan's official site.

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.

Learn to use the "show preview" function in page editing, and stop posting lies and persaonal abuse on my talk page. Monicasdude 05:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If I may be a third party observer
Point 1: "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." Seems like a minor point, but I have to go with Monicasdud on this. Wikipedia seems pretty anal in its searches, and most people as well as most record guides go by "At Budokan." Maybe it's different in Canada, I don't know.

Point 2: "You insist in inserting an incorrect release date for John Wesley Harding, even though the correct date is listed in 4 in-print discographies, three on-line discographies, and Bob Dylan's official site." If this is really true, I think the correct date M is referring to is probably the one to go with.

Point 3: "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." No comment, not that familiar with every release.

Part 4: "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." Did it get changed back? Because I checked and it said New Morning sessions, so it seems this stuck. As for whether it's universally considered his worst album, maybe you should say it's "widely considered his worst album." Outside of critics some fans seem to dig it for some crazy reason. Good point about the songwriting credits.

Part 5: "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?" PS said it was to get rid of the Compact Disc logo, so without having seen the previous image, I'm guessing the problem is the LP caption. Maybe you should get rid of it since it doesn't sound like the original LP cover was EVER posted.

Part 6: "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...etc, etc" I can see PS's point, that info is pretty dry and personally I'm not interested in it, but if there's a demand, hell, who not, put it up. The more info, the merrier. Besides, I hate how bare and crummy some REAL encyclopedia entries are. "Orson Welles was a filmmaker. He did these films. He was born this date and died this date. End of story." Why not do something better.

Also looking at PS's other comments, he's sliding on a slippery slope there.

PS - Saying that Blood on the Tracks is one of his best-loved albums is not POV, that is fact. Saying "I really really like Blood on the Tracks, man! It's the best!" - now THAT's POV.

The tone and language is different, but you're expressing virtually the same sentiment. Both are opinions attributed to the writer too. If you were citing the consensus of critics or maybe sales or a fan poll somewhere that's one thing but to say it "is one of his best-loved albums" runs into the same problem that got Ken Burns in trouble for saying "Billie Holiday was the greatest jazz singer of all-time" at the opening of his Jazz documentary. I'm sure if you took a poll, she may very well win, but they weren't surveying opinions, they worded it as fact. A BIG no-no. [Unsigned at 07:21, 16 July 2005 by L1759 ]

Bob Dylan
The additions you made to the Bob Dylan discography page today are very good. Keep it up!

(PS i'm not sure that what the other two people said was really harassment, there's no need to be too sensitive :) ) SECProto 15:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Stop whining to the admins
Stop harassing the admins whenever people disagree with your edits. Stop violating the wiki guidelines by posting dishonest information about your edits. Stop posting your personal opinions as fact and calling them the general consensus of observers; even if they reflect general opinion, it's still opinion, not fact. Calling people who disagree with you vandals is just bad faith personal abuse. Monicasdude 21:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

And editing other people's talk pages to remove comments you disagree with is beyond the pale. Monicasdude 02:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop posting inaccurate personal abuse about me on other users' talk pages
And stop editing third parties' talk pages to delete my replies to your senseless invective. It's appalling misbehavior. Monicasdude 07:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 Do not delete the following comment by User:Monicasdude again, per Wikipedia user_talk page guidelines. New users have the right to read of disputes older users have had with you. By the way, John Wesley Harding was released December 27, 1967 and don't delete my text either. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  08:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

M.I.U. Album
A series of edits all marked minor led to this change:. Please only mark edits as minor when they genuinely are. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've just been tidying the article, and I notice that the text says "it produced a surprise hit in their cover of "Come Go with Me" in late 1981", but the single doesn't appear in the discography. I've added it, but I don't have any of the details (B-side, sales, etc.). --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Help again Theo
Hi Brian: Before I do anything further about the issues that you raised at my talk page I want to address an number of points about the very message that you left. Talk pages are a public forum. Anything written on them can be read by anyone: by the person of whom you speak, by our peers, and by anyone who happens to drop in. The message that you left was at best mildly abusive and certainly hurtful towards Monicasdude. Such phrasing hinders communication and does not move us forward. I am going to take the time to annotate a copy below to show exactly what I mean. My comments are normal text in <>:


 * There's this rather persistent (and incorrigible ) user named User: Monicasdude who has become a real self-righteous  thorn in my foot. I have spent the last several days fixing (in some cases, literally creating) loads of album articles for The Beach Boys (please go to that page to find the studio album discography). This anonymous user has repeatedly vandalized my work, by reverting it to before I had even touched it. He has done this twice now (and likely will continue to do so) starting with Smiley Smile to Love You. His reasons are really because I improved upon his Bob Dylan pages  (because, you see, I learned over the last few days that those album articles actually belong to him, not Wikipedia  - no one can edit his work without it being reverted it seems ). He'll maintain that I've got loads of POV in the Beach Boys articles now, when in actual fact I'm merely summarizing the general impressions of the albums based on official reviews or historical views. I'm not putting MY view on things. The laughable part is that he's reverting everything I do (it's almost like I'm being targeted on purpose) and what remains are short and, in some cases, badly written blurbs with POV to begin with! Which leads me to consider this to be petty vandalism.'' I've explained and offered my authorized sources and told him I was open to collaboration, discussion, etc... but it's to no avail. He stubbornly wants the Dylan pages HIS way, and now has seen fit to come over to the Beach Boys pages to purposely fuel the fire (and pages which I had previously discussed fixing with another user, User:Bobo192). Theo, I've put LOADS of time into these BB articles and I feel they are well-written, informative and as objective as possible. I fixed song timings, album timings, song credits, added improved album graphics and even created whole new pages. What's more - I've had fun doing this and have had possible feedback. Look for yourself and see if what I've done is so awful that the whole page needs to be wiped from all my articles and compare them to what the other fellow is subtituting them with (in particular Wild Honey or 15 Big Ones). Surely, they can't be better?


 * Also, he persists in harrassing me on my home page by resubmitting an immature  and self-righteous   message.

I have to attend to real-life responsibilities now but I will return to your request. Be assured that all my comments are about the tone of your message and their likely consequences. I make no comment yet on my perception of the merits of your underlying case. Try to stay cool and very courteous. Indeed, irrespective of the merits of your case, I hope that you will apologise to Monicasdude for your tone. This may be condescending but I would rather be thought an arsehole than be misunderstood: I hope that you will bear in mind my opinion that conditional apologies are no real apology. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 10:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice work!
Your contributions to Wikipedia so far have been exceptional. Great job, and here's hoping you stay with us awhile! Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 13:47, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi Brian: It is better to archive your talk page rather than simply delete things. Although we are all exhorted to assume good faith, it can look like the hiding of bad news to do otherwise. Would you like me to create an archive for you? &mdash;Theo (Talk) 13:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes please. I don't know yet how to do that, and I don't want it to look like there's anything to hide, although I resent being pestered by others on my own page (you excluded, of course). Thanks PetSounds 13:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)