User talk:Teflon Peter Christ/Archive 2019

The College Dropout and Late Registration
Can you revert the recent edits in these articles, I think you can explained it better than me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with the idea of having a table listing awards. You should discuss your objections with the other editor, or ask for further comments at the talk page. Dan56 (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, but that's still no excuse for using another account to restore their edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?
Changing "hair metal" to "glam metal" (the last being the more used and more common, and maybe more understandable), what a disruption!

Helpful pages for you to peruse
WP:SOURCE (Discogs is not a reliable source), WP:BRD, and WP:POINT. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Krushgroove soundtrack.jpg


The file File:Krushgroove soundtrack.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Krush Groove. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Who is this guy
From May of last year. That's from his last 50 edits, all of which were to talk pages. —BLZ · talk 18:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Christgau
The Robert Christgau entry has a section which claims he "has been widely known as the Dean of American rock critics.” I modified that because no source was provided to support that assertion. You reverted my modification, but still provided no source. Unless you can substantiate that claim, there is no justification for it to be included in his entry, or for you to revert my more accurate rewrite. Nicmart (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Christgau sources
I went fishing through a news database I have access to (through WestLaw) for another article's peer review, and I thought I might scrounge around for any leftover (print, offline, archived-in-database-only) sources on Christgau. Here's what I found:


 * "Pop Music Rock Record, by Terry Hounsome and Tim Chambre and Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the '70s, by Robert Christgau" The Washington Post October 18, 1981 [no author credited, but since this is WaPo it's probably retrievable some other way and I suspect an author might be findable]
 * "Pop Music Rock Record, by Terry Hounsome and Tim Chambre (Facts on file, $9.95) and Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the '70s, by Robert Christgau (Ticknor and Fields, $9.95). The first is total information without judgment, the second total judgment with little information. Rock Record is so complete that it lists every side man who ever backed up just about anybody who ever put out a rock record. Written by Englishmen, it has a continental bias; for hard-core of the "Village Voice Consumer Guide," one man's alternative to the Rolling Stone tome. The self-styled dean of American rock critics writes beautifully, and his book is a provocative capsule history of '70s pop."


 * Lacey, Liam "Riff Rapp: Blondie's into video but Queen opts out" The Globe and Mail November 12, 1981
 * "Pre-Christmas book releases on pop music include [yada yada]... Already on the stands are the archly entertaining Robert Christgau's Record Guide by the former Village Voice-Cream magazine reviewer; [and some others.]"


 * Morse, Steve (not this one, I assume) "Books for Rock Fans of All Tastes: Yearbooks, Albums, Profiles..." The Boston Globe December 13, 1981
 * "'Christgau's Record Guide,; by Robert Christgau, Ticknor & Fields, New York, $9.95. An alphabetical list of album reviews from the 70s, all given the subjective graded-letter rating system Christgau uses in his Village Voice Consumer Guide columns. As a writer of words, he is masterful. As a critic of music, he is to be treated warily. If he'd stop trying to be so trendy, he'd have much more credibility."


 * Smith, George "Tune in to Pop Music With a Few Good Books" The Morning Call October 21, 1990
 * "'Rock Albums of the '70s: A Critical Guide' by Robert Christgau (Da Capo, $15.95, 471 pp.). This is actually a reprinted edition of Christgau's original consumer guide published in 1981, but he says in the introduction that there have been some revisions. If you did get this one the first time around, you might want to pick up 'Christgau's Record Guide: The 80s,' which should be available any day now. Christgau's newest collection has 3,000 reviews of rock albums released in the last 10 years.
 * "Yuppies who are acquiring CDs can skip directly to the end of either book and use Christgau's handy-dandy appendix of "A"-rated recordings to put together a library of music that would convince anyone that they are wise and omniscient."


 * Kreilkamp, Ivan "Rock and Roll Report Card: Critic Robert Christgau Turns the Capsule Review into an Art Form" The Boston Globe December 29, 2002
 * This one's longer, but pretty good, very useable on the Robert Christgau article too. I hid it below, but bolded the part that is most relevant to the 70s Guide: "His most influential book is still "Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the 1970s," an audacious, canon-defining work that dared to assess every significant rock and pop album of the decade from ABBA's "Greatest Hits" -- C+ -- to ZZ Top's "Degello" -- a surprising A-." There's that phrase "canon-defining" again!

<!-- Along with Bangs (long dead), Meltzer (marginal for years), and the very active Marcus, the most cited inventor and master of rock criticism is Robert Christgau. The self-proclaimed "Dean" of American rock critics, Christgau has been admired ever since the late 1960s for his monthly Consumer Guides, published in the Village Voice and elsewhere. Earlier this year, his proteges, friends, and colleagues, in a nod to a fusty old academic tradition, published a loving and entertaining festschrift for him on the occasion of his 60th birthday. "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough: Essays in Honor of Robert Christgau" (available at www.robertchristgau.com, where one can also find an online collection of over 30 years of Consumer Guide reviews) includes essays by some of the nation's best-known rock critics, as well as contributions from such academic stalwarts as NYU's Andrew Ross, Harvard University Press's Lindsay Waters, New School intellectual historian James Miller, and maverick art critic and University of Nevada professor Dave Hickey.

