User talk:WesleyDodds/Archive 17

"First!"
Finishing that article (the 2000s sections) has been on my to-do list for years now. By the way, Nevermind needs to be FAC nominated before too long.—indopug (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unable to decide between "the Beatles" and "The Beatles", the good folks at Talk:The Beatles are voting whether to rewrite the entire article so that "The Beatles" never crops up at all.—indopug (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aargh, music analysis is hardly my strength—but I think I can use to revamp the Musical style section. By the way, check out Zoo_TV_Tour for some details (and sources) we should consider incorporating into the Pixies article.—indopug (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Which reminds me—the whole project could use a kick up the backside. Restart the COTW and the newsletter?—indopug (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Headdesk.—indopug (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. By the way, the allmusic thing should probably be brought up at WT:ALBUM.—indopug (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought the "Harris, p. 90" cite, which covers the "For Tomorrow" chart position, covers this too. Anyway, I am travelling now, and will look into it in a few days.—indopug (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto.—indopug (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Grrrrummmble: damn this thing for taking away all my Internet time.—indopug (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey what up. The time-stamp above says it's been a year since we spoke. Unemployed again (voluntarily) so I have time on my hands. :)—indopug (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah! It's been a while since I've read about Blur and all that stuff. Not sure if I'll be adding it, but that was fun. Do you have a new project in mind here? The only music at FAC these days are pop-song articles as formulaic as their subject matter.—indopug (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm gearing up for a fight at Blur, myself. If you're thinking Stone Roses, I suggest their album instead--easier to get into the groove of writing articles with. Or, well, whatever.—indopug (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, that's not what I meant. I'm not really interested in working on Blur; I was pointing out that I might be in for a talk-page fight due to some strange edits there. I'm always ready to help you copy-edit/review any project you take up, of course.
 * By the way, what are you listening to these days?—indopug (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "grunge is a heavy metal subgenre" thing is unfortunate...—indopug (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read Characteristics in grunge, you'd think grunge is a sub-genre of hardcore and metal. You probably need to clarify it there. Q. Why is nu metal a fusion genre in the grunge infobox?—indopug (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can do the heavy lifting, I can definitely chip in with clean-up/copyedit/encouragement tasks. I'd commit to more, but to be honest my interests of late have veered more to local political history than music.—indopug (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We dunn goooood. Aside: going by our ~12-hour time difference, have you been editing all night?—indopug (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! What do you play? (genre, instrument)
 * I've actually seen a lot about that kind of stuff back when I was researching them. All unauthorised reprints though. For eg: here, of which this 1995 Select piece was particularly very useful. Stephen Street given a lot of interviews as well. Anyway, I'm not sure if a Musical style section for GA is mandatory.—indopug (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are several mid-90s Blur articles in Billboard where the band's record label talk about their ever-evolving strategy to "break America". Haven't read this one though.—indopug (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha. Now that was a band Wikipedia was ill-equipped to handle. All sorts of details into the cartoons' fictional story and then a "oh, by the way, that bloke from Blur has something to do with it". Even now the cartoons have pride of place in the Band members section, above the "non-virtual personnel".
 * Electronic rock: don't try to improve it—delete it or redirect it. Use Articles for deletion/Synth rock to back you up; "Taken altogether, sources do not support this as anything more than a carelessly used search term."—indopug (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely too short for it's own article, and I don't want to make the prose boring by incorporating them all in. Leave it be?
 * Did you like the Amazing Spider-man or The Dark Knight Returns? I was disappointed by both—the former for being a redundant copy of the Maguire one, the latter for being too loud, overwrought and dreary.—indopug (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still my favourite.—indopug (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been meaning to ask you about the Pumpkins article. Apart from the new undeveloped Oceania paragraph, that the lead obsesses over band-member changes and that the music section is half the size it was . . . it's okay. The genre is still only alt rock.—indopug (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the lead does need expanding (more recording and music needed), but for now use the "but the singles are all listed in the infobox anyway!" excuse. I tried figuring some way we could mention the other singles, but they didn't even crack the top 30 of the Hot 100; "In Bloom" didn't even chart. If he thinks they must be there, it must be because he's been reading too many of our awful pop-music articles—all detail and no narrative.

