User talk:WesleyDodds/Archive 14

Acclaimed Music
You said Acclaimedmusic.net was not a notable site and that I should not include it's rankings. But it appears on other wikipedia pages (2003 in music for example). It is an aggregation of critics, much like Metacritic or Rottentomatoes, which often have their rankings included. Why not this one? TheSubtleDoctor (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2009

....You're to shy....
Is it something I should be ashamed of? But, Jesus, can that song bring me back. I feel like it's 1984 every single time I listen to it—and I wasn't even alive then. Go figure. NSR 77 T 03:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The sky was all purple, there were people runnin everywhere. NSR 77  T 04:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. I was never a big Zeppelin fan, nor was I ever a big Pink Floyd fan or Beatles fan. They're all really really amazing and I respect each one for the incalculable contributions they made to modern music, but I simply don't enjoy it that much (there are exceptions of course—A Saucerful of Secrets, Led Zeppelin III, Abbey Road). I far prefer more obscure acts (at least at that time) like Velvet Underground, Captain Beefheart, Jefferson Airplane, David Bowie, T.Rex and what not. I know you like the Beatles but to me they're really quite passe. I mean, I know of people who flaunt their love of the Beatles but meanwhile listen to Coldplay and whatnot. Bleh. NSR 77  T 04:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why it's but once in a blue moon that I listen to anything released past 1996. Just today I was listening to The End and I was flat out floored, despite having listened to that record many many times before. I was sitting there in awe and wondering how it was possible for such incredible sounds to have been made. Music from that era had such inexplicable beauty; it was so innovative and will unfortunately never be replicated. NSR 77  T 05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to it—I've been sick this past week with something or other, unfortunately. If not then it still deserves the star. NSR 77  T 23:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I went to the doctor (and I never go to doctors), spend $30 on his fucking bill for him to tell me that I have nothing treatable and just need to go out and get some over-the-counter meds. Let me tell you he did not walk out of that room alive. NSR 77  T 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess what the newest WP:ALM Featured Article is? NSR 77  T 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you're rallying the troops for some really dissonant work. NSR 77  T 21:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What sorta' projects 'ya got 'goin on these days? NSR 77  T 23:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Urge Overkill. I didn't know you liked them. NSR 77  T 22:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Classic. NSR 77  T 03:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard the Banshees version first so naturally I find it better. And come on, now, Wesley; it's a Siouxsie and the Banshees video. Anything that doesn't revolve around her is an afterthough. NSR 77  T 19:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problem. Where you off to? NSR 77  T 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * God that's a fantastic film. NSR 77  T 23:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always wanted to do some work on Purple Rain (the record). NSR 77  T 23:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the great thing about Nirvana, is that there was no one who transcended their popularity (at the time). Perhaps Pearl Jam may have eclipsed it at some points but Nirvana were the beginning. Sorry if it seems like I disappeared; I've been really busy these days with class, work, classwork, recreational drug use, etc. Doesn't leave much room for Wikipedia at the moment! NSR 77  T 01:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a professor in High School who I would always talk to about the 80s and 90s and she always affirmed that Pearl Jam were at many times bigger than Nirvana, especially with Vs. The thing I found funniest was when I asked about the Chili Peppers and she said "Under the Bridge" was played so often on the radio and was so ubiquitous in early 1992 that everyone got really sick of it. I can easily imagine that happening. NSR 77  T 01:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, wait, how old are you? I can't imagine you being any older than early twenties, considering you recently graduated. Speaking of firsts, I very vividly remember seeing "Scar Tissue" on MTV—including what I was wearing, what time of day it was and who I was with—in 1999. Even though I was only nine at the time it changed my life forever. NSR 77  T 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, you're pretty old. Hah. NSR 77  T 02:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a shame what kids these days are subjected to. I mean, what ever happened to the genius stuff they put out? Then again, the entire world—especially music—these days seems to blow majorly. Chris Brown anyone? NSR 77  T 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like cartoons anymore. Haven't watched them in ages. I rarely watch television, really. Most of the time I forgot to pay the bill anyway. I only really watch stuff that isn't popular anymore or is no longer in syndication (Twin Peaks, Moonlighting, etc.) I notice you like comics which still baffles me. NSR 77  T 02:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you know, the usual. I'm really quite disgustingly lazy lately and Wikipedia is too much extra work. Bleh. I'll probably cleanup and nominate "Give It Away" sooner or later. And, my good fellow, how are you? NSR 77 T 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAHHAHA. The mediocrity becomes more and more profound as the months pass. It really does. NSR 77  T 21:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominated Disintegration for TFA on May 1. There's already another request on May 1 but I believe Disintegrations anniversary is more relevant. People may not, though. And since when does WesleyDodds take wiki-breaks???? NSR 77' T 02:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Same with me. That's another reason why I'm not on Wikipedia as often--I had to get a "here and there" job to allow for some liquidity in tough times like these. NSR 77  T 03:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Frusciante's to be on the Main Page on May 2!? I'm kind of disappointed; haha. I really wanted it to be his fortieth next year on March 5. NSR 77  T 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you've been gone all day you probably missed a variety of fun-filled events that occurred today. Long story short, I'm pretty sure this is it for me and Wikipedia. I'm calling it quits, man. I just can't take any more of this petty bullshit all over the place. Every time it happens I tell myself it's just some idiot who likes to cause drama on the internet, but I've just got too much shit on my plate in my personal life to deal with this right now. I'll continue to check my watchlist, fine, but I'm officially done with another that requires more involvement. If you need my support on something, though, you've got it. Just give me a holler. NSR 77  T 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not leaving because the article needs fixing; I don't really care about that. If it needs to be cleaned up then so be it, I'm down. I just have some things to deal with in my personal life and can't really be bothered with this place at the moment. NSR 77  T 14:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of petty in retrospect. Pretty much your typical bullshit that everyone encounters all the time but it seems like it's all happening at once this time. I broke up with my girlfriend of a year, lost my job, the economic situation has crippled my dad's business so he can't really help me out right now, etc. etc. etc. On top of that I still have the regular college "shitload-o-work" to do on a daily basis. I could probably handle it if they each came separately but together, man, it's a deadly mix. I absolutely can not wait for the summer. Haha. And I hope you've had some luck in finding a second job, but if you didn't then don't worry about it I can't find one either. Guess we're all fucked, eh? NSR 77 T 01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop making me realise you bastard. When I saw them last October during the middle section noise-whatever-the-hell-that-is they played the same note for, I kid you not, 20 minutes. My ears died. I did not, mind you, heed the "MBV suggests earplugs" sign that was posted in front of the merch counter where they were giving out free ones. Lovely song, though. NSR 77  T 02:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, man. Just got back from two weeks in Frisco. Had no internet! How have you been these days? I'm thinking of following through with "Give it Away" in the near future and would love if you could give it a good copyedit. I'm going back home to New York in a week and I'm extremely stoked for this. NSR 77  T 18:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could, yes. NSR 77  T 18:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
WesleyDodds   thank you for taking the time to comment on WT:Notability_(fiction). I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. Have a great weekend. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, another editor said your response was "conflicting", you may want to clarify your response. Ikip (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

indie vs. alt will resume shortly but until then,
So the Led Zep genre tab is being defended as always to reflect some mythical "consensus" that has Zep III as a hard rock/heavy metal album. Ahhh, fuck it man.

And I need you to do this for me: nominate Loveless for Valentine's Day TFA. PLease. 'cause if you don't, I'm gonna do it anyway and bad blood will ensue (not joking).

And who the fuck are James?? (the Blur of the 80's?). indopug (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't give up maaaan, I haven't. I wonder if those people who are so fixated with genre field have ever actually edited an article body and added well-written, reliably-sourced content. Probably not. And what is the deal with their "Zep IV is not "rock", unless everything on Wikipedia is "rock""? indopug (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Work's a bitch, but you learn to get by. And I've recently discovered the awesome altruistic joys of the mindless article cleanup about stuff you don't even care that much about. Btw, I'm about to nominate a Stone Roses article up for COTW; what do you prefer to work on, the band or the album? indopug (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I read on JD554's page that you're not into Bowie and the Velvets; I mean, dude. Maybe this'll change your mind. indopug (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the best Pop song, backing the best opening scene ever. indopug (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've see you're disappointed about "Viva La Vida"; on a related note, I remember that there was a talk-page discussion regarding Coldplay genres. I wanted to suggest bland rock or wannabe-Radiohead rock or wholesome-family-entertainment rock, but apparently they aren't real genres. Phooey.
 * While we're on the subject of "bland", this is the exact opposite... indopug (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin?
Ooh, quite a varied and eclectic lot: I'm partial to the blues as a whole, but in particular John Lee Hooker, BB King, Muddy Waters and most of the original electric bluesmen. I also quite like very early rock 'n' roll, Elvis's Sun recordings are outstanding, Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochrane, Jerry Lee Lewis et al (although I can't stand the wishy-washy stuff we Brits made). Then there's Motown/Atlantic/Stax-Volt/Northern soul. Then the proto-punks: Velvet Undergound/Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Patti Smith etc. And just lately I've begun listening to Johnny Cash; At Folsom Prison is an extraordinary album, but I think At San Quentin just pips it for me. I also like some of early 20th century classical stuff by Aaron Copland, Vaughan Williams, Holst etc. I'm sure there must be loads I've missed. And you? --JD554 (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the blues goes you should check out Albert Collins Albert King - he primarily recorded during the 60s/70s and it's easy to see how he influenced (and was in turn influenced by) bands like Led Zep. He would make a good bridge to the earlier electric guitar blues greats like BB King. --JD554 (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, wrong Albert, although Collins isn't bad either. --JD554 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's something that comes with age. I only started to appreciate the blues from my mid-30s onwards. A bit like olives really :-) --JD554 (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a real shame. --JD554 (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it will be soon, I've put a db-move on Lux Interior. You lost me with the Bowie/Elton John reference I'm afraid. --JD554 (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course! --JD554 (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm stunned that no-one has taken Pet Sounds beyond B-class or Horses beyond C. --JD554 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It must be an age thing. I guess the silver-haired surfers I keep reading about haven't found Wikipedia yet. --JD554 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the In Utero FAC: dashes are one of the "Allowable changes" in quotations per MOS:QUOTE. --JD554 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm cracking up, I could've sworn I saw something about dashes. --JD554 (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful, you're beginning to sound like a further eduction teacher. Got any elbow patches? --JD554 (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't get YouTube, is that this lot? If so, not too bad. I suppose it was only a matter of time before a post-punk revival band sounded like The Fall - track 2 anyway, track 3 sounds like Green Day (that's not a compliment). --JD554 (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check that out tonight and let you know. --JD554 (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like they can't make their minds up what the song should sound like ... it has too many different sounds/textures. --JD554 (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I randomly found this, I'd completely forgotten I had their LP The Bushes Scream. What do you think of the song "The Bushes Scream While My Daddy Prunes"? The early 80s were great. --JD554 (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I bought it the other day. I've not read it yet, but one thing I've noticed is that there's not date for each of the interviews, so it's difficult to tell if they're old or new. --JD554 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be. Bizarrely he finishes with an interview with himself. I'm particularly looking forward to the Anthony H Wilson, Bill Drummond, Andy Gill, John Peel and Steven Morris interviews. --JD554 (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