"Christgau's Consumer Guide" (a name the author chose initially, he says, to rub his Marxist friends the wrong way: "Consumer" has always been a dirty word in certain intellectual circles) is a series of very short reviews of recent releases, all assigned letter grades, and generally including a "Pick Hit" or two, a "Dud of the Month," and an honorable mention list.

...

Christgau may be a victim of his own influence on the state of contemporary public criticism. As Carson writes, the format of the Consumer Guide is now imitated in just about every publication or venue that covers pop culture, from Entertainment Weekly to Ebert&Roeper. Carson describes the Guide as a "concise, candidly results-oriented approach to a concise, candidly result-oriented art form," and argues that its "only downside is that its well-deserved prominence in the Christgauvian canon has ended up, to some degree, short-changing everything else he brings to the party."

It's true that Christgau's long essays on music and pop culture, some of which were gathered in Harvard University Press's 1998 collection "Grown Up All Wrong: 75 Great Rock and Pop Artists from Vaudeville to Techno," have not received their due by comparison with his consumer guides. (His most influential book is still "Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the 1970s," an audacious, canon-defining work that dared to assess every significant rock and pop album of the decade from ABBA's "Greatest Hits" -- C+ -- to ZZ Top's "Degello" -- a surprising A-.) But the assumption that an important contemporary critic must do more than offer mere consumer advice may itself be wrong-headed. At least, it should be recognized that the short, graded review has emerged as one of the signature cultural forms of the '90s and '00s -- for better or worse, but not only for worse. The much-vilified Entertainment Weekly may publish fluff cover stories, but its reviewers are more willing to publish outright pans of major Hollywood movies -- and to make the judgment inescapable with a D or F grade -- than many critics at more high-toned outlets. (Meanwhile, one of their book critics recently gave an A to "A Bolt from the Blue," a collection of Mary McCarthy's criticism published by the New York Review of Books.)

...

Perhaps the single contribution to "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" that best captures Christgau's particular genius is "Consumer Guide to Consumer Guides" by Milo Miles, former music editor at The Boston Phoenix, who turns the tables on the Dean and offers his own graded capsule judgments of some of his favorite Christgau reviews. Of Christgau's measured pan of Jackson Browne's 1976 album "The Pretender," for example, Miles writes, "Put-downs can save your sanity. . . . My bones knew J. Browne was a passing fancy. He so looked the part he played, you know? More vexing was that smart people -- some in the media, some I knew -- smothered him in love that made my reservations sound like nebulous nattering from a lowbrowpunkoid." Christgau's 200-word dismissal was "refutation on which to build a temple"; his review "has the cadence, momentum and a rocker's irreverence (underneath mandatory coatings of wit and anger) missing from The 'Pretender."' -->

And finally, something on Zappa:


 * Himes, Geoffrey "Pop Recordings; The Excesses and Successes of Frank Zappa" The Washington Post
 * "Frank Zappa, who died last week at age 52, received commissions from the Kronos Quartet and Pierre Boulez, was acclaimed as a genius by conductor Kent Nagano and was nominated by President Vaclav Havel as Czechoslovakia's cultural ambassador. On the other hand, he has been twice rejected for admission into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and his music was dismissed in Robert Christgau's Record Guide to Rock Albums of the '70s as 'sexist adolescent drivel ... with meters and voicings and key changes that are as hard to play as they are easy to forget.'"

Most of those are inessential, but all are potentially useable. Smith notes that the second edition was further revised, which I think is worth mentioning.

Here's more, for The '80s volume. These ones are longer, so I've hidden them; just edit the page to see the texts.

<!-- He's glib, an undisciplined crank, not above political posturing. His rockcrit lapses into bullcrit at times, with a weakness for the unforgivable one-liner. Never mind: He may be the best we've got. Robert Christgau is back, with "Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s," compiling 3,000 capsule reviews, based on his monthly column for The Village Voice.
 * Biddle, Frederic M. "One Record Critic's Spin Through the '80s" The Boston Globe October 19, 1990

Most so-called "rock" guides, including Christgau's, are in fact comprehensive critiques of albums ranging in style from country to reggae. The most evenhanded is "Rolling Stone's Original Rock-and-Roll Guide," which reprises capsule reviews from the magazine. Unlike that compilation, Christgau's guide represents the voice of one reviewer. And diversity of opinion would at first seem to recommend the Rolling Stone guide. But that book hasn't been updated since 1983, making it obsolete after a decade in which the compact disc player, the synthesizer and rap music changed pop music at least as much as disco, punk and album-oriented radio did a decade earlier. And the Rolling Stone guide's lack of a single, authoritative voice doesn't provoke much thought about the meaning of technological and stylistic change -- how the medium itself changes the music, and how the music in turn feeds the medium.

In his lurching, contentious way, Christgau does that. "Technology changed everything in the '80s," he writes in the introduction. "Cable brought us MTV and the triumph of the image. Synthesizers inflected the sounds that remained. Sampling revolutionized rock and roll's proprietary relationship to its own history. Cassettes made private music portable -- and public. Compact discs inflated profitability as they faded into the background of busy lives.

"The '80s were contradictory. The '80s were incomprehensible. The '80s weren't as much fun as they should have been."

Besides establishing a sense of place and time, Christgau's introductory essays bare the biases of his criticism, which, as he admits, is "always partial and often contradictory."