Meanwhile, it appears I've managed to pick a fight.—indopug (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you like The xx? I think their debut is the most perfect album of the last few years.—indopug (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Use headphones. No I haven't, because I couldn't ever get into Husker Du (and most other pre-Pixies American-alt—the 80s were all about Britain) and assumed this would be similar.—indopug (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just briefly skipped through Ozymandias #2 in Before Watchmen. It appears to be astonishingly bad. Why would they do such a thing to a piece of literature?—indopug (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * DO IT! TAKE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS TO FA!! A thousand people read that article everyday and leave disappointed.
 * Not sure about that article at FAC though. Also, with its reference style, it's impossible to tell the books used amongst the clutter of articles/websites.
 * The Chris Martin quote about Dick Cheney (at OK Computer) for some reason reminded me of this.—indopug (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. :) There's a still bit to re-write (about Think Tank), but knowing the slowness of the GAN process, we got time.—indopug (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah, I've never been one to buckle down and finish one thing properly. By the time I finish researching a topic ("Country House", "Heart of Glass", Queen II), I completely tire of it.—indopug (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * .—indopug (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I need to be off-wiki for a couple of days; take care of the GAN?—indopug (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Good on you for Bollocks. What I'm eager to learn is: is the album, musically, any good?—indopug (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done the charts + certs one (need to reformat ref though; will do tomorrow), which is the other one? "Had difficulty loading reference 57 - seems to be problematic outside the US"? The ref nos have changed...—indopug (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a Britain-only problem then. Even checklinks shows all links as "good".—indopug (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason this reminded me of Slash applying for the guitarist job in the Stone Roses. Although this is nowhere as absurd.
 * Fun fact: As great as writing featured-quality material and seeing it on the front page is, there's nothing quite like doing a little detective work to nail a sockpuppet.—indopug (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Shoegaze
I'm challenging myself to upgrade an article to GA quality around each week to keep myself writing. This week its The Sundays (half-written in my sandbox), next week I'm going to start on shoegazing bands with Curve, and then most likely  Lush next. I rewrote most of Slowdive quite a while ago. I plan on getting around to finishing it eventually, but I want to take it slow because I would like to see it through FAC. You're welcome to help if you like. I enjoyed the work you did on Loveless and your post-punk articles.-- Noj r (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was aware while writing the section that it relied heavily on reviews. There's not much I can do though; footnote bands like Romeo Void or Curve aren't going to have many articles that discuss the nuts and bolts of their music. I simply try to squeeze everything I can out of the limited sources and represent as best as possible. -- Noj r (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct. -- Noj r (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"One song doesn't require a paragraph."
in The Cure article, before you starting whacking the statement about the soundtrack song from Judge Dredd, the statement had been there for quite some time. The other day I did some copy editing and the statement ended up in its own little paragraph when before it was in the middle of a larger paragraph. In my opinion this is not a good reason to delete a statement about something notable in the band's history. Think about putting it back because everyone else thought it was fine when it was paragraphed differently. Thanks. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Halo's FAC
Hello. Days ago, you questioned me at its current FAC if I'd consulted all the possible physical magazines about music. After some researching (me and other users) we found some missing information and I later started to think about your comment. It is practically impossible to me to find musicial magazines (excepting Rolling Stone) because I've never seen them and thanks to Wikipedia I know they exist. I was thinking that in general the article is complete, of course I believe it deserves a complete composition section, but I regret I'd never took musical classes to do something like this article's composition section. Also I was thinking about the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" stuff, so I don't know what would be missed (according to you) to not consider it as "indiscriminate". Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 05:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK thanks, I'll see what I should do. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 06:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