! Nah, it's got to be "Kings of the Wild Frontier". --JD554 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, tricky one. There really is only a couple of proper love songs that they've done well - McCulloch's problem is that he tends to descend to crooning too much. "Killing Moon" is obviously the best, but maybe the only other one that's any good is "Nothing Lasts Forever". --JD554 (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does Morrissey keep getting good reviews for releasing the same song time after time? --JD554 (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The shirt? It's wrong on so many levels. --JD554 (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * *ahem* Those where 'crisps' I'll have you know my good man. --JD554 (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd hardly guess by your editing times ;-) --JD554 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, well done!--JD554 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the fact the 1980 reissue got to #1 on the UK Indie Chart, but that's all there is. The album doesn't appear to have charted anywhere else. --JD554 (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, but it'll be Monday before I get my print sources back. --JD554 (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, can't say I've noticed, I'll give it a listen tonight. Any particular R.E.M. era in mind? --JD554 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll give it a go. --JD554 (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen it yet. I try to keep an open mind and make my own conclusions, but it's very difficult to from the descriptions I've seen. But I know for sure there is one aspect of it I won't like ... the song. --JD554 (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finished the recording section at User:Ceoil/Unknown. Can you check what I've added with the information from Ott about the toilet etc - I don't have access to the source. Also I've noticed that that Morrissey and the Story of Manchester Mojo classic (used in the music section to say the band weren't happy) seems to disagree with Morris in the re-release Cd-liner (saying he was happy) and Touching from a Distance which says Curtis "enthused" no less (both of which I used in the recording section). --JD554 (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the liner notes definitely agree that Hook and Sumner didn't like it - just not sure about all four of them. --JD554 (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll check that out. --JD554 (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The way Hot Chocolate should have sung it --JD554 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the majority of pop/soul/r&b from the late 70s onwards doesn't do much for me. I can recognise a half-decent tune, which the majority of Princes' seemed to be, but it's not my cup of tea. --JD554 (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered why De Freitas grew that god awful beard. It makes him look like a younger version of David Bellamy (a famous naturalist over here). --JD554 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about these days, but when I served in the late 80s it wasn't that unusual, there would always be a group into punk/post-punk/indie who would stick together. They used to hate us in the NAAFI as we'd take our own records on disco nights and take over. The RAF has always been thought of as the least military of the three branches so maybe that accounts for it. --JD554 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost as good as "Eat Two Trifles". I was going to say that Weller has never been as good since, but that'd be plain wrong - he's done some very good stuff as the "modfather", but The Jam had the right sound for the time. --JD554 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Like the NME collectables? I wouldn't go as far to say that I love them, but they are useful for putting reviews in one place. --JD554 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've heard of those, but I've never come across any. Is there a website or something that gives a list of the one's that have been produced? --JD554 (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking on Omnibus Press's site and can't see any, so I guess you're right they are out of print. They've got plenty in the "Complete Guide to Their Music" series - do you know if they're any good generally? --JD554 (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

*Ahem* :-P --JD554 (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I commend laziness but not cleaning. I'm just working on the background section, so hopefully we shouldn't be too far off unleashing it. --JD554 (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man
Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay
Am I the biggest wannabe ever for totally falling in love with Coldplay since Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends? The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  06:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what I find most appealing is their harmonies...i like music that makes me feeling like I'm wandering through a dream. I was actually surprised they didn't get Record or Album of the Year, but I guess it would be overkill to win 4 major categories. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  07:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe. I love how wikipedia can give you instant history. Releasing an album with no title is an interesting career move. I like it when people think outside the box. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  07:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I need more money so I can buy more music history. ^_^ Do you do any songwriting/instrumental play? I enjoy writing poetry and I play flute/piccolo, though I prefer how I sound on piccolo. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  07:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will Do. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  07:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Manhattan
Why didn't you like my edit? TunaSushi (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Soundclips
I've been meaning to add soundclips to the Suede and Stone Roses articles (3–4 for each). I can get to it over the weekend; suggestions? indopug (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So, why do you hate Rolling Stone? And is PublicImageLtd any good? indopug (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I get NME at my library, and its "BEST NEW BAND SINCE OASIS!!!" everyday. I find it really hard to keep up with all the MySpace groups. So I guess Q/Mojo//Spin are the best of the lot?
 * And unrelated: but why do we have separate articles for Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker? indopug (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd think an obscure article like Modern Life Is Rubbish would be safe from weird edit-wars. By the way, I think the Coldplay article is horribly skewed in favour of the group. No mention of their overwhelming blandness (which is also widely discussed by professional critics), but there's a very detailed study of the various charitable stuff they've done. indopug (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The only major thing I see in Riot Act is that the beginning of "Recording" should be reworked. Also, "Following a full-scale tour . . . Pearl Jam took a year-long break." in the lead is not expanded upon in the article.

Something tells me I'm going to get shot for my edits at The Beatles discography. Oh well... indopug (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any Blur article you want to see worked on? FYI, I'm really interested in making Battle of Britpop an FA; it has potential to become Wikipedia's funniest article. indopug (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blur it is then. Regarding your April Fool's suggestion, apparently some of us believe "The Battle" was a five-year war. indopug (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What does "Creatively, the focus of Watchmen is on its structure" mean? Whose focus? (it reads as though Watchmen focuses on its own structure) I wonder if something more explicit would be better--"Watchmen's structure is considered a central aspect of the comic" or "Watchmen's structure is central to the comic"

And random: what's your favourite Banshees song? indopug (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. But . . . don't hold your breath. indopug (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivial Edits
I'm sorry if I was rude but I'd still honestly appreciate if you would tell me why you deleted the comment about Neil Young being transfixed by Kurts howl at the end of 'where did you sleep last night'. Please say why.ThanksSayerslle (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC) o.k. All I say finally to that is that kurt cobain kind of quoted neil young in his suicide note so that singled out neil young for me, made HIS response to the unplugged performance more resonant than just anybodysSayerslle (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In Utero
Hi there, I would just like to congratulate you on a job well done on In Utero, it's an essential Nirvana record and one of my all-time faves, an the article itself looks splendid, hey maybe you guys should work on Nevermind next huh? Anyways just wanted to drop by and say hello. Cheers! (SUDUSER)85 14:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto!  Louis Waweru   Talk  01:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliability?
Hey Wesley, how's it going? Listen, I have a question, is contactmusic.com a reliable source? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BLPs
I'd like more input on Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer), Talk:Rihanna, and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard if you are interested. Thankyou. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  23:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  23:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

General assistance
If you ever have trouble looking up info for an album or single I can always try looking up something with my schools database. If you ever need anything drop me a note. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  03:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Band members" sections
A user at the Pearl Jam article is demanding that a "Band members" section be added, such as the one that can be found at the Nirvana (band) article here. Is this necessary? I remember that this same section was removed previously when the article was being worked on for featured-status on the grounds that it was redundant since the same information can be found in the infobox and the article. I would just like to get a definitive answer since I'm tired of edit warring with this user. Thanks.-5- (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have a feeling that explanation won't work with this user, however. I have notified the user to state his/her case at the article's talk page for the inclusion of this section.-5- (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the head up.-5- (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

re. Unknown Pleasures
Any reason you're not revamping the article in mainspace? --Michig (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've added all I can to the article from the sources I have to hand. I may well be doing more JD-related editing over the next week, so if you have any other articles being worked on in userspace, let me know.--Michig (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have a real go at the Stone Roses article when the bio arrives - hopefully by Wednesday. It will probably be limited to tidying and referencing for this week - I'll need to have a read of the book before doing anything more major. It would be nice to get the article into a decent state by the time the 20th anniversary edition of the album comes out. --Michig (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got the bio. but haven't had time to do much yet (the book having neither a contents section nor an index doesn't help), though shockingly, the band's biggest influence in the early days appears to have been Welsh sub-U2 rockers The Alarm.--Michig (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and added page numbers on the JAMC article. I've just about run out of sources now - the bio. only covers the period up to 1988. I'll see what I can find on the post-1988 stuff later on. I'll revisit The Stone Roses article at some point.--Michig (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Film chat
I reckon Star Trek, Transformers and G.I. Joe are the films I'm most interested for this summer. A new Kirk, Spock and McCoy was something Empire magazine spotlighted in the second issue I ever bought, and I love how all the ships, the bridge, the uniforms are nowhere near as drab or dreary as they became in the late 1990s. Nice to see adventure, humour and sex appeal back in the franchise. I'm amazed how much the actors look like the character; Pine looks like Kirk but not Shatner, I know that sounds odd but it's true. I was all for rebooting the franchise, but it looks we're getting a sequel and prequel into this one film so I'm even more excited!

Now obviously the two Hasbro movies, one property I love dearly and one I'm very unfamilar with, so I'm excited about revisiting one and exploring another. I mean more Megatron and Starscream, Soundwave, the Fallen, Devastator and Jetfire, awesome! Jetfire sounds like an extremely interesting character, I hope he gets a moving scene like Optimus' narrations or scenes highlighting Sam's love for Bumblebee in the first film. I'm excited to hear what Steve Jablonsky has for the Decepticons, because they have more screentime and therefore require more varied themes. G.I. Joe sounds interesting, I like the costumes, they look like futuristic military armour yeah, but everybody's complaining about them being all-black? Weren't fans like this ten years ago with X-Men? To kinda quote Magneto, they'll never learn! Story wise, I understand it's much more faithful than that Skip Woods script from 2007 where there was an Action Man but no Destro or Cobra Commander.

I'm really rooting for McG to make a great Terminator, after all the abuse he got from fans for just directing a couple of spoofs. I mean no one picks on Snyder making Watchmen just based on 300; one very complex and the other very simple. I look forward to Wolverine but I wonder if they've waited too late to start the spin-off series. And then there's Up, which won't be released in the UK until October, but I'm visiting America in July so I might see it then. Alientraveller (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They tried to combine the coolness of both Cobra's hood and helmet, but it will take some getting used to. Now you had to get me started on toys; my must-haves are the new Enterprise, the new Starscream mold (look at all that articulation; he can meditate!) and Devastator. I hope to pick up Ratchet and Ironhide because I missed them last time, Jetfire, Megatron and Soundwave depend on reviews of the toys, I might get the Pit from G.I. Joe, Terminator toys look awful. Alientraveller (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you want Quaid's action figure, you have to buy the Pit play set because it's an exclusive to that. That's what emerged from Toy Fair last night. Alientraveller (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Gothic music
Hi. Thanks for weighing in on this long-term edit war. Would you consider opening a discussion section on the redirect's talk page to explain your position, even if it's just to basically replicate what you wrote at the project? It would be a good way (imho) to model proper consensus process on Wikipedia, since the problem with both these editors (both of whom are now currently blocked) is that they're not following that procedure. Neither of them is discussing their changes. As I mentioned, my real hope is that a couple of editors will join in there, since at that point I no longer have two contributors edit warring, but one (whichever that may be) completely ignoring consensus and resisting input from other editors. The end result for the article may be the same, but the handling of the combatants becomes very different. :) In any event, I'd be grateful, if its convenient for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Life
yeh its k lol.

I start uni next week so I'm trying to cut down on the procrastination beforehand. I like to think I'm planning ahead and doing something useful (without actually doing any study, or anything that useful). Still using WP as a reference but not really getting the time/enthusiasm to write lots these days.

You? Giggy (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want some thankless work you can try keeping an eye on 4chan. I pop in to take a look occasionally... at least once a week (I just wish I could say "only on Caturday" right now). Nice to see you're still fighting the good fight. Giggy (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein FAC
Would you mind swinging back through the FAC and stating whether you support the promotion or not, and if not, what issues you would like to see addressed? The FAC is kind of at a standstill. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
We're discussing your guideline proposal again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  07:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re:That discussion, and my talk page. Thanks for your offer to help. Truth be told, I tend to avoid genre edits but I'd like to read the essay when it's available. I will read the current version via the link provided by The Bookkeeper. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In Utero FAC
I know it's been a little over a week since the FAC was closed, but I see that the article was promoted. Congratulations on that! Hopefully within the next couple of years Nevermind will be ready for FAC. Keep up the good work.-- Al max  999  02:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jude - Promotional Film
Hi, I would be grateful if you would not just make arbitrary decisions to undo a piece of sourced material with a subjective statement that it is "trivial". I disagree and was under the impression that we are creating an encyclopaedia that is sourced correctly and is accurate and above all interesting. I say all of the above with respect, but it is intensely annoying when someone just promptly deletes a piece of fact. It can be argued therefore that Frosts comment of the "greatest tea-room band" etc is also trivial. Maybe, but of historical interest surely? Crowley666 (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hate to pester...
...but would you mind having another look at Featured article candidates/Alexander Cameron Rutherford? I've adopted most of your recommendations, and in the half dozen or so cases in which I haven't, I've provided some explanation. Whether you agree with me or not, I'd welcome your response. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins Demos
We appear to have a disagreement about the inclusion of Smashing Pumpkins demos on their discography page. Is there a policy or guideline somewhere that says that demos should not be mentioned? Currently there are several featured discographies (Neutral Milk Hotel discography, Slipknot discography, etc.) with demos on them. Whether or not demos need their own articles is certainly up for debate - I would contend that they do not, unless specifically notable - but shouldn't we at least mention their existence? hbent (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the vast majority of demos don't meet WP:NALBUMS, but that refers to articles about demos and not to mentions of them on discography pages. We list several things on the SP discog page that probably won't ever merit articles, like "No Toys for O.J." and "ONXRT-Live From the Archives Volume 3" - should those be deleted too?  I consider a limited distribution demo tape from a major band to be as significant as a limited distribution radio station compilation. I want to reiterate my earlier point that there are FA discographies with demos on them, which would seem to indicate that demos are considered noteworthy enough to mention. hbent (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Small Suggestion
Hey Weseley, I have noticed this several times, and keep meaning to comment. . . Several of your edit and discussion comments are along the lines of "This is already there, but thanks" or "This was discussed and decided against, but thanks." I can understand thanking somebody who complimented you or helped you directly or added something that you really like (ala "I had been trying to find good wording for that, myself. Thanks")  However, and this might be just me, when you are essentially telling somebody "Thanks, but no thanks" it comes across as a little dismissive and, worse, as if you own the article. After all, they did not do anything specifically for you, so are you thanking them on behalf of wikipedia?