Indeed, Christgau unloads on the reader enough disclaimers to make Tipper Gore scream. But no self-effacement, of course, will soothe the outrage of a first scan of Christgau's letter-graded reviews.

This is the fun part.

Who pays this guy to tell the world that country singer Tom T. Hall's 1988 greatest-hits album merits an A, but the platinum-selling, Grammified efforts of Whitney Houston and Anita Baker scrape by with B's and C's? What, a B for screechy teen Tiffany?

Granted, few readers will begrudge Christgau's A ratings of key pop albums of the '80s. Paul Simon's "Graceland," Prince's "Purple Rain" and five of the six albums Bruce Springsteen released in the last decade are all so honored. But to the distress of yuppies everywhere, Basia and Andreas Vollenweider are sentenced to the "Meltdown" list of "bad artists worthy of opprobrium." And has this guy ever heard an album of African pop music he didn't like?

Christgau's elevation of artist politics to the level of what's in the groove grates. Consider his defense of John Lennon and Yoko Ono's A-rated 1980 "Double Fantasy" LP:

"In a special message for all the ignorami who think he never should have married the pretentious bitch, John turns the professional rock he hacked his way through when they were separated to the specifics of his life (and genius) as it's now constituted. In a special message for all the ignorami who think pretentious bipeds should stay out of recording studios, Yoko keeps up with him."

(And to think, this is the same reviewer who docks an A-rated Stevie Wonder album to A- for its "male chauvinism.")

At first, I hated Christgau's overweening self-righteousness and obvious lack of taste. But that, of course, was before I took a chance and randomly bought a so-called A- album I was sure he'd be wrong about ("Black Havana," various artists, 1989). He was right, of course.

Not only is Christgau never, ever dull: Even at his looniest, his judgment is informed by so many musical influences, by so much sheer listening, that readers will at the very least broaden their tastes and perhaps the way they think about the music they already know well.

By turns loud, clumsy and graceful but always vital, "Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s" has a style subliminally suggestive of rock itself. To borrow Christgau's standard, I'd have to give it a B+. -->


 * Selvin, Joel "Robert Christgau's New Book: 'Dean' of Music Critics has 3,000 Things to Say" The San Francisco Chronicle November 25, 1990


 * Robins, Wayne "Traditional, Ethnic and Hard Rock Countdown to Christmas" Newsday December 21, 1990


 * Bream, Jon "Without Bangles, Hoffs promotes album" Star Tribune January 25, 1991


 * Britt, Bruce "Rolling Tomes Gather Few Fans: Authors Prove a Tempting Critical Target" Los Angeles Daily News December 13, 1992
 * This one is quite long and compares Christgau's 80s, the Rolling Stone Album Guide, Trouser Press, and several others. A lot to dig into.

<!-- Rock enthusiasts of every stripe will probably have a lot to say about a new book co-edited by DeCurtis. "The Rolling Stone Album Guide" (Random House; $20) has been updated to include reviews of records released over the past decade. (It also deletes many out-of-print recordings featured in previous editions.) The 2,500 or so reviews featured in the book were written by four critics within a year's time.

DeCurtis' rolling tome is just the latest entry in the record review book sweepstakes. Other popular guides include "The Trouser Press Record Guide" (Collier Books; $18.95), which focuses on alternative rock recordings; and the "The Christgau Record Guide: The '80s" (Pantheon; $17.95), a compilation of updated reviews by renowned Village Voice pop music critic Robert Christgau.

The emergence of these review-oriented publications raises some questions: What methods are employed when compiling such books, and what critical criteria do reviewers go by? And, why would a reader want to wade through so many reviews - it's well known critics aren't always in step with the public.

...

Christgau writes a monthly record review column for the Village Voice and is author of consumer guides devoted to the pop music of the 1970s and 1980s. Though he expresses "tremendous admiration" for the Trouser Press guide, Christgau is less effusive about the Rolling Stone book. Despite the fact that he has not read the updated guide, he speculated it could be "useful."

"Judging from previous Rolling Stone guides, I imagine the book would offer a solid, conventional overview of this music against which you could test more eccentric opinions," Christgau said.

But Christgau has doubts about the way the Rolling Stone book was conceived. He believes the editors should have assigned an African-American writer to critique some of the records. He also questions whether four writers could accurately assess thousands of records.

"There's no way four writers are going to review everything," Christgau said. "They may have played them, but they didn't engage them. To me it seems like a completely fraudulent concept and a lousy way to do a record guide."

...

Similar to the Trouser Press guide, the Christgau book features updated entries culled from previously written reviews. But unlike his peers, Christgau allows historical perspective to play a role in hFMis reviews. Using an A-through-E ranking system (E being the worst), he sometimes alters grades on certain records.

Christgau said he spends eight to 12 hours a day listening to records - a habit he feels is necessary to ensure accurate reviews.

"You may not like Kansas, but the fact is that Kansas fans can make distinctions," Christgau said. "Unfortunately, most critics are not intent on content. To accurately review a record you have to figure out what the content is, and that takes a lot listening."

While admitting that his comments may sound like sour grapes, Christgau doubts the Rolling Stone guide contributors did lots of listening. But editor DeCurtis defends the decision to use four writers, saying it was a way to ensure a consistent tone. The method is in sharp contrast with the 1983 edition of the Rolling Stone guide, which featured contributions from 49 editors and writers.

