User talk:WesleyDodds/Archive 16

Carpet Crawlers
Hello Wesley! I'm not super crazy about Genesis but I could try and help. I recently picked up the new Eno biopic that came out On Some Faraway Beach so I could try to contribute some information to what Eno was actually doing on some of those Genesis records. I did find the unfortunate news that after Phil Collins saw Eno working outside Roxy Music and making other musicians do most of the work, it influenced Collins to make his terrible solo career. Blah! Anyways, if you working on any of the albums Eno worked on, I can try to dig up some info from my book. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Pining for the pork...
...of the porcupine

"Ripeness" on Porcupine is damned fine, should have been a single IM(ns)HO. The grey album has some good tunes, but they've been over-produced, they need more guts and to be more raw ... but it was a logical progression after Ocean Rain. --JD554 (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a thing. The only JD bios I have is Touching from a Distance (which is understandably biased) and a few magazine retrospectives. It's something for which I should make amends. Any suggestions? --JD554 (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You know...
That's the case with that album. Instrumentally it's probably the best thing I've ever heard, the best post-rock record ever. Shame Kele had his head up his arse half the time. When message hits music though, i.e. Where Is Home?, Hunting for Witches, I Still Remember, it's unstoppable.

I've been on and off as well for a while now. Way too busy with life, although if and when I get inspired/bored I try to do a few bits. You have any projects you'd like to get going? I could get a few books and stuff to help when I can. RB88 (T) 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * More of a Paul Simon person I'm afraid. Although have been trying to get more Gabriel, mostly political stuff. What do you have in mind? Also what should I get from the discography to weave me in? RB88 (T) 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your up
In case you didn't notice. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sleep in the day before and the day after instead so. Looking forward to all the Manc bourough debates? Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Joy Division 'Gray'
Thanks for that, I thought it could be a spelling mistake, with an American user 'correcting' British spelling. Bevo74 (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana FA review
nominated Nirvana (band) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment request
Please assist I've posted for help asking someone to assess Magnapop on a couple of occasions: 1, 2, and a lot has changed since you rated it "start" two years ago. I'd like to know if it's B-class (a rating that I gave it) and see if you think it could be promoted to Good anytime soon. Thanks for your input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Joy Division
Hi Wesley, just a note to say I really enjoyed reading Joy Division, and congrats on making it to the front page! SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Things are tying to delete the Manc lads files. Not discussed in the articles is the reason given. Dodds do you care enough to discuss? Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments/questions on my talk page:

1. I tried my best to match what had already been done. I can assure you it won't happen again.

2. I’ll start by saying that I don’t agree with your assertions that “much of what is known about Joy Division only really came to light starting in the 1990s” and “later works like Touching from a Distance and so forth are relied on more”. Although Deborah Curtis does indeed provide some details about Ian, I think it’s quite safe to say that there isn’t anything about the band in this article that I didn’t already know 25 years ago.

Johnson thanks “fans from Britain, The United States, and Europe who have, over the past six years, saved every scrap of information they could find about Joy Division” and a long list of “music professionals in Manchester and London” including only a few names I recognize: “Steve Brotherdale of The Earwigs”, “Dave Pils”, “Alan Wise”, “Malcolm Whitehead at IKON FCL”, “Richard Boon at New Hormones”, “Martin Hannett and Susanna [sic] O’Hara; Tony Wilson and Leslie at Factory Communications Ltd; those of the band and their management who assisted with corrections and suggestions”. I don’t know how West went about his work, but he is a music biographer having written books about OMD, Iggy Pop, Siouxisie and the Banshees, The Velvet Underground & Lou Reed, Duran Duran, The Smiths, Queen, etc. I got Johnson and West for around $10 each, but I thought I saw that you can still pick them up on-line in the neighborhood of $15 to $20 (used). As they say, you can lead a horse to water…