If you want to soften a revert or encourage somebody when you are undoing what they wrote, I'd like to suggest that, rather than thanking them, you just compliment or bolster them directly; eg: "That's a good point, but it is mentioned above" or "That's a valid point, but consensus was against it. Check out the Discussion." To be honest, I don't think bolstering is even necessary; just explain why you are reverting (which, I notice, you still do not do when reverting the recurring anonymous journal additions  :-P~ You could at least say "See the discussion page" ;-) )  --Bertrc (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucy in the Sky issue
I would appreciate your opinion at Talk:Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds that might help avoid an edit war. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo
Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Shot by both sides
vs. I actually prefer the Buzzcocks version of the riff. The Magazine version seems meanspirited and over dramatic. Whats his name looks like Brian Enos slow younger brother. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four
Hi. As you appear to be one of the major contributors to the Fantastic Four article, I'm alerting you to the fact that I plan to nominated this article to become a Good Article. If you are able to have a look at the article and fix up anything that needs fixing (sourcing, grammar, etc), feel free to do so or discuss anything that needs fixing. Good work on helping to get it to where it is so far. :) BOZ (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, it's time for action. :) I've been working on it for a few weeks, and I'm likely to continue, so anything you can add would be sweet. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Who watches the Watchmen?
I think your background in history is getting in the way. As editors we summarise sources. As readers we evaluate them. It's the reader of the article who has to evaluate the source and work out what it all means. That's the very point of the neutral point of view policy. You are trying to take a point of view on this, rather than working out how to present it in a neutral manner. Each reader must be free to judge for themselves whether they agree with Klock's assertion. Heck, I'd go further than you; even if you had a killer quote from Moore, I'd question that. When was he interviewed, and what was the context and were the words put into his mouth? There is no objective truth, there are only assertions, and as Wikipedia editors we summarise assertions in line with our policies. Our readers need to, well, see the Mitchell quote on my talk page: "readers should always question the veracity of what they read and the motives of whoever wrote it, and in the internet age more than ever. People who allow themselves to be made credulous by stylish typesetting and a serif font are screwed." Blimey, go further, that's the central tenet of Watchmen if you believe the writer: "Ultimately it's the reader who has to make the choice. It's the reader's decision, it's the reader's world, ultimately, as I say in the last panel." Moore, Alan. The Extraordinary Works of Alan Moore; Indispensable Edition (2008). p 114. Hiding T 10:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We're going round in circles. As I pointed out on the talk page, this isn't about whether Moore or Gibbons intended it or not, and I was very careful when I phrased my addition to make it clear that the title is taken to be a reference to the quote. Now if you want to argue that the four sources I currently have are not reliable enough to verify the fact that the title is taken to be a reference to the quote, then we've got serious issues that I do not think can be resolved.  To quote WP:V again, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". The sources do and are. The issue here seems to be that you don't know whether Moore intended it or not.  I do not see why that is an issue because the article as I wrote it never claimed Moore intended it. Hiding T 11:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad we have it sorted. Regards, Hiding T 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the second time I've been asked that this week. I would like to, only because I know at some point I will end up watching the movie, even if it is five years down the line when it is on free to air television, and I would therefore prefer to watch it in a cinema, if only because it is designed to be a cinematic experience. I don't know whether I will be able to, however. Hiding T 12:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't been aware they were changing the ending, to be honest. But then, the film LA Confidential is quite different to the book, but they both work really well, so anything is possible. I haven't really been following anything about the film, to be honest. Hiding T 12:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to sound utterly dumb asking this, but when does the quote appear in the novel? I only recall Ozymandias reciting JFK's intended speech about being watchmen on the walls of history. Alientraveller (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I was out with the flu. I'm guessing this is resolved? The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  02:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Snyder did a really good job. The rape scene and killing of the padeophile came across as even more uncomfortable than the book. Alientraveller (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Blockable comment
I've discovered only in the last hour that the refrain in the 2nd half of Blur's Country House is quite lovely. What should I do with myself; AN/I? Am I a total bastard, after all? Such questions. Also, Simon Reynolds has a new anthology out, called...Totally wired. There is a god after all! Oh boy. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good as that song is; really. Smog? Discuss, or am I just showing my age...Oh and thanks for FB. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * God might strike me down for saying this, but IMO the Bronski versionion of I Feel Love is the  definive version. O early 1980's electro! Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for February 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Science
User:129.234.217.155 is trying to start an edit war about this article (see User talk:Rwiggum and User talk:Leodmacleod). I don't know any admins on here, but something's got to be done about this kid. You're more wiki-seasoned, so I thought I'd ask you how to shut him down.

--Leodmacleod (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Grunge article
Hello Wesley. Some user has a problem with the "Notable bands" section regarding what bands should and should not be included. I was wondering if you could help me deal with him before it gets out-of-control. Thanks.-5- (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Laurie and Watchmen
Hi! I saw this edit:

Why did you remove this? The 2003 Watchmen script has been reviewed, and it can be read. There are differences between Laurie in the comic and Laurie in the script. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC) WhisperToMe (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The script is not only *available*, it also was reviewed on websites like IGN (have you seen the IGN review of the 2003 Watchmen script?). It is 100% relevant. Treat the script as a quasi-novelization of the Watchmen. If you continue to oppose this, please take it to the talk page. I insist and will continue to insist that differences in the draft scripts are very much relevant and ought to be included as reliable sources have discussed the contents of the draft scripts by Sam Hamm and David Hayter. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I believe the script was indeed published. I'm not sure how to check, but scripts typically can be bought. I don't know how many copies exist, etc. but it is common to publish draft scripts. If you have read the PDF of the Hayter script it looks like it was scanned from something.
 * 2. You said: "Events depicted in it are not necessary to note in character sections." - The content was not plot summary. They differences in character attributes - Laurie had a completely different superhero name in the Hayter draft and she was referred to as "Laurie Jupiter," for instance. Rorschach was described as a bearded homeless man. That isn't plot summary.
 * 3. When reliable sources cover a topic, we confer notability to it. Reliable sources have covered the 2003 David Hayter script.
 * Including the details from the 2003 draft does *not* conflict with having the focus on the character. This character page actually should cover *all* versions of the Watchmen and note *significant differences in character traits between versions* - this is done with character lists of other series, i.e. Death Note WhisperToMe (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. Here's a source: http://movies.ign.com/articles/545/545644p1.html - IGN notes that the "Slingshot" character is originally "Silk Spectre II" - to be fair it doesn't say why Laurie is "Slingshot" - it just says that she is Slingshot in the draft
 * 2. I wasn't certain whether linking to a script would be or would not be a copyvio - I wasn't the first to link to the scripts: I believe the external links section of the film linked/links to both scripts. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By my
I could have a go. When would you need it? Hiding T 12:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see if I could go to the British Library next Friday, I think they have holdings. Would there be anything else you'd want? I'd imagine it was reviewed around release date, to narrow it down. Normally they reviewed a week before release, from memory, but it's been years since read a copy. That probably contributed to its demise. Hiding T 12:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice tidy apartment
I've not given it a thorough read, but the main sections look OK on the whole (I'll have a thorough read later today). The lead looks a bit short though, any chance of expanding it with something from the 'Music' section? --JD554 (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need YouTube to picture that mullet - I've been traumatised ever since. --JD554 (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck, I don't like the band cause of his haircut in the 80s (I think he's trying to shift the blame there). Luckily for them I like some of their music. --JD554 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your not going to be tidying your apartment that much are you!? --JD554 (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the best solution for stress is copious amounts of alcohol. You then find nothing is quite as bad as the hangover from hell. --JD554 (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't drink? That's a shame, American brewers are beginning to get the knack of what beer should taste like now as well, or even to realise that is should taste at all. I've noticed The Beatles discog before, it really is bad. Now I've done a few of the more simple discograpies, I want to try one that's a bit more complicated. I even started that one here, but the compilations are a nightmare. If I can get that one right I might attempt The Beatles'. --JD554 (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, no beer, no Bowie - if I didn't know better I'd be beginning to suspect your taste :-p --JD554 (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as it's not this Simon Pegg you'll do OK. --JD554 (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble with Run Fatboy Run is that is has Hank Azaria in it - the only decent things he's done is The Simpsons and Mystery Men. Hmm, sources ... I've only got a couple of Bunnymen albums to get to GA and then I'm going to try and see if I can get Ocean Rain to FA, but I really could do with seeing what Tony Fletcher's Never Stop: The Echo & The Bunnymen Story has to say about it. Unfortunately it's out of print and my local library doesn't have it.--JD554 (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a shame, online prices are bit steep for a second hand book - £108!?! If I think of anything else I'll let you know. --JD554 (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I can't even access them at home! --JD554 (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although YouTube say it isn't, I suspect it's a negotiating tactic. But it's damned inconvenient in the meantime. --JD554 (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem with the charts. As for compilation videos, buying anything at the moment will have to wait as I wrote my car off last week (totalled) :( --JD554 (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just started after an ec. I've updated the existing US and UK references, now I'll begin hunting down the foreign charts and I should just be sticking to the charts section for the time being. --JD554 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me - I don't particularly like having a table for singles in an album's article anyway, a brief summary should do. --JD554 (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the inclusion (or not) of the New Zealand and French chart positions? Having slept on it I'm not sure that either of them are really representative of the success the album achieved on various charts around the world and also charted quite a bit later than the majority. But then again would it be neutral to exclude them? --JD554 (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, crossed wires. I meant the NZ and French charts that are there now in the Charts section. If we lose them we'll be bang on the recommended 10. --JD554 (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is quite surprising. But it wasn't until Young Americans when he started to make it in America. But given the length of time the majority of his albums have been on sale, I would've expected higher certifications. Does the average record buyer over their not investigate back catalogues maybe? --JD554 (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That could be it then, he left both RCA and EMI on bad terms, so maybe in a fit of pique they just haven't bothered. --JD554 (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was an interesting read. I wonder, after reading that, if one of Bowie's problems over there is that he hasn't been consistent in any one genre, or even closely related genres. He started with what could, at best, be described as mediocre pop/rock/folk, then came the glam period (which apart from Elton John's MOR interpretation of it was largely ignored in the States), he began to get popular over there with his take of soul/funk with Young Americans and Stations to Station, but then went left-field (for American tastes?) with the Berlin trilogy. Big fame came then with what was very good pop on Let's Dance before he the remainder of the 80s and early 90s was ruined with uninspired pop and the appalling Tin Machine. He's never really hit the heights of the late 70s early 80s since, even though he's done some half-decent stuff since - most notably on Heathen. --JD554 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know I've never seen one of their vids, I must look one up later. Which one is it? --JD554 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review/Billie Jean/archive1
This might interest you. I'm not overtly involved with it, I did a little clean up before GA. Would be nice to see such an iconic song reach FA. — R  2  14:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN nominee Reckoning (R.E.M. album)
Hi there. I've reviewed this article, and placed it on hold. When you have a chance, please pop over to the review page and give me your input. Thanks. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving the Watchmen
Weseley, can you please archive the other two journal threads? Just leave the former RFC. --Bertrc (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied in my talk page: --Bertrc (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jude socks
I thought this might be the case. Nice job. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jude sock
Doesn't surprise me in the least. He was just a little too pushy on behalf of the Sindens. Is he a banned user? If so, the information can be removed from the article. Short of that, do we know for sure that the source used is legit? Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement in question from the article, pending a legit consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think is his newest sock. Ward3001 (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave my word yesterday that I would not create or use any 'sock' accounts. I have kept to my word and so do not appreciate being accused of breaking my word. I am not connected in any way with "Mobydick123, anon 87.194.126.222, and other socks". This is now dissolving into a personal & libellous attack. Please cease and desist. If you continue to inaccurately accuse me of lying I will report you for making personal, unfounded attacks. I am copying this to your individual talk pages as well and would appreciate an apology. I have however left a question on the consensus, but otherwise am staying out of this. Captainclegg (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Further suspected sockpuppet abuse
Just fill a new case with the exact same name, it should automagically do the trick ;). I'll look into the case tomorrow :) -- lucasbfr  talk 23:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite, too quite
All seems well with Be Here Now at last - the great 2008 wiki vs 1 dynamic ip debate seems to have abated, at lase. Whats was going on there I wonder; has the amount of people giving back the album finally crossed the 1 million souls mark! Anyway thats not why I'm here; how did Plasticman go down in your set? Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