John Frusciante
Hey Wesley, just wanted to touch base with you. You asked me to keep an eye on the Frusciante article, but to my shame, I haven't really been doing so; primarily because he dropped out (or at the very least is on hiatus) from the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I love the music John and Flea co-compose but try as I might, I just can't get with John's solo music. It was a huge disappointment to see that he hadn't plans of touring and recording with them. Whew! Anyway, if you ever can find the time, there are several articles that really need a copyeditor's fine tuning-- offhand, the Rory Gallagher, Cat Stevens, The Rolling Stones (and it's various members), and recently I began corresponding with David Knopfler, bringing back my interest in Dire Straits. Other than Gallagher, I would also posthumously love to see some work on Chris Whitley, Jaco Pastorius, and several others. Just drop me a line whenever! Hope all is well with you in the real world! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your Radiohead edit
From your edit summary, it sounded like you were on the fence about it. I'm pretty sure I removed that same text a week or two ago for the same exact reason. It's non-news that Radiohead will keep on keeping on, potentially dropping albums without warning. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)"
Hi WesleyDodds! I've nominated (third nom) the above song article for an FA. If you're free, could you go through it? Your comments are always welcome. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:LuciferMorgan/Draft
Hi, how've you been? Hope you've been well. Currently working on something in draft form here and there, but the retrieval dates don't seem to be appearing... was wondering if you could have a look? LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. Usually something simple messes a template up, something a fresh pair of eyes notices. Reason I stopped working on Wikipedia articles was a combination of things, one being busy, but the other was being a bit annoyed my article Enter the Grave failed FA. It's frustrating when people seem to look down on the fanzines and expect newspaper reviews of some random thrash album.


 * I'm usually on Wikipedia, mainly nosing on what's going on at the Alternative music project and seeing what's happening. If the metal project was half as good that'd be something, but they're more interested in some random band who's sold a hundred tapes on some no-name label.


 * I'll be sure to fix those things in my draft. By the way, do you tend to purchase any guitar related mags? Firewind / Gus G. tend to be covered by them, especially given his status as Ozzy's guitarist. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of rocksbackpages.com - a few freelancers I know have material on there. I'd definitely help with Led Zeppelin, though unfortunately I don't have any Led Zep books to hand. Hammer of the Gods is one which is mentioned a lot, though I heard it's not all truthful... and there's the more recent one by Mick Wall of course. I tend to steer clear of overly popular articles since you have pain in the arse editors to deal with who seem to not want the articles improved. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Since the main WikiProject Comics Noticeboard has not been significantly updated since 2009, and since the 2011 merger/move noticeboard is seldom used, I'm asking a few Project members to spread the word that this page exists and that there is a current merge proposal at WikiProject Comics/Notice board/Requested moves/2011. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Third Summers brother for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Third Summers brother is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Third Summers brother until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing microformat data
Why? Why would you remove Start date from In Utero (here) and remove the microformat functionality in contravention of WP:ALBUM? Is there something I'm missing here? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And again You don't provide edit summaries and you don't respond here, so I'm at an impasse. There's no apparent reason for this and the microformat data are useful for creating databases and lists, so until WP:ALBUM changes to remove microformat data or you can give me some good reason why this album article shouldn't have it I guess I'll just have to keep reverting you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Use The notion that they aren't used very much (which is entirely possible--I honestly don't know) is all the more reason for using it in a prominent FA. That having been said, every album article with an infobox has some hAudio data and if Duration and Start date are used more, they could (e.g.) be used to dynamically generate a list of all albums released by an artist, a record label, in a year, in a genre, etc. without manually creating or maintaining those lists. At the risk of being pedantic, there is an entire WikiProject devoted to the implementation of microdata on Wikipedia expressly for this purpose. That having been said, these templates should either be deployed project-wide or not--(deliberately) using them some of the time and not others defeats the purpose of generating databases, lists, etc. from this data. I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but there's still no argument that this article in particular shouldn't have the microdata forms and there are arguments that it should, as far as I can see. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow I've had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koavf#Templates as a tab in my browser for several weeks now and just kept on passing by it. To recap, here's what you last wrote:
 * I understand what you're getting at, but (putting aside that templates are optional and these in particular are specifically not necessary for inclusion articles to meet the FA criteria) inserting microformats in an FA won't necessary assist in their proliferation. To most people, they will just be there, and their presence will not be explained; it's just a non-intuitive template (which is one of my main objections about its use), and its mere presence won't in of itself be all that helpful in publicity terms. A far more beneficial approach to would be for Microformat WP do more to describe/advocate the merits of these templates.


 * Having thought about this all day, I feel we have gotten on the wrong foot in this and past interactions, and that it's necessary for me to try and rectify that. We're both interested in contributing to Wikipedia (I'm primarily concerned with prose and referencing, while your interest seems to be predominantly in script, formatting, and categorization), and while I disagree with you from time to time, I acknowledge that you do a lot of important things here that most editors aren't too concerned with usually. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, let me apologize for taking so long in getting back with you--it was nothing more than overlooking your note.