3. In a run-on sentence after mentioning that “Pete Shelly of the Buzzcocks was interested enough in the band’s cause to suggest they use one of his pet band names ‘Stiff Kittens’”, West writes: “…and the band even found themselves getting entirely unexpected national press exposure in Paul Morley’s New Musical Express review of the gig...” After mentioning Morley’s review in NME, Middles writes: “…Warsaw would achieve two national reviews, Ian Wood’s slightly less enthusiastic appraisal appearing in Sounds.” Johnson: “If Morley was surprisingly prophetic and pleased by Warsaw, others (who probably made up most of the audience) went away less than enchanted. An example of this consensus opinion of Warsaw’s debut came with Ian Wood’s review in Sounds... (Wood’s review is then quoted and he clearly was not impressed.)

I have noticed that you, like the other primary author of the article, have shrugged off the differing opinions of Morley and Wood as merely “unnecessary detail”. The existence of contrasting reviews give the reader some indication of how good (or bad) Warsaw/early Joy Division was, particularly when one sees that they were the shit 18 months later. As is, this article does a disservice to those who wish to know more about the band in that it completely fails to elaborate on how they started essentially as a group of kids without any musical knowledge or training then grew to become one of the most influential bands in rock history.

As you have already done, remove what you want. The article is certainly adequate for the newcomer or Internet-era fan who has long missed this train and can never experience them in context of the times. The intricacies are likely lost on them anyway. Cheers! Easterhouse (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on Easterhouse on the last point, Warsaw's transition was incredible, they evolved from fourth division hackneyed 2nd generation punks to "the shit" in an amazingly short period of time. Julian Cope's Head On is strong on that point, though I no longer have a copy to hand, and I wont buy one, as I hope he starves to death. Ceoil (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, youtube's a funny beast. In the old days one would bemoan the fact that sometimes one's favourite songs lacked a video so as you wouldn't see it on MTV. Now folks just make them up :) - so my favourite Joy Division song has a vid (cue warm inner glow, helped along by a drop of red on this freezing night...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the top rated cmt for the vid says "fukcing﻿ great song". Ceoil (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on photo
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Worst.album.ever.
Young man, if I add the files will you do the honours and add sufficient bullshit to keep robots off my back. I'd do it mysel, but, aaaaaaaaa....I'm 83 and my fingers are fucked. Ceoil (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kudos on Interpol. I laughed. It was all downhill for them after they lost the cute nazi bass player. Bands rarely recover from that kind of thing. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