R.E.M.
I'll see if my library has it. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  22:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My library doesn't have Reveal: The Story of R.E.M.. Is there something specific I could search for in an online database? Library catalog can trace news articles back to the early 1980s. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ministry
Remind me again why when I think of these redneck hillbiily b-tards I'm reminded of Rod Stewart. Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Honorifics
When I do my searches I always look for 1) multiple hits for the term through various news sources and 2) sources from in and outside the artists homeland if they have widespread appeal. Even with well established titles, it tends to be 50/50 on when the author/critic/whoever take the time to capitalizes the term. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  06:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So far my goal has been to find at least two published sources (preferably books or major news) that specify the title in its exact words ex "King of Pop" or "Queen of R&B". The terms "reigning" and "undisputed" also tend to pop up quite frequently. In that context I'm trying to avoid original research or personal bias. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am against the merge of characters of Watchmen
I understand you were a proponent of merging characters in Watchmen. I do not want this to be reverted back without my knowledge so I am inform you of my revert. It was a WP:BOLD move however I didnt not see any discussion of this and I am against the merge as it was not discussed on the AfD either. If you could please take it to the discussion page on watchmen before a revert that would be great. Valoem  talk  13:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Blood Sugar Sex Magik b-sides box
Why did you delete the bsides box? I had a dscussion with User:JD554 on this one. We came to a conclusion that if featured articles like One Hot Minute, Californication, By the Way can have a bisdes box, why not BSSM? Also, the sam b-sides were released on multiple singles, so that also told you which bside appears on which. It wasnt so unnecessary.Suede67 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So why not remove them from those articles as well? I have seen them there intact for months now. Why havent you removed them? Wiki can get irrtating sometimes, no offence, just asking a normal question. Suede67 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you;re removing them as well I suppose Suede67 (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus FAC
Hello, WesleyDodds;

I've had a whack at your first comments, although I'm a bit confused by the "animal" suggestion, as I'm not sure where I'd work it in (this may be the pressure in my sinuses talking). I'm looking forward to your next comments. J. Spencer (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I put "animal" in the second sentence for starters, although as I noted in my edit summary that it feels a bit weird: I'm used to thinking of them either in terms of the genus Edmontosaurus (which is an arbitrary construction) or in terms of individual specimens that are called Edmontosaurus. J. Spencer (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Automatic for the People
As you've seen I've added info from the NY Times and Time magazine reviews. I've also added a reference to the 'Packaging' section for the album name coming from Weaver D's Delicious Fine Foods. But I can't find any references for the Miami hotels being used for the artwork. Is this covered in any of your print sources? --JD554 (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought exactly the same thing when I saw that template and very nearly put it up for TfD but wasn't sure if it would get support. A category or even a list article would seem better options. Actually I think I will go for TfD, a navbox should be for logical navigation - will people really want to navigate from one diamond rated album to another? I don't think so. --JD554 (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done --JD554 (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen that, or heard the narration for that matter, but I've always imagined it to be similar to Bing Crosby's "what's going on" look for "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy" they did on his Christmas special. --JD554 (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a bit of a Watchmen buff - shouldn't these (Watchmen: Music from the Motion Picture, Watchmen: Original Motion Picture Score) be merged in to Watchmen (film)? --JD554 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, good luck with the job hunt! --JD554 (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Response
I disagree because there was not a consensus it was a debate open for less than one day the AfD consensus was keep. I oppose the merge based on the fact that a film and video game was released. Based on other comic book articles main characters being featured in more than one source warrents individual articles. Other than the comedian the other characters are equally main as Rorschach having been independently cited. I'm not reverting any edits as you did contribute to the feature article. Regardless, I disagree with the merge. I'll wait for more opinions. Valoem  talk  14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Watchmen Article
Weseley, your involvment in the Watchmen article is invaluable, but I want to ask if you have considered following the advice you gave me some time ago, stepping back and taking a breath. I think you might want to examine your level of investment in so many aspects of the article. Off the top of my head, I can think of five or six extensive and contentious edit. . . conflicts (to use a mild term). . . that have included you; two of which have escallated into RFC's. I appreciated that suggestion you gave me and I think you should look into it for yourself. You don't have to be the one editing. As you said: Try stepping back; see if others agree with you; if it happens, then it happens. --Bertrc (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sex Pistols
Have you been watching this recently. Its come on a lot. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I only have a mp4 version of Plastikman's Plasticity; cant make an OGG. Pity, its very strange, and really pushes harmonics.  Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Library
It's looking like I won't be able to get up to the British Library this side of Easter. I'll let you know if it changes, I might have a window next week. Hiding T 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Asking a big favor
Looks like I'm who watches the Watchmen after all. ;) You do not have to play a large role in whatever Featured Article endeavor I pursue (likely Fight Club); a peer review down the road will suffice.  There's still quite a way for me to go, believe me... anyway, hope that you are able to address your off-wiki situation adequately. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hed PE
Could you please explain why the article for a band sourced as performers of alternative music does not fit within the scope of the alternative music project? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

The Killers
Yeah, they're not too bad. I thought Hot Fuss was a very very good debut album, but the other's haven't lived up to expectation. As far as "Human" goes, I just think it's one of the stupidest lyrics going - "Are we human or are we dancer?". Brandon gets pissed off having to explain it, but it serves him right in my opinion.

How's the job hunt going? --JD554 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's like saying "we can't be bothered to review your article". You get good lists and bad lists, so there's no reason they shouldn't be rated just like other articles. --JD554 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They're not bad, The Honey Tangle is certainly worth a listen or two but I would never describe it as a must own album. If you do hunt down some of their stuff, don't expect The Fall - The Adult Net are definitely Brix Smith's lighter bubblier side coming out. If you've heard "Crash" by The Primitives you're in the right area. --JD554 (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just firing up AWB to give it a go. It's been a while since I used it, so I hope it works! --JD554 (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, it seems a couple of editors got together and decided try to rigidly enforce WP:NSONGS, but I guess they hadn't read WP:BEFORE first. --JD554 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good news on the job front I hope ... I'll keep my fingers crossed for you. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was going to get around to that, but got sidetracked by an editor who thinks a song being on a playlist is noteworthy. --JD554 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely hope the good sort! We're going to Iceland for 10 days. They've been forecast snow while we're there, but that should make it more ... Icelandic I guess. I'm looking forward to all the sights but I'm not looking forward to the prices! --JD554 (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just uploaded a new image of the Pixies to commons - file:Pixies 2004.jpg. Do you think it should be used to replace the non-free image currently being used on Pixies? It's a little blurry when you look at the full sized image but looks OK when previewed in the infobox. It shows the whole band and is more recent than the non-free image currently being used. --JD554 (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "that" which do you mean, the old or the new? No probs on The Bends by the way, I planned to do that either today or tomorrow anyway. --JD554 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. Any news on the job front? --JD554 (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an extreme way to lose weight. Keep plugging away, it might sound trite, but something will turn up. --JD554 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean! Do you want me to give it a quick ce or do you need the practice? ;-) By the way, I thought Bowie left you cold? --JD554 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had noticed ... just a little banter ;-) If you've got a bit to add to the The Bends, I'll wait a couple of hours to make sure you've finished and avoid edit conflicts. --JD554 (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it looks like it's survived one AfD already. Could be tricky - it certainly doesn't want merging into the discography and the category doesn't include all the songs listed - which seemed to be the two main arguments against deletion. --JD554 (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre help
Hello Wesley. Tezkag72 and I have a little disagreement about whether Vitalogy should be considered grunge or not. I say yes, he says alternative rock. Any opinion?-5- (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I went with "alternative rock" for all of them, as I don't think their later albums really fall under the "grunge" label.-5- (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen Roleplaying modules and sourcebook
The 1980s Watchmen roleplaying module "Taking Out the Trash" has a section cowritten by Alan Moore and Ray Winninger; according to this http://www.capnwacky.com/rj/watchmen/noncomic.html it contains additional background info on the characters and additional insight; do you have the modules? Could I cite the modules for this information? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no I never suggested citing the particular website itself. For analysis of the characters yes, cite scholarly articles, etc. But the modules and guidebook state additional in-universe information about the characters. I understand articles should not be completely built around in-universe information, but at the same time the modules and guidebook should be cited for some of the additional in-universe stuff. I.E. the name Bill Brady only appears in the modules/guidebook, and the information about Ursula Zandt being an Austrian Jew is only in the modules/guidebook. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I decided to look at Notability (fiction) to see the guidelines, but it seems to only concern itself with creating an article about an element of a fictional work. From what I read on the website that summarizes what is in the modules, according to the modules and/or guidebook (many of these are debated elements that are disputed in the story):
 * The Comedian was involved in JFK's assassination, killed Bernstein and Woodward, and killed Hooded Justice
 * Hooded Justice is the same person as Rolf Muller, but Rolf Muller was another alias and his true identity is not revealed
 * The following are bits that are alluded to in the comic:
 * Hooded Justice is not a Communist (as some people in the comic thought he was) and he had connections to the KKK and spoke in favor of Hitler in 1940
 * Ursula was an Austrian Jewish socialite who fled to avoid Nazis
 * Byron was a bored playboy who fought crime for fun; he was a conscientious objector to WWII, so he worked as a nurse instead
 * Dollar Bill's name, not stated in Watchmen itself (BTW the name is in the Characters of Watchmen article)
 * If you remember the photo shoot scene, the personality traits are all alluded to. Hooded Justice's statement about wanting to avoid the war, Byron's statement about being afraid to get involved in the war, and Ursula's egging on Sally all are backed up by these bits. Even if there may not be a source that discusses, say, Ursula's background and Byron's background, the information should still be included as it is very relevant to their characters
 * In order for me to add this I would have to get copies of the material themselves so I know which page numbers/etc to use and to see whether the website is accurate in its characterization. Anyway, I understand that articles should not overly rely on in-universe information; just as you worked on Watchmen I worked on Death Note articles. By using information from Death Note: How to Read 13 to build some in-universe information, How to Read for production info, and external sources for commentary and viewpoints, I put several of the main characters into their own articles. It's just that I think the above, if this is in the RPG modules/guidebook, would be good additions to the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You said that we aren't here to create a character guide; in a way this has been addressed when developing the Death Note pages. Some background in the character's motivations is essential in order to explain the character and I don't think this is trivial. But "more trivial" stuff like blood type, height, likes and dislikes (which don't have much to do with the story) are only posted for people who are major characters (i.e. have their own articles). If the "bits that are alluded to in the comic" is added to the Minutemen characters it is maybe an additional sentence or two at the most, so it doesn't make the pages out of proportion with the more important characters. BTW the "We don't need to provide aliases" really missed the point regarding Rolf Muller; one of the minor plot points was whether Hooded Justice and Rolf Muller were the same person. The additional material states that they are, but that Rolf Muller wasn't his real name. THAT is what the business is about. And, yes, basic characters backgrounds are needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-read the essay Notability (fiction); it says "Primary sources, such as the fictional work itself, can be used to verify certain facts about the fictional work" but that primary sources can't establish notability for a subject. The essay also says "Coverage of fiction often benefits from relying on sources that do not meet the strictest standards of independence. Because copyright holders often guard their intellectual property, much of the background information about fictional subjects may come from copyright holders. As a result, real-world coverage may be established through the use of non-promotional secondary sources that are not independent from the content creators. Creator commentary should be used in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources, and should provide significant real-world coverage that goes beyond what is revealed in the plot of the fictional work." - in other words it is acceptable to include details that are not covered in totally secondary sources, partly because of the copyright and trademark aspects. Now, this essay doesn't directly covered increased plot details, but it shows that we can't rely on secondary sources all the time when covering fiction. I don't see how including some additional details about the Minutemen, in a work that was made partially to put emphasis on minor characters anyway, would give the Minutemen undue weight. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Assistance required
Sorry to bother you, I know you have a lot of experience in music-related articles. I was wondering if you could help me copy-edit the composition section of the "Papa Don't Preach" article, specially the second paragraph, I used the book "Madonna's Drowned Worlds: New Approaches to Her Cultural Transformations" as a source, however the reviewer said that another source is needed to ensure that it's well-written and authoritative. Im sure you know that there aren't much available information about the composition of any song, unless it is a signature song or really relevant, not to mention that this song is from 1986. I really hope you can help with this, thanks in advance. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem, just let me know when you have the time. Thanks again. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for March 2009
SoxBot II (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I.R.S. Records Presents: The Cutting Edge
Why can’t A&M Records website be used as cite for a show sponsored by I.R.S. records which was their subsidiary? On a more general note that show does predate 120 Minutes and was an Alternative Rock television show and thus should have a place in the article. If these cites are not good enough I would like some help in finding better ones. Edkollin (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking time to respond. In my view it is irrelevant as far as article worthiness is concerned that the show was an I.R.S. vehicle. 120 minutes which is in the article was not aired for humanitarian purposes. I agree you do try to avoid items put up for publicity purposes. Try is the operative word. I will investigate further but frankly doubt I will find “third party” sourced articles from that period describing the show as an alternative rock show because the term was just coming into use then. Outside of the human error that can occur anywhere I have no reason to think the information s presented by the source is incorrect. It is pretty straightforward type of material. Edkollin (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mike Watt
Hello. I noticed you've edited many music entries in the past, including Mike Watt. VBS.tv debuted a video interview with Watt this week. You can watch it by adding the extension "/video.php?id=20293466001" to VBS.tv. Please let me know if you think this meets Wikipedia standards for an outgoing link. Thanks! CorridorX (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude!
Turns out that Led Zep-owning editor who also packed in oodles of bad faith to boot is part of a major sockfarm! Maybe the Led Zeppelin articles can finally improve... indopug (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Led Zeppelin discography for now, maybe "Stairway" a little later. indopug (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Queen album articles are much worse than the Beatles and Zeppelin ones. *sigh*
 * Anyway, when are you going to come back to regular editing levels? Any major projects in the pipeline? I'm trying to focus myself to begin work on "Stairway" in the next couple of days... indopug (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. I'll be free for the next week so I think I can get a lot of editing done. Then again, I'll probably drop off the radar after that, so I'll stick to mindless cleanup of my favourite band of the moment. indopug (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be awesome if you could work on Opera. Anyway, do you know what the most authoritative biography on Queen is? By the way, my interest in "Stairway" dipped when I realised that what was going to be my primary source, isn't very reliable. indopug (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Marigold
Hi, I left a note on the discussion page for Marigold (song). Not sure how to go about getting a consensus, do you want to discuss the article further? I'm fairly new but I think this one deserves some discussion and I don't want to step on any toes.