...

Most authors will tell you their record guides are targeted at casual music listeners and hardcore rock 'n' roll lovers. But just how close do the various record guides come to accomplishing this lofty goal? Here, using a four-star rating system (one being the worst), is a look at the record guides.

Rolling Stone Album Guide. Edited by Anthony DeCurtis, James Henke and Holly George-Warren (Random House; $20). This "definitive" guide to popular music is hampered by flaws. Mostly reviewing "in-print" recordings, the editors/writers overlook a wealth of relevant records that stand to be reissued (indeed, some already have been since the book's publication). Neglected completely are albums by the Babys, Atlantic Starr, Mary-Chapin Carpenter, Temple of the Dog, Mudhoney and the essential Stax/Volt boxed set, just to name a few. The writers can be condescending toward commercial acts like Journey, Stryper and Kansas, writing more about the acts than their respective albums. Yet, despite these shortcomings, the informative writing makes for a solid reference book. Our rating: three stars

Trouser Press Record Guide. Edited by Ira A. Robbins (Collier; $18.95). With his uncanny knack for discerning a record's strengths and weaknesses, Robbins is among the best critics in music journaliFMsm. The only problem with his all-too-comprehensive "ultimate guide to alternative music" is that he and his horde of similarly savvy writers critique too many records most people never have heard nor would care to hear. By narrowing their scope, Robbins' army denies us the enjoyment of their well-considered opinions on the most popular pop. Still, this is exhaustively researched, lively and informative - the best of the record guides. Our rating: four stars Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s. By Robert Christgau, (Pantheon; $17.95). An acquired taste. On the positive side, Christgau examines the distinguishing record-to-record nuances in an artist's catalog. On the down side, his hip-speak writing style can prove impenetrable to all but the most diehard music fans. Christgau's guide to the music of the '70s (Tickner & Fields; 1981) is worth seeking out. Our rating: two stars

The Best Rock 'n' Roll Records of All Time. By Jimmy Guterman (Citadel Press; $12.95). A ridiculous book, this guide to the 100 best rock albums of all time is too limited in some respects, and not limited enough in others. Writer Guterman only reviews 100 albums. Rock music is approaching its 40th birthday, and it has resulted in far more than 100 classic recordings. Adding insult to injury, Guterman includes records by spaghetti-western composer Ennio Morricone and comic renegades Fireside Theater. Just how does he define rock 'n' roll, anyway? Our rating: one star

Stairway to Hell. By Chuck Eddy (Harmony; $14). This guide to "the 500 best heavy metal albums in the universe" is a fun read, written in the slang-ridden parlance of 1970s Creem magazine. While that can make for intriguing reading, it frequently results in total incomprehensibility. But in reviewing records by Grand Funk Railroad, Bloodrock, Starz, Black Oak Arkansas, Uriah Heep and other critically maligned bands, Eddy reveals himself to be a died-in-the-wool fan. Our rating: two stars -->

And finally, something on Zappa (these Zappa fans really have an ax to grind):
 * Rodriguez, Juan "Mother of Invention: Frank Zappa, one of rock's most creative forces, left a timeless body of work that his son Dweezil is taking on the road" Montreal Gazette September 23, 2006
 * "Zappa fans may find his music wildly entertaining and fascinating, but it is not 'easy.' So many celebrated rock critics simply pretended he wasn't there. To wit: Robert Christgau's Record Guide graded over 3,000 albums of the 1980s, but not one by Zappa. An appendix listing those he left out ends: 'Frank Zappa: Oh shut up.'"

Enjoy! —BLZ · talk 08:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll give these a closer look later in the day. Dan56 (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You should feel free to add those to the Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s article. I am taking it easier these days and won't find the energy anytime soon. Dan56 (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Fôrça Bruta TFA
Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 21, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Point of view?! Reliable source?!
About Who's Afraid of the Art of Noise?, please stop bothering me about my so-called "point of view" while I'm just refering to the damn article. The ARTICLE. The WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. This one!

What does it say?

Well, the fucking first line reads that "Synth-pop (short for synthesizer pop;[3] also called techno-pop[4][5])". Oh, and there are even sources! Awesome!

So take a look at that damn article and the sources used and you will be able to realize that it's just not a fucking question of "my point of view". I also think it's just objective that "synthpop" is way more used that "techno-pop". You can just look at the majority of the articles surrounding the "synthpop universe" (pages of the bands and their albums).

It's just to simplify things. In this context, a simple internal link is enough, no need to put anything else on the redirection link.

Thanks.