John Frusciante
Sure!! I will be happy to help if needed. You have plenty of experience, though :) That's the downside of editing biographies of living persons.. they keep doing new things, too! Anytime I can help, don't hold back. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well let me know what you'd like to see done, too... here's a fraction of mine
I know what you mean about not having the.. "umph" to write articles on your own. I always worry since I never learned about computers in school (a bit too old for that, and misplaced a decade somewhere, I think!), so I hear you. I've been spending 50% of my time uploading photos of musicians to Creative Commons for the articles. The other 50% I edit about a dozen articles s l o w l y it seems, but I suppose every bit helps. Heads up? Certainly! The other articles I edit-- and would love it if you want to join me include: Derek Trucks, and I just started tne stub for his vocalist, Mike Mattison (really, all the members of The Derek Trucks Band - the band article sucks and was planned poorly. Outside Derek Trucks, the others include Rory Gallagher and his discography, all three of the Dixie Chicks and their band page, Mick Taylor, Keith Moon (who I knew briefly for a glorious 3-4 days), Jaco Pastorius, etc. I do play guitar, my mom was a multi-instrumentalist, so I tend to focus on the Rock, Alternative rock, and Blues rock artists, and specialize on slide guitarists. I love Peter Gabriel but that article was so f*cked up last I looked, it was plain scary, you know? Same for a bunch more. Go figure! Oh, and if you liked Thin Lizzy there's a lot of info for their best album (IMHO) if you're interested. I'm not focused right now, cause I know there's a lot more I wouldn't mind working upon!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Joy Division edit war
Seems like we are getting into an edit war and it's partly my fault. Could you take a look at it? I'm going to stop reverting the "Location" field but I'm not quite sure how to handle this. The other user doesn't have a username but keeps making anonymous IP edits from similar IP's. So posting to their talk page probably won't help. Should I mention it to an admin? How do I determine which admin to talk to? - Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You could go to any admin you're acquainted with and ask to have the page semi-protected; that way, IPs won't be able to edit. BTW, according to the guideline for that infobox, you are correct that "Origin" refers to the place where the band formed.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   01:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Response
After a break of a few months I wanted to come back, but I didn't want to come back to the same articles because I burnt myself out in the process of maintaining them. So I gradually started making edits to other articles and then kind of came back full-time, but not at the same intensity. I'm trying to take a different perspective then I did before. That includes setting out time to do some edits and taking more breaks away from the computer. I'm enjoying editing more in the process. I hope others have taken to maintaining the Pearl Jam/Soundgarden articles as I tried to do. I have only taken a look at a few of them since I've come back for fear that I'll fall back into the same pattern. Thanks for the kind words.-5- (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bleach (album)
Bleach needs a copyedit on prose to pass the GA - can you help on this? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 13:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bleach (album) edit conflict
I was in the middle of some edit changes when I got an edit conflict. I did a simple copy and paste as I didn't want to go through the changes bit by bit as the read out was rather confusing. Your edits will have been lost, so I'll now go through and try to restore them.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary: "Revert. Makes citation style for books inconsistent and miscontrues Azerrad book in its rephrasing." It is more helpful to link where possible to the source, than to be neat and tidy. The cites are there not just for form's sake, but to be a resource that reader's can check. It is always better to link directly to a scan of the source used, than just to mention the book. In the same way that it is better to mention the page rather than just the book.