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Showing my age again
. How is all anyway. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, where are my tunes? You owe me 2. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Nirvana/archive1
See Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-04/Dispatches. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not being able to respond sooner. Basically, we decided to change the criteria to exclude content forks or lists that could realisticly be merged into another page. This was because we had so many very short FLs and some of us felt they were affecting the overall quality of the process. So, now most of these musician awards lists now fail the newly implemented 3b criterion. -- Scorpion 0422  01:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Kirby
Hey there. In case you weren't aware, I nominated Jack Kirby for "Good Article" despite some issues we knew it had; we figured we'd take a chance and see if we're able to fix it up on the go. The review has just started, and the reviewer has identified a number of trouble spots in need of work. We may not be able to fix it up enough to get it to GA at this time, but I think this would be a great opportunity to put some work into improving the article in general. See the reviewer's comments and fix anything you can, or just have a look at the article and work on anything you can identify yourself. Thanks, and thanks for what you've already done on this one. :) BOZ (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
Random question to a random person, but, how do you cite magazine sources? -- The Guy complain edits 01:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I figured it out. Thanks anyways. -- The Guy  complain edits 03:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Iceland
Man that is an awesome place. If you ever get the chance to go, I can highly recommend it! Didn't meet Sigur Ros, but did meet someone who worked with them and who owns one of the main recording studios on Iceland - I forget his name, but it did have a lot of esses in it! Well just another day to go and I've caught up on my watchlist. Any news on the second job front? --JD554 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll have a look in the next day or two. --JD554 (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the infobox is worth keeping as it still summarises Shaw's release which was probably better known than The Smiths' original - although I'm not sure it's an alt-rock release, maybe pop? But I agree there probably is a bit too much detail in the prose. --JD554 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I'll have to hunt it down, it's a long long time since I saw that. --JD554 (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No sooner said than done ... I was in the process of adding it anyway ;-) --JD554 (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It does seem bizarrely soon after his last album. I'm surprised more bands/singers don't release b-side compilations with singles becoming less and less popular. --JD554 (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I might have a go at that. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC) They do, but like the singles themselves, they're pretty poor. --JD554 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Be Here Now
Be Here Now is a rock album, sir. Its not enough to define it by a period-specific term that is no longer in use, especially one that denotes "pop." I think any musician, composer, or person with ears would agree that it is a rock and roll album by a rock and roll band, who's first song on their first album is called "Rock N Roll Star" Hrhadam (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Britpop" very much appears to be still in use. --JD554 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only in reference to bands like Seahorses and Pulp, really, based on your search, or incorrectly attributed to Keane. I guess this is where Wikipedia comes down to opinion -- and pardon me mate but I don't care anymore.  Hrhadam (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

joy
Tickets bought for MBV, JAMC etc and etc at ATP in Bristol next december! Hundreds of ageing hipsters expected to clog up Cork airport officials warned yesterday. Ceoil (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta; though I'd just be too embarrassed to go into a shop and buy a book with a cover like that... Anyway thanks. Its taken me 20 odd years to get Devo; ah I get it now. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Massive Attack talk page
I have reverted your unexplained vandalism to the above talk page Jezhotwells (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Rip Rig and Panic
Why are you removing project banners? If you have issues, please discuss at article talk page and leave edit summaries. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Head
Likewise at Head. If you have issues, use the talk page, if you make edits leave an edit summary. Thanks Jezhotwells (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy Black Channel
I've replied on my talk page.

As an aside, what do you make of the media comments on the FAC review page? Since you're a music expert I would appreciate some comments there about the websites questioned, although I still cannot believe they wanted "reliable" sources for Drowned in Sound of all publications. I think I've fulfilled the criteria but some of the editors who have no previous experience of music sources are only going based on Ealdgyth's comments (although he did say he leant "slightly reliable".) Rafablu88 (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Fantasy Black Channel?
C'mon mate, you know the drill regarding WP:3RR, it won't be long before an admin steps in and blocks one or both of you. Why don't you see if you and Rafablu88 can come to some agreement on the talk page? --JD554 (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for May 2009
SoxBot (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fire Engines
Whaat?. I dont get it, its news to me that Heaven 17 were...good. Surely not. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer)
Hello, neutrality concerns over the criminal conviction of Chris Brown have been raised on the talk page. Since you have been previously involved in the discussion, will you answer the request for comment? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah
I'm editing again, probably gonna be pretty on-and-off. I'm gonna be away from home during the next week for a wedding, plus I'm busy with summer AP homework, but once I've gotten all that done by the start of July I can edit with a bit more regularity and frequency for a while. I'd like to finally finish off "Loser" and OK Computer. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Silent Alarm
Good job. Tweaked a couple things and will reply to the FAC comments soon. Rafablu88 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey
I have offered to review Big Star (band) for GA but am not hugely experienced at band articles..so any further input or thoughts much welcomed - be nice to see this one buffed up as an intriguing subject... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting
Honestly You keep on reverting away release histories and reverting information in infoboxes in contravention of WP:ALBUM and Template:Infobox Album and I keep on reverting it back. This is stupid. If you want these guidelines to be changed, then have them changed. I won't care. I just want the guidelines to be followed once they are made. I'm also not aware of any preference on Wikipedia opposing succession boxes in album articles; if such a thing exists, please direct me to it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Response "My main concern when editing an article is how well it adheres to the Featured Article/Good Article criteria and general editing policies." etc. That is completely proper and makes sense. If you have some overriding policy or guideline that contradicts a guideline from (e.g.) WP:ALBUM, you should ignore the more particular rule and furthermore inform them that they're asking editors to make decisions that contradict a wider policy. If you have some reason why succession boxes shouldn't appear in an article on an album or the language of it should be omitted from the infobox, then I will support your efforts to rid articles of these features. If not, I don't understand why you want to get rid of them other than not liking them. You mention that "the album guidelines don't mention [l]isting a language in the infobox." Right - since that text is not within the tag on Template:Infobox Album. I have no idea why you that that "given we are discussing music albums and not spoken word recordings, the language sung is irrelevant" anymore than the language of a (e.g.) a spoken-word film as well as a musical are both mentioned in their infoboxes. Why is it the language that someone is speaking is relevant, but not when that person uses his voice in a rhythmic manner with pitch. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Language and such Regarding succession boxes, I guess that they are somehow deprecated and it appears that they are intended for persons holding office, but that is not necessarily the case. I honestly don't care either way, but if there is no good reason to delete something, the status quo should remain. Your argument about noting an album's language is really appropriate for Template talk:Infobox Album and if you make it there, you might get consensus. As such, that field still exists and it is still desirable to note this information. As long as such is the case, I'm going to keep on inserting this relevant information. (As an aside, your anecdote is about Italy, not Israel; Israelis generally know English.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Smells Like Teen Spirit
About the "sortable" code I added, I added it per Record charts. A FA must adhere to policies, right? I am taking the liberty to revert your edit. Suede67 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
Hi WesleyDodds, please see this discussion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

♫ Food, food, glorious food ♫
"Not too impressed with Yorkshire pudding"!!?? :( Wars have been fought for less! Maybe you should try ... urgh, I can barely bring myself to say it ... Lancashire hotpot (I feel unclean). But if you want to persevere with food from God's Own County, then parkin is a very nice twist on ginger cake, or you could try Yorkshire curt tart (drain the liquid from cottage cheese as a reasonable alternative to curd cheese). Moving further out from Yorkshire, you could always try fish and chips, there are some recipes about but they're always better from a proper "chippy" of course. For more inspiration, the BBC's food website is easily the best I've come across. --JD554 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not too bad. Seems to be a bit of a cross between The Wedding Present and early Waterboys. --JD554 (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Tin Machine was a pretty dire period of Bowie's history, I don't even have it in my watchlist. With just a very few exceptions the mid-80s to the mid-90s wasn't a good period for Bowie. A music career that spanned from 1964 to 2004: out of that maybe only 1971 to 1983 is when he was really good, and probably a couple of years less for being at the cutting edge. Still, I bet a lot of musicians would kill for 10 or 12 years like that. But while the Berlin trilogy may be his peak for me, Tin Machine is definitely the nadir. --JD554 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh tricky one. The best I've been able to come up with (and it's not a lot) is a 2004 article in The Stereo Times which describes MFSL as "a company that remasters music". I've not come across this magazine before, but looking at the "Editorial Masthead" here, it looks like it might be a self-published source. Another self-published source I've found is SoundStage!, a monthly magazine which has been going since 1995, so might be a slightly better bet. They specifically describe Reckoning as a remaster in this review of the MFSL version. MSFL on the history page of their website describe themselves as using "proprietary mastering techniques" but not specifically on Reckoning. I'll keep searching, but I'm not holding out much hope for a specific statement by a definite reliable source. --JD554 (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, we all know you're a dick anyay! ;-) ... joke!! ... Anyway, I still think it's a fundamental fact about an album that needs to be provided in the album's article. I don't agree that it's self-evident that any track is on an album, if the person reading the article doesn't have the album. Talking about making a dick of oneself, I've just nominated this very popular image and a number of others for deletion at commons! This could be a bumpy ride... --JD554 (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, I'll have a look today. --JD554 (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it, I was just removing it when I got an edit conflict! I was going to mention the "Come as You Are" talk page that not even Azerrad felt it was worth mentioning the line in a New York Times article which mentions the topic of "Adam's Song". --JD554 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally got the charts done at Nevermind. Sorry for taking so long, --JD554 (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From the European angle, my impression is that it brought a rockier sound to alt-rock despite it being a softer sound than their previous stuff and it's bringing grunge into the mainstream. I'll see if I can dig anything up that backs this up. --JD554 (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. And who the heck is Damian Ramsey? I'm not sure he's even a notable person after having a search about. --JD554 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I only picked up on it when User:Das Ansehnlisch started page moving to the wrong title. Got into a bit of a mess with it yesterday, but hopefully all sorted now. --JD554 (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I could always upload this one, it's got the right licence --JD554 (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Works looks to be a very good one, but being a 3 disc boxset is probably a bit pricey. If you can still find a copy, a cheaper decent alternative would the CD only version of More Songs to Learn and Sing. I've sent you an email though. --JD554 (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, unfortunately Allmusic doesn't have them either. This billboard website redesign is a real pain. PS, sent you an email. --JD554 (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye we got it back just today, but I don't think this is an official one anyway. Spandau? Hmm, I'd say very good in their genre (at least the earlier stuff), but I'm not a huge fan of their later stuff or New Romantics in general. As far as Bowie acolytes go, this one is far superiour. --JD554 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Gold" would never have been better Bond theme than these. --JD554 (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day. --JD554 (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ultravox aren't bad. I don't have anything by them (apart from on the odd compilation) but they've done some good stuff. "Vienna" was actually kept of the number one spot over here by this abomination. --JD554 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. A mid-week break in a small town (Eyemouth) just north of the Scottish border. A blissful time for walking and relaxing. --JD554 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't deliberate I'll have you know! :) After the Bowie's I needed one that would be easier and I happen to notice the Sisters' discog is still on the band page so thought I might get a DYK out of it too. --JD554 (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For thy listening pleasure --JD554 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, a heads up on what going to be half-decent would useful. The Fountain gets released today, seems to have some very mixed reviews: the broadsheets seem generally in favour, while the music magazines are mostly against. No matter, I'll still get it, and probably enjoy it too. --JD554 (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Things are going to be hectic at work for me for probably the next 6 weeks. Someone is going off ill and I'm acting up to their job (more stress, but more money too). Anyway, I'll probably only be dipping in a little during the week and may only get to do any serious editing at weekends with the odd evening thrown in. In the meantime I'll be listening to The Fountain, it's not bad, I'd put it up there with Evergreen from their post-reformation period. I also got In This Light and On This Evening, it's very heavy on the synths and will probably take a few listens through to get used to it. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This song features heavily on my playlist at the moment --JD554 (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Content removal at Pink's
Unsourced information should only be deleted on sight in biographies of living persons. Elsewhere it should be tagged, giving others the chance to improve it. It's not up to you to unilaterally decide what's important and what's not; notability standards apply to articles, not to content. If someone thought it was worthy of inclusion, took the time to add it, and if it doesn't violate our policies, then it deserves a shot. Furthermore, most of the entries in that section are sources: they are directly citing tv episodes, video games, and films. Inline citations are not required by Wikipedia's standards. If you would like to request some, you can use the tag.