Aaliyah (Album)
Excuse Me, Mr. Dan. Aaliyah's Album Was Released July 17, 2001. Don't Tell Me That The Information Is Incorrect. I Am A HUGE Aaliyah Fan & Know When It Came Out In The U.S. RaynMagiic (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tbhotch -- Tbhotch (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album)
The article 1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tbhotch -- Tbhotch (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album)
The article 1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tbhotch -- Tbhotch (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sladest and Slayed?
Hello. I'm trying to understand your recent edits of Sladest and Slayed?. What are you trying to do? It would help a lot if you would provide edit summaries with your edits, which does not seem to be your habit. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Favourable" is not a rating. So I removed them. The BOT rescued the references, though. Dan56 (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

HotNewHipHop
Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding HotNewHipHop should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Undertones 1st album label
Ah okay. Was only their actual label from 78 to early 81. The band sceured the rights to all their material released upon Sire following renegotiations, and EMI secured them following their signing to that label. I did put much of this information in the band's Wiki. page. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Village People quotebox
Greetings, I see you went thru a lot of trouble to put up a critic's quote in the article, but is out of place on this page. If it must go somewhere, perhaps you can move it Cruisin album page? Hotcop2 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe it is out of place? Dan56 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a review of the group's album Cruisin (which has its own page) and by definition an opinion. Putting on the main page makes it someone's opinion of the group, in which case we'll have an avalanche of opinions which aren't very encyclopedian, as it were. Hotcop2 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It offers critical commentary embodying contemporary reaction (homophobic backlash is touched on) and a common interpretation from an expert, which is appropriate (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's highlighted unlike anything else and it's really someone's opinion. It doesn't need the quote box. Hotcop2 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is denying it is an opinion, but opinions--appropriately attributed--are not out of place at a biographical article on an recording artist. How about a separate "Appraisal" section? It would give space for other sources of critical commentary as well. Dan56 (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle?
Hi, have you started using Twinkle yet? J ACKINTHE  B  OX   • TALK 05:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Miles Davis and Kind of Blue
Discussing becoming a producer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SH-JZfpetE

"So far as when I became a producer, I was assigned, the first artist was Dave Brubeck. And Dave Brubeck, uh, my boss said 'look, tomorrow you're leaving for California'. I said 'gee, I can't do that'. 'Tomorrow morning you're leaving for California. First of all you've got to meet Dave Brubeck at the hotel next door, talk to him for a minute or two, then get yourself a ticket, and get out there because you're gonna do it in two or three days.' So I did that. The first record I think it was called Gone With The Wind, which did extremely well. And then, I got Miles at just about the same time, and then I had Duke Ellington, and I had all the jazz, Charlie Mingus, Thelonious Monk..."

Gone With The Wind was recorded on April 22nd and 23rd, 1959, in LA:

The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Gone With The Wind (Columbia CL 1347) Paul Desmond, alto sax; Dave Brubeck, piano; Gene Wright, bass; Joe Morello, drums. Los Angeles, CA, April 22, 1959 HCO46192	Gone With The Wind HCO46193	Lonesome Road HCO46194	Swanee River HCO46195	Basin Street Blues HCO46196	Georgia On My Mind same personnel. Los Angeles, CA, April 23, 1959 HCO46198	Ol' Man River HCO46213	Camptown Races HCO46214	Short'nin' Bread The Dave Brubeck Quartet - Gone With The Wind And Time Out (Columbia CG 33666) same session. Los Angeles, CA, April 23, 1959 HCO46213-? Camptown Races (alternate take)
 * also issued on Columbia CS 8156.
 * part of Columbia CG 33666.
 * same contents as Columbia CL 1347 + CL 1397 + 1 bonus track.

https://www.jazzdisco.org/dave-brubeck/catalog/#columbia-cl-1347

April 22 is the date of the second Kind of Blue session in New York.

Irving Townsend's voice is on the session tapes; Macero's is not:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99805408

The recording schedule in Columbia's archives indicates Townsend was producer:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/1959-today-at-the-30th-street-studio.800567/page-8#post-20713719

All reissues from Sony since 1997 credit Townsend as producer.

Lukpac (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Singles Jukebox
Hi Dan. I was hoping you could help weigh in on the reliability of The Singles Jukebox at Talk:Don't Call Me Up. I believe they are reliable as they have staff from Stylus and staff like Katherine St Asaph, Alfred Soto who frequently write for Pitchfork, Rolling Stone. However, it is being said that TSJ is a blog and is WP:SPS.  Cool Marc  17:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Dusty in Memphis
FYI, Dusty Springfield was signed to Atlantic Records for the USA only. She was still with Philips outside the USA including her native UK as proven by this citation. . Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

1989
Hi, I noticed you—an experienced editor—made a few edits on 1989 (Taylor Swift album). Would you mind having a look at the article's current Peer Review so that the article's quality can be improved? Thank you so much in advance, HĐ (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Amarte Es un Placer (album) FAC
I have nominated Amarte Es un Placer (album) for FA and was wondering if you could comment on it. Erick (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 23, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/June 23, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Record label on Me!
Hi. In New York Times article, "As part of the new agreement, Swift will own her master recordings moving forward, and on YouTube, the video for “Me!” was credited to Taylor Swift Productions, Inc.". The production company was a copyright holder. However the label goes to Republic Records. 113.210.99.33 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Album of the Year
This website have been added in several articles like, Bandana, ?, 17, and Schlagenheim. Is this website count as reliable or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing Genres
If you are going to remove a genre from a page, at least add a source to the genre, don't leave it empty, besides, there are albums where the genre is more than clear, example: Taylor Swift's debut album is Country, do you really need to remove the genre just because it has "nO SoUrcE"? Everybody knows is country and the categories of where it was nominated show that too, so if you are going to rant removing genres, why don't you add a genre with the corresponding source? Alberto279 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The Big Day (album)
Hi Dan56. Can you please take a look at the most recent comment for concerningan issue? 2402:1980:8245:2B21:94D7:13A5:A29D:1D77 (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Emerson, Lake & Palmer
Please stop with the personal attacks in your edit summaries, you know better, or a least you should. - FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 21:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Her we go again, WP:OWN -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

MBDTF
Gave a reason why I reverted your edit but thought I'd explain further on here to avoid possible edit warring. The album's title can be reinstated once within a para, that is not overly repetitive; this is how most "well-written" album articles work, though using "it" too much is tedious/repetitive and can sometimes cause confusion to what it means, so I mixed "the album", "it" and "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" enough so that neither becomes tedious.