 * Added to which, the reason I am working on that section is that it is not clear. The prose is poor as it takes some untangling to work out what is being said. Reverting it is not helpful, as there is a problem there which needs working on. It's worth reading Reverting, and paying attention to "revert a good faith edit only as a last resort."  SilkTork  *YES! 09:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bleach misunderstanding
I apologize as I did not see your comment starting "Well good for you . . ."; I only saw your comment "No, I am not working with you . . ." which is what confused me. Given your initial comment on my talk page, I thought you simply planned to restore my edits, and did not object to them. As you told me "Your edits will have been lost, so I'll now go through and try to restore them", I restored my edits in an attempt try and be friendly by not making you have to bother with the tedium of doing it. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and believe me, I never felt you weren't acting in good faith. Once again, apologies. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apologies. I do react badly to total reverts. It's rather like someone pushing in a queue at a shop or cutting in sharply when driving. I'm sure the person doing the cutting in feels they have a justifiable reason for doing so ("In a hurry" / "The space was there" / etc), however the effect on the person affected can be quite out of proportion to what has just happened. In the context of Wikipedia's wider aims, reverting good faith edits is not a big deal, but it can generate ill-feeling and can lead to edit wars and significant disruption. My desire is not to create conflict, so my own approach on the whole is to move away and get involved in some other aspect of Wikipedia. The most I may do is make some terse comments about the reverting. I try hard not to be inflammatory in my comments, though some of my indignation may come through, as I am human after all! Anyway - as an example of how a total revert is not helpful, here is your first revert - . You'll notice that your edit removed a link to the correct article, and restored the incorrect title of one of the sources used. What you had done was revert not one edit, but every edit I had done - that was five edits over the space of over half an hour. I note that you then later go through and reinstate a number of the edits I had made. What may be helpful in future is if you did not revert work done in good faith, whether by experienced editors or IPs. If you don't like or don't understand or don't agree with the edit, then open a discussion. I'm not talking about amending and correcting mistaken edits, I'm talking about undoing edits which are a matter of individual opinion, and undoing positive edits simply because you haven't read through them and considered them carefully. I think by now you probably have come to understand that what you did was inappropriate; and while not expecting it, it would be nice to hear from you a realisation that what you did was unhelpful, rather than an excuse that you did it in "an attempt try and be friendly". :-)  SilkTork  *YES! 10:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Smiths
"They were the reaction against post-punk". I dont see that, their terms of reference were broader than most of thoes bands, but they very much had that spirit and came out of that scene. No? Ceoil (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters
Many inprovements have been made to the article since you last reviewed it. We could use your input at the FAC discussion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We could use your input at the Roger Waters FAC, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We could use your input at the Roger Waters FAC, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I trimmed out the sections you told me to trim. I think it reads better now, but I could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I restored the bit about Waters' first writing credit. Is there anything else preventing your support? — GabeMc (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have resolved the two issues you mentioned on my talk page. Thanks again for all the great suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help and suggestions on Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nirvanaaaah
Yeah, sure thing. That Posthumous Releases section has some unreferenced stuff too. Oh, and so sad that JD554 quit.—indopug (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, why do you keep removing the stuff about their last shows? That was their last performance. Saberwolf116 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe me, here's a recording. Saberwolf116 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Aaargh, just got struck by a bout of enthusiasm for Merriweather Post Pavilion. I'm going out of town for a week in a few days, so it'd probably be a while before I can work on Nirvana. I'll try my best though.—indopug (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick question: "Cobain's rhythm guitar style, which relied on power chords, low-note riffs, and a loose right-hand technique'"--is a clarification needed here that Cobain was a left-handed guitarist? And unrelated: what's the best pre-major label R.E.M album? (I'm assuming Automatic for the People is universally accepted as the best album of the entire career)—indopug (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * King of Pop (album) is the most absurd thing on this fine website of ours.—indopug (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cleanup at little: yes (a few unreliable sources + fan-site reprints of copyrighted material need to be resourced), overhaul: no, not really. What sticks out for you?—indopug (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you haven't seen it already, rock music has been extensively developed of late. However, it seems to obsess too much about the history of sub-genres...—indopug (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that the pop music article is so good in comparison; although small, it is well-referenced and is a very good overview of what pop music means. The electronic rock article makes no sense: it calls itself a "relatively new music genre", but the history section precedes rock music itself (the 40s). Do you think the article should be renamed to "Use of electronics in rock music"?—indopug (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that book better than Hammer of the Gods? From the reviews I read, it seemed like the same ol' tales of sex and debauchery. Which reminds me—November marks the 40th anniversary of the greatest rock album in history. Wanna collaborate?—indopug (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that, and was put off by the general cluelessness too. Unrelated: this is very useful.—indopug (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really a Metallica fan, and that album doesn't hold a candle to Master of Puppets. I also hate when metal bands do acoustic-ballads to "reveal another side of themselves".—indopug (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean Zeppelin, of course.—indopug (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mandatory question: your favourite album of 2010?—indopug (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with this?—indopug (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha, imagine what I had to go through while making that pic. Also why I couldn't bring myself to add it to the article.—indopug (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If by "get" you mean "obtain for free", then yeah (fact: we of the Third World are conscientiously permitted to). But meh, I actually haven't listened to the 'Head for ages. Animal Collective is where it's at, bay-bee.—indopug (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "great bands that are just OK": http://whoisarcadefire.tumblr.com/.—indopug (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So the new Radiohead puts me to sleep by the fourth song.—indopug (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Credo accounts.—indopug (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Q.E.D., Radiohead fans are more intelligent and sophisticated than the teeming masses? Even the odd vandal was actually quite insightful.—indopug (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Indie punk rises from the grave
In case you haven't spotted this attempt to resurrect this article yet (which you turned back into a redirect), at Indie punk (music), as opposed to Indie rock that is not music I suppose. I have added a prod, but one to look out for as we are likely to get more of this.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 07:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Pablo Honey
"A review is an opinion piece, and shouldn't be cited for this." The most rigged crap I've ever heard. Albums aren't released with a genre stated on the cover... genre is essentially an opinion. Therefore, it's only right to determine the genre based on the opinion of notable music publications. But, whatever. Jplarkin (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, nice continued rigging in your comment on my talk. OK, the opinions of music publications are out... we classify albums ourselves based on the characteristics of the genre. So, the album should clearly be classified as post-grunge based on the loud/soft electric guitar dynamics and angsty lyrics throught the entire album. But I guess the fact that you don't like it overrides everything else, including the notion of presenting an accurate article. "Post grunge" not a cool enough label for these oh-so-clever Oxford rockers? Whatever. Jplarkin (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's still opinion! As I said, albums don't come with a genre on the cover. Critics draw an opinion based on what they hear. It's clear that the idea of Pablo Honey being described as post grunge is having a major effect on your life, so that's just fine. I know fine well that it's an image thing, as do you and the other biased editor, but we'll leave it as just atlernative rock for now. Jplarkin (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Psychedelic Horseshit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chubbles (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC
FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
Hey Wes, how's things? What are you up to these days? Still trawling through the SFA articles - nearly halfway there now! Cavie78 (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the following out about UK sales for In Utero:

NIRVANA - IN UTERO Silver Certification (Album) 01 September 1993 MCA (GEFFEN) Released 13 September 1993 Certification History: Gold Certification 01 September 1993


 * Search for Nirvana here Gold in the UK means more than 100,000 copies and is for shipments rather than sales (hence the fact that the album went silver before it was actually released) Check out WP:CHARTS for more reliable sources for certifications if you haven't done this already. Cavie78 (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate
I noticed your bot going through and doing this. "Alternative" is suitable in British English, but in American English "alternate" is fine. This can cause problems if the bot is changing the word use without regards to which grammatical variation is used. Also, I write a lot of articles about alternative rock-related subjects, and using "alternate" helps avoid confusion in many cases. When the bot changes the word usage, it can makes things unclear in the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, it's starting to look like there's a pretty clear consensus that this is a pretty 'unsafe' edit to do. It's too context-dependent and there are too many issues to be considered. I'll stop the bot from doing this. Thanks for your input! Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

FLC
Hi, hope the FAR is going okay. I've had a go at asserting more notability in the lead of List of singles which have sold more than one million copies in the UK. Any chance you could take a look and revisit the FLC when you get a chance. Thanks a lot, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  14:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please can you take another look at this. Thanks in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  15:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Manic Monday
I don't really know what are you trying to point. You said "See ORDINAL", well per ordinal: If ORDINAL would say "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine must be rendered in numerals, not in words (16, not sixteen, 84 not eighty-four, 200 not two hundred)", you would have a point. Note that numbers states that "Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable". As Numbers states both are corrects and no need to be changed without a good reason. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 20:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers. However there are frequent exceptions to these rules (in this case the article doesn't violate any exception).
 * I didn't planned to take Manic Monday to FAC, at least not now, but if someone would argue what you are commenting, I'll reply him/her with the same, although few people have this kind of issues. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you say in which pages? Because, well if the reviewer make a comment of change (unnecessarily) a twelve for a 12 is not OK and should be ignored. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 01:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Project page
Hi. Can you give your thoughts in this discussion I've started? Thanks. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

War Machine in other media
I noted your edits to the above and your related comment on the Project talk page and two things struck me: Thanks
 * Why did you remove only the Spider-Man and Hulk episodes but leave the Super Hero Squad and Avengers ones?
 * Would you be willing to comment on the discusion at Talk:War Machine in other media? (sorry about the WoTs)