I'm no fan of trivia sections by any means (and none of the content there was added by me) but this is a wiki and it's important to have some respect for the contributions of others, no matter how trite they seem. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for June 2009
SoxBot (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Rockbackpages
Hi Wesley, I remember you offering me information from Rocksbackpages before and I was hoping to use some information for the work I've done on Debut. Would you be able to find any information from the site for me? Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, Bjork's website is very zealous towards it's fanbase and is littered with information (with citations!). If i can find anything about the production that'd be good as so far my production section on the album is just "blah blah blah blah then she met the producer and recorded the album the end". So better information about the reviews could be good too as most of mine are just sampled from cduniverse with lame bits like "oh it's magical" and no real information on why they think that. Preferably from American sources but anything should be good. Take your time, no rush. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Avant-progressive rock
I agree with your prodding of this article, which is barely referenced, and not a widely-used term. However, as you may have noticed, Bruce1ee has deprodded, and given his reasons on the talk page. I responded to him there, but would appreciate hearing your thoughts, as well. Do you have any intention of taking this to AfD? I think something needs to be done, especially given the fact that this article is more of a list than anything else, with no justification for most of the bands listed. I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Your recent edit to OK Computer – summarized as "Cleanup" – made unexplained reversions to valid edits. For example, your edit reverted my addition of the  template to the Special Edition's disc 2 track list in favor of a sloppy, bulleted list of improperly labeled track titles, which additionally removed track times; there is no valid reason I can conceive of for reverting back to such poorly structured information from proper tabular form. You also removed my addition of a  template without actually providing any references; simply removing the word "many" and adding "one of" doesn't change the fact that this claim has absolutely no references. You changed the section "Title and Packaging" back to just "Packaging" despite the section's discussion of the title's origin in addition to its packaging. You removed a Piero Scaruffi review, who is a highly regarded music critic and certainly a reliable source; removing the Rolling Stone review of the Collector's Editions was the only valid part of your revert that I can see.

In addition, you seem bent on preventing Koavf from adding " " to album infoboxes. While not an imperative piece of information, it is indeed accurate and the template's page says nothing of not including it unless it is a foreign language or duel-language album.

I welcome any explanation and precedent for these recent reversions. However, I believe that you have removed appropriate, informative, expansive, and good-faith edits in lieu of historical content and are exhibiting symptoms of ownership. Please be more careful in the future if you have made these changes unintentionally or bring them to the talk pages first if you feel they are dire and necessary reversions of inappropriate editing. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD
Yes, probably in the next day or so. I do not have a lot of free time, either, and I am having a lot of trouble with Wikipedia. Have you heard about any server problems? Over the weekend, pages took forever to load, otherwise I would have done the AfD yesterday. Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 13:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason I cannot list Avant-pop, Avant-progressive rock, Power folk in the same AfD? The reason for deletion is the same for all three: they are not notable or recognized music genres. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't wait for your response. What's done is done. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

About Oh Yeah Belfast
You tagged it for deletion citing "no independent notability". But the center IS notable. Snow Patrol's lead singer Gary Lightbody is one of the people after the idea apart Tim Wheeler of Ash, Radio1's Colin Murray. Also, one of the bands that was featured on the first compilation released is "Cashier No. 9" who spported Snow Patrol on tour this year, in Feb-March. They also played a gig at the exhibition of Snow Patrol photographer Bradley Quinn a few days ago. Doesnt all this make the center notable? What is it that you find a problem with, exactly? Please respond. Suede67 (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, now I noticed you added a "notability" tag on the article. But it does have valid secondary sources now. What is the problem now? Suede67 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it, getting the hang of it. I'll be adding bits and pieces to it (as I have time) and will try to stick to the topic. Please just dont nominate it for deletion. Thanks for your help. Suede67 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Before and allstar Science
Hi ya Wesley. Yes I know it rather stinks, but other then it took forever, that's all I could find about the production, so the only bits I could expand on there was who were these people who worked on their album and who had a relationship to Eno (i.e.: were in Roxy Music, cut an album with him on Cluster, worked with him before, didn't work with him) to expand it out. Otherwise, it's a suck area, but still could squeeze by for a GA....! Maybe! Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whups mis-read you there. I thought you were referring to the production section. And uhh yeah. It's prog city, but thankfully (for my tastes anyways) it doesn't sound like Marillion or anything. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! I appreciate all the help! Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No rush on the Bjork stuff. I'm busy in real life too and have a good amount of GA-nom's that no one is tackling so I'm a bit wiki'd out. Thanks again though! 99.246.7.101 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This needs to stop
Seriously If you think that release histories and the mention of languages in infoboxes should be deleted, that should be amended at the level of WikiProjects or the templates, not at the article level. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums to see if we can get some sort of a consensus on this. --JD554 (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Alternative rock
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Alternative rock/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana discography
Hello Wesley. I'm having a bit of trouble with a user over at Talk:Nirvana discography who wants to use an album cover (the greatest hits album cover) as the infobox image. Can I get your assistance and opinion? Thanks.-5- (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Festival Soy and Alternative rock
Hello, I see you did edits at Festival Soy and are guiding the alternative rock article. I consider your work very useful, but I have the impression you are not European, am I right? In the past you reverted this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternative_rock&diff=274112675&oldid=274099054. There is hardly any Europe in the story, only U.K.. Bands like Motorpsycho and dEUS for instance are headliners on festival like Pukkelpop, A_Campingflight_to_Lowlands_Paradise, Roskilde for a period of about ten years. very well known in Northern Europe (Germany, Scandinavia, Benelux) as well as France, Spain and Italy. What is your impression on these bands in particular for instance? Do you think they are not notable enough for inclusion in the Alt rock article? How can I include a proper section about non-English European countries and acts without being removed? The Mexicans are in and I have never heard of those acts, so there is a weird balance of importance regarded from the pov of a Northern European person. Laufersweden (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Soy
Hi, can you help me find the notabily guide line for Music Festivals? I don't see the problem with the Soy Festival. When is a festival notable enough? 83.87.74.107 (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hand in Glove GA assessment
Hi Wesley, just to let you know that I've conducted a GA review of "Hand in Glove". Give me a shout when you've addressed my concerns. Cheers Cavie78 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Butthole Surfers
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Butthole Surfers/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs, I just inform the first ten or so editors on the list, I have informed the projects. I have reassessed Kurt Cobain if you are interested, I note that you have a number of edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews
Hi Wesley,

We do have a large number of GA reassessmentys to undertake to get all GA artcile more than two years old looked at again. So far we have completed just over three quarters of the task, with the team getting through circa 250 per month in the last two montsj. If we fall behind this the process will take until the end of 2010.

However, I understand your personal concern re Music articles, so I will lay off those personally for a while. Remember that if an article gets delisted, it is not the end of the world. Readers who are not logged in editors do not see the status of an article unless they check the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline of rock music
The Outline of rock music is being constructed as a branch of the Outline of knowledge.

By the time it is done, it will look something like these:


 * Outline of Japan
 * Outline of anarchism
 * Outline of cell biology
 * Outline of robotics
 * Outline of music

The rock article is a prose overview and would become extremely bloated (long) if it tried to include all the list entries that the Outline of rock music will contain.

See the relevant guidelines at WP:OUTLINE and WP:LISTS.

The Transhumanist 01:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for a guide to come and take me by the hand
I have a recent NME issue that celebrates the 30th anniversary ofUnknown Pleasures. I'll use it to source stuff at the temp page. indopug (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol?
Yeah. Fuck Wikipedia, honestly. I love editing the thing, but once you make even one mundane edit you open yourself up to a barrage of insensitive--and equally vociferous--asswipes and bastards. There are a bunch of great people, though, such as yourself. But, I suppose like the rest of the world, the vast majority consists of the former. How are you doing these days, though? NSR 77 T 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to Norway on Monday. Do you think you'd be able to watch over my Featured Articles, if possible? Oh, and by the way; PIXIES TOUR DATES? I think so. NSR 77  T 02:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Flea and Frusciante are the most significant ones, but really all I request is an eye over Blood Sugar Sex Magik, and "Under the Bridge". Anything else would be awesome, thanks. NSR 77  T 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm back in the good 'ole USA (you could probably feel the sarcasm all the way through the internet). Thanks for keeping an eye on everything for me, man! I appreciate it a lot. Now, if only you could copyedit "Give It Away". ;] NSR 77  T 20:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree to disagree
I fully appreciate the sentiments you've expressed at Outline of Iraq, but still do see the need for an organized list, since it differs in format. I'm going to stay out of the discussion from here on in, but just wanted you to acknowledge your last comment and let you know I appreciate the civil way you ahve gone about discussing things. Cheers and happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 11:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll be sure to take you up on that some time soon. Though be forewarned, I edit in a highly contentious area, and for those who do not like sniping, it's not very pleasant. I'll try to make sure its not a high traffic article or one where there is an ongoing battle though. Thanks again.  T i a m u t talk 11:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Kooks
Thanks for the insight and help on The Kooks, will place article on hold then for review, until I've cleaned it up. --RavensFists (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of Alternative rock
Hi - how's it going? Do you need more time? Jezhotwells (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2009
SoxBot (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Take note
I know what you are trying to say, but it doesn't work. Check this again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melter

Until that volume with every character and creator commentaries exists, the comics will have to do. Asgardian (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Cyclops
Thanks for your input. Obviously notability is not based on primary sources. A description based on primary sources of key character events would be sufficient for description, but not enough for notability. I think there are more than enough third party materials to cover notability which either are already in the article or can be added throughout the rewrite process. If you have any additional input, of course feel free to add it into the article. I'm only one person with limited time, so alone it may take me a long, long time to complete the rewrite.Luminum (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would wonder what your advice is on secondary sources, which would largely fall under things such as the OHTTMU, which I think have largely been considered unusable due to their own status as copywritten encyclopedic materials. Third party sources are much clearer and easier to locate to me.  On a separate note, I know you've discussed this before with others, but I disagree in that with proper context, even flashback issues can be used as sufficient descriptors.  An example might be something like, "while Cyclops' lack of control over his optic beams was initially explained as being due to head trauma as a child (cite whatever issue first gives the explanation), later issues revealed his lack of control to be due to a deeply ingrained psychological fear of control in his childhood (cite Astonishing X-Men issue)."  I don't think there's any mystification for an outside reader there.  Are secondary sources necessary for the plot summaries for other forms of literature?  If so, how odd.Luminum (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Either way, I'm not concerned with notability here because I already know that secondary sources and tertiary sources establish notability (generally).  The question I have here is how the objective description of primary sources predisposes to bias.  For example, have the X-Men not moved to San Francisco when they say "Here we are, in San Francisco,"?  While there's no time limit or sense of expediency for articles on Wikipedia, the relatively slow account of secondary sources to analyze the events in the primary sources seems problematic to me as well.  Does it require outside analysis in the following three months after the fact to establish that a character has been shot in the head and killed?Luminum (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarity. It's quite helpful.Luminum (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Riis
Yes, do please rediscover Jacob Riis, and help the article accordingly. For now it is very dodgy, and some way from being "Good". -- Hoary (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! One priority must be to "re-source" anything that's now sourced to Bernstein's odd article, to something in the NYT, or to nowhere in particular. If you can also "re-source" anything that appears to be satisfactorily sourced, that would be welcome: I've lost my trust in the apparently sound citations (see the talk page). Though what's sourced to Pascal's book was done so by me; so if you trust me (and why should you?), you don't have to bother with those particular cites. -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this. First, Riis was, and expressed himself as, profoundly racist. The book you're reading probably says this, and if it doesn't then googling will get authoritative backup. Secondly, Riis wrote a great number of articles, as Allard says and your book probably says too.