Edit The article looks like you cleaned it up now, will look properly tomorrow. --Kyle Peake (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You reverted how many of edits without explanation?
This is unprecedented. What in the world is your problem? Vmavanti (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Vmavanti (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Update to 2012 Rolling Stone ratings
There is nothing to suggest the 2003 rankings are superior to 2012, new albums have since been released and additional reviews have taken place to either rise, lower or maintain the albums ranking.

To reach a compromise I am willing to cite both years ratings. Any further disputes will see the most recent ranking take place.

I'll be updating all at some point, please refrain from reverting edits on this subject unless you can cite they are inaccurate.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You again reverted the edits, this time citing WP: Recentism. After reviewing this WP it appears this is in accordance with 'recent events.' 2012 is 7 years ago and does not fall under 'recentism.' I acknowledge however that I did not live up to the statement above that i would cite both years for which I apologise. I will cite both years on the next revisions. I stand by my theory that 2003 is dated and an update or acknowledgment of movement on the list is required.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My apologies about some articles not clearly stating 2003, this was removed in error or I attempted to merge the rankings into one, agreed that 2003 should be cited. Not trying to be a nuisance.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Discogs
I am trying to improve the Thelonious Monk Discography, which is sorely lacking in the Prestige era. The current CDs are chaotic scramblings of what were very orderly (and now rare) mini-LPs. I hear you on discogs being "unreliable," but can you recommend an alternative I might use, rather than simply ex-ing out hours of careful work? Thank you. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Classic rock having been cited as a predominantly "white male" format
I understand how the phrasing in my reasons for making that edit may have seemed opinionated. Allow me to elaborate further.

"The music predominantly selected for the format has been identified as commercially successful songs by white male acts from the Anglosphere..."

Saying the music predominantly "selected" for the format is white male acts implies that it is because of these factors that the music is selected. This is not the case. The music chosen to be played on classic rock stations (and thus considered to be classic rock) is chosen because of its popularity and appeal. While it may have been predominantly white male acts that were popular, the music was not "selected" along these guidelines. I find the phrasing of the sentence to be misleading. Simply because it "has been identified" as such does not mean that it is actually the case. I believe it is worth mentioning in the "Analysis and Criticism" section but not in the introductory paragraphs defining what the genre is. I won't change it again as I understand that it is, objectively, a genre consisting mostly of white male acts. I just think it's a silly and needless specification. Nowhere in the introduction to the "Reggae" article does it specify that the acts are predominantly black. I don't see why the distinction is needed in the case of classic rock. Naijona (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * So if I were to edit the rap and reggae pages to say something similar you would have no issue with it? If my reasoning is just splitting hairs then I can't imagine why you would. As long as I cited an article that backs me up, of course. Again, it's a distinction that should be saved for Analysis and Criticism section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naijona (talk • contribs) 03:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand your point now. I appreciate the further clarification, minus the snide remark. The only discomforting thing to me is that the racial makeup of acts in a "radio format" is considered relevant enough information to be worth including. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naijona (talk • contribs) 04:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's alright, but I appreciate the apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naijona (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Compact disc track numbering
I can see that you believe it should be noted that if an album had tracks one to five on side one and tracks one to four on side two, then it should be announced in the track listing section that the compact disc is numbered it tracks one through nine. I'm sorry but I feel that this little tag placed at the bottom of every track listing scans terribly on the page, and indeed insults the reader's intelligence. Since a compact disc has no sides, of course the track listing format does not indicate any, so tracks are numbered through rather than broken up into sides with side two starting off at one again. I don't think that needs to be reiterated. PJtP (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Which reader? The teenage reader who "accounts for only seven percent of CD sales", if they even buy and know what a CD is? Dan56 (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm moving this to the article talk page. Dan56 (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive?
'Roses.' does end a sentence, and I see [now] the period does belong inside. Thank you.
 * The phrase "on the chart" [still] seems redundant after Billboard.
 * That may not be obvious to most readers (WP:AUDIENCE). Dan56 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only guess about 10/ten since neither top nor best albums is capitalized.
 * Zero to nine are the numbers we spell out (MOS:NUMERAL). Dan56 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A non-breaking space is [right now] protecting → this3 ← from word-wrap.
 * the rest--Brogo13 (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Word-wrap makes its decisions one character at a time, e.g.
 * this (four characters) will fit but this 3 (six characters) won't.
 * An nbsp tells word-wrap either's fine but not (five), i.e. this
 * 3 is prevented.
 * --Brogo13 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Request
Dan, I suggest we follow protocol and discuss these matters at the Talk page of Leon Thomas. Leave your agendas at the door. Thanks. –Vmavanti (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