- J Greb (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, and is what I figured, but I wanted to be sure. Especially if they come back with something like ToonZone refs. - J Greb (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC courtesy notice - succession boxes
As someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at WT:CHARTS. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC or do not wish to participate, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Spirit
Merry christmas Dodds. Send on some mp3s of the demo, and here's one from the lads, from when they were good., a long long time ago. Ceoil (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Need opinions on photos
Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Trent Reznor
Hello there. I saw that Trent Renor's article has been up for GAR for over a year and you said that you would work on it. Are you still working on it, or should it be closed? GamerPro64 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Back
MP3s please. Ceoil (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ozymandias (comics)
Since there was a few edit conflicts on whether or not Ozymandias (comics) should be merged or not. I think it be fair to discuss this on a talk page. You defianetly don't want to violate the WP:3RR. Happy editing. ;) − Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Beck edit (Canadian singles chart)
Hi. You deleted the Canadian singles chart listing for "Loser," and I was just wondering why. I checked and the citation link backed up its position at #7 on the chart. Candy (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice edit...
...on The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book). That makes so much sense to put into the lead of a comics-series article. I wish I'd thought of it myself! It encapsulates and makes clear that which the reader will read later in what otherwise might be convoluted, if necessary, detail. My compliments to the Wes! -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Those were yours? Very nice work there, too. People don't believe it, but the hardest kind of writing is simple declarative, factual information. I so like working with you and many of the other veteran Comics Project editors. I see the quality of this encyclopedia improving all the time as people have more experience with it. (That goes for myself as well; I've had to do some rewriting of some of my own overwritten, essayish early stuff from 2005-2006...!) With regards and a Happy New Year, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of doing that. It's straightforward, informative, and gives the big picture without getting bogged down.


 * And now that Fictional history of Spider-Man and Fictional history of Wolverine have just been deleted, I can only hope that the real-world-based "Comic book character history" to which I largely contributed at Spider-Man serves as a template to help prevent the kinds of in-universe plot dumps to which the Project has been subjected. Fingers crossed.


 * As I head into my 45,000th edit...!--Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin discography
I reverted your edits on that list, because I am of the opinion that it was very unnecessary. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Pixies
Hi WesleyDodds, thanks for your note a couple of days ago and the tips about getting info from those two FA album articles. I'll try to make a bit of use of them. To be honest, what I'm most focusing on right now is just making sure that all the info that is in the Pixies article is well cited and trying to ensure there's at least a bare bones narrative that can be fleshed out more later. That's where I think my strong point is, i.e. checking all the refs, more so than constructing a really well developed narrative, so I'm looking forward to getting your and anyone else's help with fleshing it out when the time comes. But if I notice info in the those two articles that seems good, I'll go ahead and add it in. I know you've been busy with Nirvana (band), so don't worry, I'm happy to keep plugging away at the refs by myself for the time being. Take care. Moisejp (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana FAR
Hi Wesley - As I'm sure you are aware, the Nirvana FAR is approaching five months, which is a very long time for an article to be at FAR. I see that you have been working on the Musical styles section, but that there is still no Legacy section (at least not by that name) in the article. Do you have a timeframe for when this might be completed? Even if all of the tweaking isn't finished, once the major parts of the rewrite are in place we can start bringing editors who have commented before back in to take a look. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Collaboration of the Week
Hi WesleyDodds, I am a PhD student from the Carnegie Mellon University. I am interested in the Wikipedia community, especially the mechanism of collaboration of the week. I noticed that you have been coordinator of WikiProject Alternative Music’s collaborations before. Could you please take several minutes to answer five questions if possible? Thanks for your help!

1. From your point of view, why do people participate in the collaboration of the week?

3. Do people who participated in the collaborations become better editors? If so, could you provide some examples?

4. How did collaboration of the week change editors' behaviors (if any)? What caused the changes?

5. Why did Wikiproject Alternative Music cancel the collaboration of the week?

You could leave your answers either in your or my talk page if possible. Thanks for your time! We have the same goal to make Wikipedia a better place.