Allard's book was excellent for its time but is probably not the best now. Still, even a cursory reading makes it clear that this Wikipedia article is wretched. What's your impression? -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Transformers
Concensus does not excuse poorly sourced information? You saying than that the opinion of three editors against only one deosn't matter? Also, you reverted again without waiting for the result of the discussion. Wikipedia may promote the Be bold rule, but they also state that discussion is needed before large changes are made to an article, which of the rules do you think has more relevance? Again, please wait while the other editors say their peace before reverting again. I will not revert you for a day or so because you have put me in such a position that I will be blocked because of the 3 revert rule if I reverted you again, however I will revert you in a couple of days. After that I am asking you nicely to hold of on your edit until there is a discussion on the structure of the article. Please don't do such large edits all on your own and ignoring the opinion of other editors.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, actualy, you just said it yourself. You want a source? The comics are the source, many articles are sourced not with url links, but with the names of books from which the information was taken, and so if somebody wants to confirm the information they just go and read the specified book, so we will resolve this problem just by citing all of the information with names of the specific issues, if you got a problem with that too then you have got a big job of removing a bunch of content from thousands of Wikipedia articles that are purely cited with the names of books from which the information was taken.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but despite this, they are still used by hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia editors, in tens of thousands of articles since there are no secondary sources... Listen, I am offering a compromise here and trying to resolve this problem. Would you go with this solution? You can even mark the article as not having sufficient references if you wish and the specific section too.LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: R&B punk
Absolutely - go ahead and AFD it. I can only repeat what I said on the article's talk page, but I don't see any valid arguments for this being a cohesive genre at all. --Michig (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination)
As one of the largest contributor to this article, I wanted to let you know that the article is currently up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Iron man's armour
What do you plan to merge? not all of it? I'd perfer to transwiki it off to the marvel database or similar... --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, many of our comic articles consist of "and then he hit him in the face and then he said that he'd hit him in the face and then". Check out the incoherent comments on the deadpool article after I did some copyediting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hum.. let me have a thing about that - I'm a bit pushed for time until the end of sept but can do some hours here and there. Ideally we want a article that is currently terrible but can be made good - so that we can show that it can be done. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL - best of luck trying to get that plot section change to stick... I was thinking, maybe the background section needs to be spilt in sub-sections into story development and character development? something like that ? Johns and people are giving plenty of interviews about both. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine - I have no interest in citing comics, our articles on those sorts of articles should be about the "how was this done and why" not "give me a blow by blow of what happened in the story". No matter how many times you tell people we don't write about this stuff as if it is really happening it never sticks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes yes yes! That's what we want to be aiming for - so if someone comes to read about the blackest night or infinite crisis or whatever, they can get the historical context in which it was published and the real world reasons that X, Y and Z happened. That's far more important that plot summary. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Holy crap - a seminal work like that and it's not a GA? for shame! Let's do that one, I will have a look for some scholarly sources for us to add. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(butting in): see if this helps, gentlemen, and if so please consider supporting something I've been working on. :) BOZ (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

my eyes my eyes!
Fictional history of Superman oh my... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps
Hi Wesley, perhaps you would care to look over the five hundred odd articles in the GA Sweeps worklist, which we aim to have swept by the end of September so that we can then start on all of the articles passed between September 2007 and August 2008. If you let me know which you can fix then I could hold off, but of course another member of Sweeps may start on on them. Jacob Riis and Kurt Cobain have been delisted so no big hurry over those. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of The Cure
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:The Cure/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified a lot of other editors, please don't feel taht you have to be personally responsible for every GA that is being reassessed. If you don't have time to work on them let others do it.  No one is going to die, the worst that can happen is that the article has to be brought back to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Martial artists in DC Comics
I was wondering if you could comment on this discussion. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Fictional history of...
The key seems to be if the article rescue squad see it or tag it, then they rush over, block vote "keep" and then leave the article in the same sorry state it was previously. For example, on the fictional history of the DCU, nobody has presented a single reasonable answer of how they would construct the article without original research, because they cannnot - but hey it will be kept and their job will be done. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I see Fictional History of the Marvel Universe got deleted by an admin who actually read the arguments rather than simply counts the keeps! hopefully the DCU one will go the same way.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hello Wesley, I have a question about the Singles section in the album infobox. Does this section need to be referenced? Thanks in advance.-5- (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we'll I'm having a dispute with an editor at an album article. He has some book that lists single releases and is using it to cite the singles section of the album infobox, which in effect is altering the release dates and which singles were actually released. The problem is I have taken a look at this reference and it appears to be limited in scope to Europe and possibly the US which means it neglects single releases in other countries. Some singles were possibly released earlier in other countries than in Europe or the US and some may have only been released in other areas. I have found all of the singles available at retail websites and also information conforming to the previous single release information at less-reliable websites. Sorry to make you read all of that, I hope it makes sense.-5- (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's how it originally was in the infobox. The problem is that the years don't match up with the release dates in his/her book and the book is missing one of the single releases. I was able to confirm that this song was indeed released as a single because it's available for sale at Amazon.com, and information from other websites seems to suggest it was released in international areas, which appear to be neglected in the book. By the way, the book is The Great Rock Discography published in 1998. Last I checked it was available to read at Google Books.-5- (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I sould say that the article in question is Dirt (album). Again, thanks for the help.-5- (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Intimacy FAC
Any progress? I'm going away on Friday for a bit and would appreciate a resolution. Don't want to leave it hanging in case you object some more when I'm not there to rectify it and they take it off as non-consensus. Rafablu88 14:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's cool. I'll write a note before I leave if need be. Who do you write for? Can I read it anywhere? Just want to check if it's as average as your wiki writing (I joke I joke!). Laters. Rafablu88  12:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Billboard and BPI
Dunno if you've seen this yet, but and  both redesigned recently and the URLs are all changed up for these references, and in the BPI's case it seems that to find the info now requires registration. The Internet Archive doesn't turn up any of the certification subpages from the BPI that were used as citations. So uh, this sucks. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bump in here, happened to see this - the BPI certification database came back online only a couple of days back see here. Billboard's still a pretty massive problem, go here if you have any suggestions/input. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 13:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Walt Disney Company buys Marvel Entertainment
I figured you might be up for a small rant. This just about made me wanna puke. I'm surprised Stan Lee is so happy-go-lucky about it. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  02:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Smells Like Teen Spirit
Stop reverting the article. You are restoring unsourced, and most likely incorrect information. Please discuss what you would like to add on the article talk page, rather than engage in a revert war. Also, remember to use reliable sources for any information you would like to add. If you need any help with editing, feel free to contact me for assistance. Thanks. 124.179.173.61 (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also left you a present on the talk page. :) The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  03:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ProQuest archives newspapers and journals, so its the digial reprint of the newspaper. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Further to this thread at WP:ANI, you're very close to WP:3RR on Smells Like Teen Spirit and have earned yourself a WP:TROUT (especially since the IP editor appears to be correct; see, for example, ). You already know all this, but be careful to stick to the spirit as well as the letter of WP:EW. EyeSerene talk 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch
So what exactly is there to improve in the next two weeks? Everything that you said was rectified. And don't say I didn't write that it would close soon. Rafablu88 17:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, as you can see in the header link. Just tell me what is left to be improved, if anything, as I'm relisting next week. Rafablu88  12:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked them all after you mentioned it. Let me know when you're done. Rafablu88  12:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Batman: Streets of Gotham
To me it seems like your only deleting the plot because Cameron Scott started it. When I looked at Stinkysoxmon's pot it was strange and when I looked at his talk page it was everything Cameron Scott said it could be nothing more. --Schmeater (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunshine Smile
Indeed it is! I heard for the first time in ages yesterday! It's surprisingly undated and still enjoyable, which is something you can't say of a lot of somewhat forgotten British guitar rock bands. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Suede
Hi Wesley, thanks for your contribution to the article above, i noticed you inserted a header, which claims that the article contains peacock terms. Some of the information, i admit was of that nature, i've recently edited the article to make it appear less biased. I've added some citations and changed some words. If there's still anything you think appears to be unencyclopedic, i'll happily make changes. I hope you like the changes.PhilOak (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FM
Interesting - what book is that? I am tied up with something until the end of the month but plan to have a good look for academic references after that for the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

?
What was this 4-word review?? Even Xgau writes more than that. Rafablu88 17:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LMAO. Sums up Goth rock, no? (xcept for Mr 'Playboy' Smith and Miss 'Banshee' Sioux of course) TBH, I never cared for MM much, more of a Sounds man. Rafablu88  22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks much for the Nirvana references. I'll see what I can track down. CAVincent (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

yoda
Just informing that the gender of yoda has always been unknown (in the article) ,Can you revert your change there .Please archive your talk page it seems to be too long ;)good day --Notedgrant (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for August 2009
SoxBot (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Superman
Hoping you could be a 2nd set of eyes regarding other media image edits. -Sharp962 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks! Sharp962 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