–Vmavanti (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC) –Vmavanti (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you accuse me of having an agenda one more time, or make any other kind of bad faith accusation, I will report it at WP:ANI, along with your recent remarks. Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Will you just relax and go to the Talk page? Jesus, Dan. Calm down. I'm not your enemy.
 * And pretend like you didn't just accuse me, again, of having an agenda? Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We're suppose to discuss reverts, right? We don't have to do it this second, so long was we do it soon. OK? I am not your enemy. I only want to talk about this subject calmly. I say "Leave your agendas at the door" to all editors I have instructed. I say it because it's normal for people to have biases, preferences, likes, dislikes, and the idea of editing (when I teach people) is try to come closer to neutrality. I don't mean you are always biased, if that's how you interpreted it. That's not what I meant. I am not a big fan of internet communication, perhaps due to my age. It's not my intent to insult you or to have a discussion where I insult you and you insult me. That kind of thing doesn't interest me. Your reasoning does interest me. Thanks for responding. I look forward to talking about this subject, which might actually be important.

Your GA nomination of Samba rock
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Samba rock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Samba rock
The article Samba rock you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Samba rock for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Samba rock
The article Samba rock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Samba rock for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

TLOP
As you may be aware, I've been working very hard on The Life of Pablo ever since last month. I really want to make the album a GA but I'm not too familiar with how to do so for albums, besides the missing information about song lyrics (which I will add soon), are there any issues that would result in a quick fail or something like that? was who I initially asked, but he redirected me to you. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: I am going to nominate the now fully sourced album and can you tell me if there's any major issues that would result in a quick fail? --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jorge Ben (album)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jorge Ben (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Exile On Main Street
There are many statements by the band and their producers, and their wifes/girlfriends, that Nellcote was open to basically anybody, but the basement was restricted to the inner circle only. No friends ever 'wandered' to the basement. John Lennon never visited Nellcote, that is a fake story (also that he threw up on the carpet). Dr. John did back-up vocals only, recored at Olympic Studio in 1970, and he doesn not play piano on any of the songs. Bobby Whitlock has stated in various interviews and his own Facebook page he played wurlitzer on I Just Want To See His Face, recorded at Olympic Studio in 1970.

New York Dolls S/T
Hi Dan56. "Its controversial cover featured the band dressed in exaggerated drag," None od The Dolls are in drag. None of Thje Dolls are wearing women's clothes. None of The Dolls are in high heels, those are "platform shoes" THX — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel7777 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Rust Never Sleeps
"Acoustic" actually was not sourced, and I thought the source I added said "country folk", but I misread, I apologize. However, I wasn't aware you needed to start a discussion before you add a source to a genre. This is news to me, as I add refs for genres all the time. I've been a registered Wikipedian for 14 years, and I've never had an edit reverted before for adding a ref to a genre. The first edit I apologize for, but I just felt "acoustic" isn't specific enough, so I edited to say "acoustic rock". I guess I shouldn't have done that, but it is a rock album, so I felt saying "acoustic rock" would be pretty self explanatory, as it is a rock album, so that isn't wrong. I should have at least attempted to find a ref though I guess, so I apologize.

Dpm12 (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The citation at the end of "hard rock" verifies both "acoustic" and "hard rock". Dan56 (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Nas discography
Dear Dan56, thank you for looking into the Nas discography. I just wanted to say that since collaboration albums are a subset of studio albums, the article currently says "eleven studio albums, three collaborative albums, three compilations, one extended play" et cetera, so this is also going to need changing since this is inconsistent. Also, if we count the two collaboration albums and add them to the solo studio albums, we get 2 + 11 = 13 albums. With Nasir being the latest, would that make it the 13th instead of 12th? Perhaps it would be better to count solo studio albums and introduce each article with the solo studio album number? I'm not sure. --Thrasymedes (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That sounds sensible, but it could look like overkill for a recording artist who was not originally in any group and was instead "solo" to begin with. Perhaps just clarify it is a solo studio album in the article for I Am..., because it immediately follows Nas' only "group" album, The Album (The Firm album). And I would count The Firm album as a "group" album ancillary to Nas' discography, rather than a collaborative album, because he is not billed as a collaborating solo artist on that one, unlike the "Nas & Damien Marley" and "Nas & Ill Will Records". The album is simply billed to the group. Dan56 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Thank you for your edits, which have cleared things up. --Thrasymedes (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we have the same goals, so let's not be at odds
Dan56 I am sure you are more seasoned at this than I am, though I have been contributing intermittently to Wikipedia since 2005. But I am not trying to "disrupt" anything. To put 1949-1950 Miles Davis sessions in the middle of his late 1950's albums is confusing. And if you followed the links as they were, you would see that they were not consistent. They led in circles and didn't work. The changes I made were on the backs of prior editors with similar goals towards increased accuracy.

Likewise, the Thelonious Monk article was screamingly inaccurate as it was. I put hours yesterday into trying to adequately include citations that would back up my more accurate (and grammatical) edits--to meet your criticisms. I appreciate your further feedback. I don't appreciate your threats, which I feel are in bad faith and needlessly antagonistic. The best citations I can come up with, given what you are now telling me are invalid, are from books that are not on the internet, and I suppose that is the best way I can move forward with this.