Cheers --Haiyizhu (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Not sure if you wanted it, but I gave you access to the rollback feature. Rollback feature outlines when it should be used, but essentially it gives you one-click rollback of vandalism instead of having to click undo-submit, etc. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"R&B" issue post
I made a post regarding your edit to Let's Get It On at the WP:Albums talk page for some consensus or review of the appropriate inclusion of genre(s) to this article and others. Please add your comments. Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana FAR
Sorry for the late comment. I have supported the keeping of the article since you addressed my concerns. I have also suggested some improvement for the sample rationale. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Led Zep
You may have missed it among the subsequent edits on the talkpage, but I just wondered if you could claiffy you comments on the influence of Led Zep. In favour of examples of bands or not? I wasn't quite sure whether keeping it as broad as possible was just to mention genres or to list a variety of bands. Thanks.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 10:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Gish
So, I'm in a good spot to put some work into this. Any ideas about division of labor? I've written two FAs but definitely by myself. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gish spent six weeks on the NZ charts and made it to number 40. You learn something new every day. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My sources are drying up faster than expected. I'm going to have to go dumpster diving soon. Any time to work on the Composition, etc? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Live on Ten Legs
Hi. Are you able to link to the policy that states that album reviews have to be removed wholesale from the infobox and not then intergrated into the body of the article, as per your recent edits? Over 52,000 albums have reviews in the infobox. Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wesley, however my point wasn't about using bare URLS or not. It was about removing good information and not reproducing it elsewhere. Do these discussions you mention endorse this? Could you link me to one with this consensus?  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Question
I am currently re-writing the Duff McKagan article (obviously no changes have been made yet) and was just wondering about a source on the Grunge article (that you have contributed to quite considerably). McKagan was a member of The Fartz, Fastbacks and 10 Minute Warning, all three mentioned in the roots and influences, with the movie Hype! cited. Because I don't have the film, yet, I don't want to source it without first confirming if they are stated in the film? Assuming you have seen it! Thanks.

P.S. Looking at your user page, you have done some amazing work done sir. HrZ (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have that service. But thanks for the reply, I will use the Hype movie as a source in my re-write. HrZ (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin
Wesley,

Sorry for messing up the Led Zeppelin page. Obviously I was not very culturally sensitive. Hopefully I have improved. It is interesting that the page describing British English suggests that collective nouns can be either singular or plural, depending upon their use. It seems to me that many of the cases where I made it singular were in fact cases where the band was being discussed as a whole. However, maybe there is an exception for band or names of bands, as the last example in that section about The Clash suggests. Buchs (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana FAR
Unfortunately YellowMonkey is on an indefinite break at the moment. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lawl. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Random request for help
How do you tag a source as possibly unreliable? I used to know, but I forgot and can't find directions on how to do so. Could you help me please?

Specific citation.

Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding REM
I see what you mean, it's ok then. 84.92.140.217 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

OK Computer accolades
While I understand your criticism of the accolades table, I must point out that I modeled it after the tables in Kid A, Spiderland, and Illinois (album), all of which are featured articles. Is there a reason why these tables are more important/helpful/appropriate than an accolades table in OK Computer? As for redundancy, I believe the Kid A article covers much of the lists in prose. Thanks. Wolfehhgg  (talk)  03:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Punk music
You are receving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile and move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Cheers

--Guerillero &#124; My Talk   02:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion
Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level
 There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable. Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 25, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/March 25, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 05:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 

Radiohead are an English alternative rock band from Abingdon, Oxfordshire, formed in 1985. The band consists of Thom Yorke (vocals, guitars, piano), Jonny Greenwood (guitars, keyboards, other instruments), Ed O'Brien (guitars, backing vocals), Colin Greenwood (bass, synthesizers) and Phil Selway (drums, percussion). Radiohead released their first single, "Creep", in 1992. The song was initially unsuccessful, but it became a worldwide hit several months after the release of their debut album, Pablo Honey (1993). Radiohead's third album, OK Computer (1997), propelled them to greater international fame. Featuring an expansive sound and themes of modern alienation, OK Computer is often acclaimed as a landmark record of the 1990s. Radiohead's work has appeared in a large number of listener polls and critics' lists. While the band's earlier albums were influential on British rock and pop music, musicians in a wide variety of genres have been influenced by their later work. The New York Times described Radiohead as "the world's biggest art band." (more...)