Contemporary R&B
I've steadily become more interested in getting this article up to FA, but I'm having trouble finding sources that actually analyze contemporary R&B instead of the entire rhythm and blues genre. Do you have any advice or would you be interested in working on it together? The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  01:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion
Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think, though I'm open to sway
Of all the "Recommended alternative albums", the one that I have loved the most is Hold on Now, Youngster.... Surely the greatest celebration of youth since the early Beatles (or not, but whatever, I've been listening to it for months). Unrelated: this is my favourite song of the moment. indopug (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your favourite of 2009 so far? indopug (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, according to that compilation's article, that came out late-2008 as well. I'll take it that means 2009 was not a very good year for rock music. indopug (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I consider this to be the single most important edit I have ever made. God, what is happening with The Beatles coverage on Wikipedia? indopug (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got any sources on Queen? I think a short, succinct GA can be made of their incredibly awesome first single. indopug (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was awesome! Apparently there is "strong consensus" that GN'R is a heavy metal band. You may be interested in this. indopug (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So The Beatles is FA. . .—indopug (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Control (Janet Jackson album)
oh nooooooooooooooooo. At some point I would love to get all ten of her albums up to FA, however, real life just happens to get in the way...and more frequently the availability of sources. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  10:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Me and Ms. Aubrey in all our (ghetto) fabulousness. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  10:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I finished reworking Control. Whatca think? The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  04:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still finding more info to add. Any comments? The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  09:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Article organization of Nevermind
I notice that you are reverting my changes to the Nevermind article, but you aren't really explaining why except by saying its "unnecessary". I think my changes benefit the article, as I explained in my edit summaries and the article's talk page. If you could visit the talk page and explain why you object, I would appreciate it. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Geoff Travis
Some great music docs here, but CFL F and 'Rough Trade'; ace. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana discography
Hello Wesley. What's going on with the Nirvana discography? Does User:St8tCash have a legitimate concern with how the article is formatted? Or should it be maintained as it was?-5- (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but I don't want to get into an edit war with this user. I don't care either way how it is formatted, I was just trying to maintain the article. Is formatting it like Pearl Jam discography out of the question? I prefer this format myself, but if consensus is the other way I can go with that. I know, however, if I revert the user's edit again he's just going to revert my edit.-5- (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I violated it too.-5- (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it be safer to go through dispute resolution? I think I feel a little more comfortable with that.-5- (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts
By all means, go for it. Another set of eyes on the prose would be good. But I'm watching you! If there's anything you see but don't feel up to changing yourself, let me know. Drewcifer (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I guess that's our cross to bear. Drewcifer (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I seem to be going chronologically backwards... so yeah, might take me a while. I'm onto With Teeth at the moment. Drewcifer (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any XXX sources?
And by that I mean, do you have any books or mags on Dirty? RB88 (T) 18:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Browne one is easy to get I think. Was the other one the Foege one? If so, which one is the more readable/concise? Cos I don't fancy a trip to the other side of London to find out Foege writes like a fanboy. Depressing fact: After using Ranaldo part-time, The Cribs have now decided to ruin Johnny Marr's career full-time. RIP John. RB88 (T) 22:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alice Cooper and KISS, glam rock?
Neither of these artists were glam rock. Thier images were more along the lines of shock rock like Arthur Brown. When you have the chance can you please go to the heavy metal discussion page so we can discuss this topic? Thanks. Rockgenre (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but I had sources from Rolling Stone that called GNR metal, but they were removed(and BTW what's your opinion of GNR's genre?). Besides the image KISS and Cooper had were darker, rougher than that of glam rock acts. Alice was hanging himself while Marc Bolan was looking pretty. Shock rock is a better term to use when describing thier images. Rockgenre (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't see these two acts as glam rock. They were not all glitter and smiles. And I'm glad someone else agrees that GNR are metal. I was using legit sources from Rolling Stone to prove thier genre. If you have the time can you go to the GNR discussion page and support that they are a metal band? We need to get a majority in favor of this. Thanks.Rockgenre (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

GNR?
You never got back to me on the GNR thing. Are you going to go to their discussion page and state their arguement for them being metal? If you can't that's fine, but it would be helpful because we still need a majority for them being metal. I used to sources from Rolling Stone's website that mentioned them being metal, but the majority kept removing them. They were even in the VH1 Doc Heavy: the Story of Metal. Please get back to me when you can. Thanks. Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Wes, are you ever going to get back to me on the GNR being metal thing here. If you can that would be great. Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 01:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wes for finally defending GNR's metal case. Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 18:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Stipe
Hi. I happened to look at this article today after seeing Stipe on an odd little public television show called Spain On the Road Again with Gwyneth Paltrow and wondered how old Stipe was. I discovered what is basically a butchered mess. I looked through the history and talk page and saw that you had straightened the article out at the end of June but some IP came through and cut major parts of the article out, along with the sources, but left parts of quotes and text in the wake with no attribution or even indication that they were quotes (about 3000 kb worth). I obviously have little music artist expertise (I keep Amy Winehouse on my watchlist due to WP:BLP problems, not for a love of her music) and with the amount of time and change that has happened in the interim, I'm thinking this is beyond my scope. I wondered if you might be persuaded to go back and try to fix the article back to its former shape? I don't think it is possible to just revert now, but it is a mess. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Wesley
Hello Wesley. I think I'm going to take a break from Wikipedia for a while. Can you look at the Pearl Jam and Soundgarden articles every now and then to see if everything is okay? Thanks for your help.-5- (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I get any enjoyment out of editing any more. There's too much stress involved for something that should just be a hobby. I also don't like the feeling of having ownership over articles. With that comes the edit wars and disputes, and I don't want to do that any more. I think I've brought the articles that I've worked on up to a pretty good standard over the last three years, but now there's a chance to get some new people involved. I was thinking about giving it up within the next year, but now seems like a good time. I want to focus on my real life now.-5- (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Grunge
There was no reason to have removed Blue Cheer. They were an influence on the movement. If we were going to keep it just "heavy metal as a whole" then we would have to remove Sabbath and Zep as well and that wouldn't make any sense. Should we move this conversation to the grunge talk page? Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so long to back, I've been busy. First off the Grunge page is not nearly as long as the heavy metal page and deciding whether one band is more important than another to a genre's development is debatable. Kiss, Zep, Sabbath all have been mentioned on the grunge page. Blue Cheer were covered by two major grunge bands and have been noted for the "proto-grunge" sound. Also, I feel your opinion on album reviews is a little biased. I don't see why we can't include them. And -5- seemed to have no problem with them getting a nod on the page so isn't that a majority for them? Write back when you can, thanks. -Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 20:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Album reviews in The Beatles
(same message to WesleyDodds and Indopug) Hi. If you have a moment to glance at The Beatles I'd value your thoughts on how the album descriptions are looking (and anything else for that matter). To do the albums justice with more than a passing mention, I've quoted reviewers and and biographers to build up at least some picture of what each ablum's like. It's now suggested on the talk page that there may now be too much detail in these quotes on albums. Please comment if possible in the discussion. Thanks, PL290 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fiction and notability comments
I was relieved to find your view in the RfC, since you raised issues that have been troubling me:.

When new to Wiki, I was very firmly slapped down for giving an example of a particular actor's live performance that reaffirmed an existing article statement. This was an event I had seen live. The statement was uncontroversial, yet it had to go. Now years and thousands of edits later, I am uneasy and puzzled why I should be allowed to create a plot summary from whole cloth. It is true that I am a professional editor and writer — does that mean somehow that the quality of the summary is a factor?

I've been working on summaries for a series that has gone through reprints, been well-reviewed over decades. And I've done my homework. I've contacted the reviewers, and they've given me material. I bought the sole reference available on the subject. What really makes me uneasy ... The bio author of that sole reference was in contact with the late author's wife. That bio author apparently was being helped by the new publisher (who also published his book). In this bio reference are a number of statements that we would call in Wikipedia original research. Pasteurized, not particularly professionally written, original research. What I saw on stage was objective: The actor physically performed an action. Which is more reliable?

Supposing we ban all Wikipedia editors' "original research plot summary"? And ban published sources that aren't working to any higher standard? There will be very few plot summaries. You said "The emphasis is on who made it, when it was made, how much money it made, and what people thought of it."

An underlying problem is that art criticism is never very objective. Does Wikipedia make an exception for art criticism? In some sense, how can we avoid it? Which is the best of Leonardo da Vinci's paintings? Which represents him at the peak of his technique? All we have is the opinion of one art critic after another. On the other hand, if I don't know da Vinci, where would I go but an encyclopedia to get the most unbiased opinion?

Nobody's stomped on my plot summaries much. So those summaries can't be too far off some ill-defined Wiki community standard. But where is my justification for changing someone else's grammar school essay material? Yours, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Stipe revisited
I have to apologize. I should have dropped you a note that someone had apparently seen my note to you and reverted the article back to an earlier good version. However, so you know, this was the way the article appeared when I left the previously message. It seems to have been greatly fixed by the reversion. I guess I thought you'd been notified. I'm sorry!! It is fine now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

New Beatles discography
Hi, Wesley. Ok, say I do as you say, and take out all the track listings, de-colorise all the tables, and even put both Yellow Submarine Songtrack and Let It Be... Naked albums with the compilation albums instead of the srudio ones. Would you support this? It would be a lot better than what we already have, which is an entire mess. Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Britpop
I just noticed you removed my edited on the britpop because you thought the Small Faces didn't influence any Britpop artists, which is false, both Oasis and Blur list the group as an influence there is no reason why they shouldn't be on that page.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 16:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey thanks, I've already boosted the Debut article to GA status, but I noticed on that rocksbackpages site there are some articles from album reviews and notes about the album The Slider by T.Rex. If you could get any information for those ones it would be greatly appreciated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Me again.
Welsey, deciding which bands were more important to a genre's development or an influence on an artist is debatable. For instance Kiss are mentioned on the grunge page and I feel they share nothing in common with grunge, but they were an influence on some grunge bands as were Blue Cheer. If they can get mentioned then their is no reason for them not to be included. The same can be said with the Small Faces on Britpop. And the reason why you removed those two bands from their respected pages was because you thought they didn't influence any of those bands which is FALSE. Your arguements don't hold up. Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 23:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Every time
There's so much pent-up tension. If only you were a girl... RB88 (T) 10:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have the chance, have a look at these and  and add them to the reviews list. Also a few quotes for me to use would be nice. Cheers. RB88 (T) 11:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. I found some more myself. The NME one would be great. Maybe to replace one of the lesser known ones. Not that fussed about the Musician one. There's a nice historical spread. RB88 (T) 15:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jude
Regarding the official credit thing... There are many cases where we show the official info rather than assertions for which we have good sources. So, for example, "The Ballad of John and Yoko" is a Beatle single even though George and Ringo didn't participate. Changing the way songwriting credits appear in infoboxes is a can of worms that should not be opened. The infobox is for a summary and is typically not controversial. Writer credits, while pretty striaghtforward for "Hey Jude", are controversial in many other cases. The article can include the other evidence and cover it in the detail it requires. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First, let's keep our conversation here unless we involve a larger group. That makes it easier to read prior comments rather than switching from your page to mine and back again.


 * What's your goal here? Are you trying to change the convention, and "Hey Jude" is just the first step? If so, why?


 * My concern is that authorship is not a simple issue. For the L/M catalog, we usually don't have airtight evidence about who wrote what. Meanwhile, there is clear authoritative evidence (with rare exceptions) about the legal credits. For "Hey Jude", we have statements by John and Paul that it was Paul's song, but we also have evidence that they were still meeting for songwriting sessions, and we have bootleg recordings where Lennon is making suggestions, etc., and in the end, the legal credit was shared. That sort of thing will add another battleground to the infobox and there will be endless churn. Sloppy editors will change infoboxes without supporting the change with prose in the article, and probably without sources, too. (Genre churn is a good example of what will happen.) That hurts the encyclopedia; it distracts editors from more productive work and confuses readers who see articles flip-flopping.


 * I am convinced that the infobox should always show the legal credit and the more complicated question of who actually wrote what should be covered in the body of the article. I don't see how changing that helps the article in any significant way, and there is a significant downside. Keep the infobox simple, and leave the controversial stuff for the body of the article. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't even respect my simple request to keep the conversation in one place...


 * To the heart of the matter, convention on Beatle articles is to list L/M, and it should stay that way. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The legal credit for "Hey Jude" is Lennon/McCartney which must be shown that way in the infobox. Sony/ATV Music clearly states Lennon/McCartney credit for the song, as THEY own the song of course, at their official web site at. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you complaining about this song and not "Yesterday (song)" which is also a L/M song which McCartney mainly wrote? Please do not screw up the "Yesterday" article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Infobox data on songs should follow the same standards as every other article about songs. "Hey Jude" is no exception. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please shift discussion to the "Hey Jude" talk page. I will give my reply there. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Trans-Europe Express
Hey Wesley, I'm having a bit of trouble with an editor at the article I re-wrote for Trans-Europe Express (album) who argues allmusic to be a poor source and is adding all sort of citations to pages without page numbers and unlikely sources. Could you help toss in your two cents on the subject? Because I could be wrong the one here for all I know. :) Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What'd I Say
It is a critics list. Rolling Stone is perhaps the most notable publication about rock and roll. They rated the song the 10th of the 500 best songs ever. That is inherently notable and should be in the lead. I don't get your issue here. Stop reverting. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping
What it says above. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay
Hello! I was wondering what else do you belive must be done to get this article to FA status. Is there anything that is missing?-- Coldplay   Expert  18:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nirvana discography
I would first like to address your grievance with regards to the abbreviation of "United States". According to Manual of Style (abbreviations) both "US" and "U.S." are acceptable. I changed the abbreviations on the article to match the abbreviations for other countries that don't have periods (UK, CAN, JPN, etc.). I also removed a redundant reference (with a dead link). Since I think these are reasonable changes I am going to edit the page again.

Some of the edits I made (which you later reverted) you have reinstated, such as the em dashes and the inaccuracy about the gold certification for a video album. If you have objections to the format for the notes, I'll let them be.

Finally, you don't own the article, and I wasn't being rude by editing, as you accused me of being. Why are you so hostile to my edits? Why did you revert all of them without even taking a look at what I did? – Zntrip 04:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason you are reverting all my edits? I did more that just change the abbreviations. Did you even read what I wrote to you? Are you even going to respond to what I have said? – Zntrip 19:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)