Furthermore, let me also agree with you that we've probably rubbed each other the wrong way in the past. I've never doubted that you are a decent guy (assuming that you are a guy) who wants to make Wikipedia better, and you have an FA track record to prove it. You do good work around here and I have no personal beef with you. Sometimes, your editing preferences and mine are at odds and sometimes, you engage in behavior that I find irritating or (if I may be blunt) rude (e.g. reverting a change without an edit summary), but I've never thought you to be provocative or hostile--at most, simply careless or possibly somewhat inconsiderate. (Let me also take this opportunity to state that I have been outright aggressive to other users here and I would not want to take this as an opportunity to denigrate you and simultaneously upbuild myself.) I think it's a very mature and kind gesture that you made on my talk and I genuinely appreciate it. I look forward to us collaborating in the future, if only to the extent that we both tend to write about somewhat similar topics. If we actually collaborated on writing an individual article, I'm sure that your input would be a great boon. Furthermore, I think that your assessment is correct: you do a lot of prose-y and reference-y stuff, whereas I do a lot of formatting and copyediting miscellany.

Anyway, to return to the topic that was originally at hand, is it fair to say this much: if there is value in using start date and duration within Infobox album, then that value applies equally to In Utero (album) as it does to Everything That Happens Will Happen Today or Magical Mystery Tour or Chronic Town? That is to say, there is nothing special about (e.g.) In Utero that it should have or lack these templates, as all albums have release dates and durations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pixies FAR
Hi Wesley - It looks like the FAR for Pixies (WP:Featured article review/Pixies/archive1) is starting to come to an end; however, Moisejp has said that he won't be available to work on any further comments. Are you willing to take on any last comments, or do you have an opinion on the status of the article as it currently stands? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Here Comes Your Man
The article was reviewed 5 days ago. Just wanted to check will you be able to respond to the queries since it seems you are busy in RL. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 07:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