I wish you didn't use such a negative and threatening tone with me. If you look in the histories on these pages from this week, you can see that there are others who recognize that I am doing my best to do the same thing you do-- improve Wikipedia and make it a better source. Their approach is to make suggestions and to sometimes fix things themselves, rather than just to revert my edits. I don't think we do any any honor to readers by dumbing down these pages, and pretending that a label-created non-chronological mess is the historical truth of the matter. These Monk albums were NOT released in 1954, yet that's what the pages have stated for years. I've done my best to prove this, and you're simply reverting the pages back to inaccurate statements. My edits are in good faith. Do we need to get a mediator involved here? I will do what it takes to find a workable middle ground.Sojambi Pinola (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep making the same policy and guideline violations, so I have the right to issue you warnings for it, especially given you've been around here long enough to know better. I'm sorry you exhausted your time and energy, and I'm sorry your changes did not adhere to the site's standards of reliability and neutrality, among other things. WP:EXPERT: "The genre here is 'encyclopedia'—each article is meant to provide 'a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject'". WP:EXPERT: "The mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge regarding their subjects... We generally find 'accepted knowledge' in high quality secondary sources like literature reviews and books." You are not exempt from adhering to an encyclopedia's fundamental principles. I appropriately explained what was wrong with your sources, but I'm sorry you have nothing to say about that and did not seem to listen or read any of the guidelines and essays of relevance that I linked. I do not know what else to say. Sorry. Dan56 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Some of your complaints had merit. I think your current reversal of the Miles Davis page is arbitrary and unhelpful. I mention another pointless reversal below, and there have been others.  Sorry indeed.Sojambi Pinola (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

What if we did this: Created two parallel Miles chronologies:  One for recording dates, and one for releases? It would be a ton of work; but it would actually simplify what we have there now, which is, on some pages, three different chronologies, for various formats, and a certain amount of dead and inconsistent navigation. Just trying to find some positive, good-faith commonality with you here. We don't live far from each other, either. Perhaps we should discuss this over coffee? Put a human face on this? Sojambi Pinola (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is going downhill rather quickly. I will have you know that not another single editor has been wholesale reversing my edits in the non-constructive way that you have; and none of them have threatened to have me banned--if they have a problem, they point out how I might improve what I am doing without erasing it.  And more often than not, I am being thanked.  That's the spirit around here.  I advise you to act in a more cordial and respectful manner. I'm tracking what you are doing in terms of tracking what I am doing. The other day you reverted my edits to links to Thelonious Monk songs on one of his album pages.  They were perfectly legitimate and helpful sublinks--that was flat out unfriendly and pointless.  I don't know why you are singling me out (if you are--and I apologize if I have you wrong), but I humbly request that you take it easy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBullying#Wikihounding. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel I'm hounding you, but I don't have the time and energy do trifle with formalities and niceties and making you feel better. I'm doing my duty as a Wikipedian and rectifying the (however unintentional) damage you are doing to articles. Dan56 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue that "damage" is subjective in some of these cases, and I argue that some (not all) of your "enforcing" is actually damaging, or preventing eventual improvement. Do you feel these pages were adequate as they were? If not, how would _you_ improve them?  Sojambi Pinola (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would improve them by what WP:STICKTOSOURCE says: The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery. Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't "feel" you are hounding me. You are, in fact, by Wikipedia's definition, arguably hounding me. Several of your reversals have nothing to do with sources or citations; they are pique; you are choosing not to address _those_ concerns, which I have laid out. And it takes milliseconds to be civil, and I'm doing my best with you. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am truly offended and exhausted by all your bad faith accusations. Dan56 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Show me where I was not civil. Dan56 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are, by Wikipedia's definitions of all the aforementioned policies and guidelines, acting in violation of them. Dan56 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jorge Ben (album)
The article Jorge Ben (album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jorge Ben (album) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jorge Ben (album)
The article Jorge Ben (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jorge Ben (album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 100cellsman -- 100cellsman (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Book Title
Please do not keep undoing this. The book is All-Time Top 1000 Albums. Not the Guinness book. They were the publisher of the 1st edition and Virgin were the publisher of the subsequent editions. It has never been known by that title -I would like to know why you keep changing it to the wrong one? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso805 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

A Love Supreme
Dear Dan56, you seem to have it in for me! The information added is cited and correct - I have the book in front of me. I hope you can see that this is not Vandalism. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso805 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dan I have just been given the green light to go ahead with my edits after a few unpleasant days following action by another far more experienced editor than I. If you are interested it can be followed on -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_additions_and_removals_of_references ---

My reason for contacting you is to ask if you would approve and then add the following reference that was removed. I can see my talk note to you and now know that the work 'vandalism' is a bad one with Wiki editors -- I hold my hand up to inexperience and apologise.

However, I would like this added to this awesome album. Thank you in anticipation.

It was voted number 85 in the third edition of Colin Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums (2000). Muso805 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The Metacritic sentence
There is a discussion regarding the Metacritic sentence. We can talk there if you're interested in joining us. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Christgau @ Critic's Choice
Big thanks for that addition, Dan. Funny thing is, I was just about to ask you whether you knew of anything RC had written about the 1978 book, or about compiling his list – I'd not been able to find anything when searching "Gambaccini" at his website. JG66 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)