OK Computer
Hello, I recently nominated OK Computer for FAC, because I'm almost sure that it meets the criteria. Do you have any suggestions? TGilmour (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's overdue for FA status and one last push should do it. I agree about the tables, they're both redundant to the text as it is anyway. Also I'm about to start pulling some info from the Amazon preview of Radiohead: Hysterical and Useless. Feel free to rein the writing in if it goes overboard. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Tracking down a copy of Exit Music and copyediting would be extremely helpful. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think it would be appropriate to have a tour section, like the some of the RHCP articles do? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that... I haven't really edited it much in a while, but it's probably about done. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys when are you going to get it to FAC? 107.20.23.31 (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Should be really soon, IP who I'll assume is TGilmour. Dodds, can you give it a solid once-over? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have one concern: if there are books listed in the Further Reading section, it means that article is not comprehensive, so I'd love someone getting ''Radiohead's OK Computer. 33⅓ series'' and writing ut the main points if there are some. 107.20.19.183 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed the refs because I like that you can link back to the book that's being used, I just think it's a neat feature. And regarding the 33 1/3 book, I'm strongly convinced that it's useless. It has poor reviews and mostly focuses (from what I've read in previews, browsing through an actual copy a few years back, and according to reviews) on shallow analysis of what it means for OK Computer to be a great album, and what that means in the context of what an album is, and the history of "the album" as a format, and some light analysis of the musical composition that is at best redundant to what's already in the article. It's in Further reading because, hey, there's a whole book "about" this album out there that someone reading the article might want to look into, but it doesn't mean it's useful for us. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I had high hopes for the Kid A one too, maybe by the In Rainbows book in 2016 they'll figure out how to write about Radiohead. I did read through the sections on composition a little while back (they're either not available through Google Books or Amazon now or I ran through the limited preview differently) and it's mostly information that can be obtained from the OK Computer songbook (which I have a pdf copy of, although that level of detail is better suited for articles on individual songs anyway) or analysis of the way the track listing fits together, i.e. the author's rather long-winded theories on which groups of tracks are best thematically/lyrically grouped in sequence. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I definitely prefer the citation templates. I think it's a good system for working with multiple books and I think it's a great aid for the reader. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's time for FAC. 50.19.23.142 (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I have to do a once-over and a copyedit. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When will you begin? 188.169.22.145 (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed some of the links and the ones remaining I'm puzzled as to how to "fix" them. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Oh also, the German albums chart reference is pretty sketchy and I can't find a replacement. Not sure what to do. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, other than the German chart source all the other links appear fine, they just have some sort of weird unfixable(?) redirect that the linkchecker doesn't like. This includes every archive.org link, since they all redirect before displaying the archived page. But as far as I can tell, all the links are working fine and still totally sourceable. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you to either make a WP:GOCE request or take the article directly to FAC. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no rush to get this to FAC. I'd rather take my time to do a considered analysis than do a speedy run-though. As it stands, I'm currently busy with the professional side of my music writing and will take care of the article when I can as soon as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in any particular rush, Thursday sounds good and I'll shoot you a reminder then. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See if you can get to looking the article over today. I won't be able to edit again until tomorrow most likely. I think the only thing that's not covered is the double disc reissue that Capitol(?) put out. I guess it's debatable whether that's even essential information, and I'm not sure where to put it anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, so I'm gonna be starting college classes on Thursday so the sooner we get OK Computer through FAC the better. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated reminding, as requested! Git 'er done. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can you chime in on the OK Computer talk page? There's a discussion about whether art rock is appropriate for the infobox and there's been a lot of reverts. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Velvet Rope
Hi Wes. Been a long time since we've spoken. Hope all is well with you. I was wondering if you could take a look at The Velvet Rope introduction and see if you could tweak it? I've done several attempts at rewriting it, but it never seems to feel complete. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  04:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP Albums in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Albums for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: 808s
I'm not the main contributor to the article. I've contributed primarily to the Reception section and cleaning up (MOS fixes, some formatting, etc.), but I'm not sure who wrote most of the article. Right now I'd like to continue working on another article, perhaps get it through GA too. Dan56 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Grant Morrison photo
Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Decided to check back into this place
Holy shit....I'm not even going to begin editing again because the articles I worked on have become a total clusterfuck. In the time since we last chatted and I went up to SF I've become a bass-head. Dubstep musik is the future. Its the modern day punk rock, sir. But even wackier xD. I guarantee you this yet to be released single will be a catalyst much like "Under the Bridge", etc. I can't tell you how many parallels I've been able to draw in the dubstep scene to the alternative rock movement of the early 90s, except its going on right now. Hope all is well man, I don't know if you're still up in Sac-town but someday we should get a drink, smoke a joint, or get some coffee, whichever you prefer. May edit the dubstep wikis if I find free time, but likely not. too much commitment @_@ NSR 77  T 16:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I need your opinion
Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Spacemen 3 article
Hello. Please be advised that I intent to rewrite and expand the wiki article on Spacemen 3, giving it a major overhaul. I have put a comment on the article's talk page stating this, to explain what I am doing and let interested parties know. This article is included in the Wiki Alternative music project group, so I am letting you know. I wondered if, when I've finished the article, whether you'd be prepared to review it and suggest any alterations required, please? Please contact me by email - my address can be found on my wiki user page. Thanks!

Roland Sparkes (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your mssg, and agreeing to review the article once I've re-worked it. To answer your question re: proposed sources, as follows: the Erik Morse 'Dreamweapon' book you referred to (substantial source); - Outer Limits (Spacemen 3) magazines from 1991; - Record Collector feature, incl. bio and discography. - AMG website; - contemporary record reviews and gig reviews, and music press articles and interviews (e.g. NME, Sounds, Melody Maker). some of these are on a Spacemen 3 fan website which has a good archive of material. >> Do you have any others that you can suggest?<< >> Do you know of any other websites that have copies (or scanned cuttings) of contemporary music press pieces?  Thanks  Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. I've FINISHED re-doing the Wikipedia article on Spacemen 3. I should be very grateful, please, if you could give it a look over, and provide feeback on how it may need to be changed or could be improved. Also, can it's rating be re-assessed now? Many thanks.Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate
Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea

University of Alberta

jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

R.E.M. Developments
Heh - good call. I was going to straight revert the guy, but I had to at least placate him a little. Tough news though, huh? I've been a fan since the mid-eighties, but I guess they are just tired of looking at each other after all these years. Cheers :> Doc   talk  23:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

R.E.M.
No kidding I appreciate your note--both because you and I have had friction in the past and because R.E.M. really were a big part of my life for a long time. Hearing that they're packing it in is sad. I'll still have the old albums and Peter Buck will still be in 50 bands and blah, blah, but R.E.M. have been one of the few constants I've had for the past 17 years or so. It actually is kind of a big deal to me. Thanks a lot for writing. If you ever want some recommendations from their catalogue, let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course Especially the claim about their motivations for releasing the albums--that's obvious editorializing. It appears that the two of us are tripping over one another, so I'll wait until the dust settles if I decide that there's anything that I can add. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Media Oh, and while I agree that audio is certainly more important, I thought it would be neat to have a picture of each member of the band. At the very least, Mills and Berry have their own photos and Stipe and Buck are together. Hardly necessary and barely encyclopedic, but it's something that I would like, I guess. It's possible that there could be a section on visuals--make-up and costumes (primarily Stipe), album art, and stage set-ups--that could incorporate the Glastonbury photo and if I have a good picture of Buck with his Rickenbacker, it's worth inserting into the musical style section in my estimation. You, of course, don't own this article--nor have you ever claimed as much--but you are the major contributor and I'd like to collaborate on any serious changes that I might make. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of R.E.M songs on the radio in the last few days, and I had forgotten how much I used to like them. All the 00s bad albums really turned me off and in my eyes spoiled their legacy. But they are gone now and I can listen again, and the odd thing is that "whats the frequency Kenneth" has replaced "harboutcoat" as my fav song. It has a lot of sonics I hadn't noticed (in the main riff, not the wocky wocky thing) and well, is damn sexy. To these skinny irish ears anyway. O and hello dude. Ceoil (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had "Catapult" in my head for days. Wesley: I'm truly sorry if you're still mad at me from any obnoxious attitude/comments I probably exposed you (and Justin, for that matter) to from years ago. I'm mourning the demise of one of the greatest bands that ever was like you are, and hopefully you'll not just see me as the jerk that I was when I started editing this crazy thing. Doc   talk  13:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dont worry about it Doc, Wesley is ok people, not inclined towards holding anything I bet ya. Catapult eh; I raise you "perfect circle" or Camera. Ceoil (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ceoil! I'm a sucker for Box Cars and Shaking Through... as well as I'll Take the Rain - this band had so many brilliant sounds over their amazing career. By the time they got to Document it's no wonder they finally exploded on the main scene. I always have and always will truly love R.E.M. Doc   talk  17:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries Doc, all great songs you mentioned, but though I'm mid 30s, I didn't notice the band until Green. I get that they are as important to the US as the Smiths are to the UK, I see that a lot in bios of 90s alt rock people and from reading old fanzines. Yeah Shaking Through is fantastic, but is it better that This Night Has Opened My Eyes. (baiting dodds here, he cant stand Morrissey). Ceoil (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration I'd definitely like to work on New Adventures in Hi-Fi and I know of some things that can be done to it--it's considered a dark horse favorite by the band and critics alike, it was the last they did with Bill Berry and Scott Litt (and Jefferson Holt), it came at a time that started their commercial decline, it was recorded in a unique way on the road, there are themes of movement/departure/motion throughout--so I've got some material. I have the R.E.M. books on top of my keyboard to work on this, but I've been putting it off for working on other stuff, but I never did that either. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Today's featured article/requests Dabomb87 (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Just Like Heaven (song)
This is a note to let the main editors of Just Like Heaven (song) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 7, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/October 7, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



"Just Like Heaven" is a song by the British alternative rock band The Cure. The group wrote most of the song during recording sessions in southern France in 1987. The lyrics were written by the band's frontman Robert Smith (pictured), who drew inspiration from a past trip to the sea shore with his future wife. Before Smith had completed the lyrics, an instrumental version of the song was used as the theme for the French television show Les Enfants du Rock. "Just Like Heaven" was the third single released from the band's 1987 album Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me, while Smith's memories of the trip formed the basis for the song's accompanying music video. The song became The Cure's first American hit and in 1988 reached number 40 on the Billboard charts. It has been highly praised by critics and covered by artists such as Dinosaur Jr. and Katie Melua. Smith has said he considers "Just Like Heaven" to be one of the band's strongest songs. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just Like Heaven
Wesley, excellent job on the Just Like Heaven article. Such a great song. It's influence is unmistakable on The Gaslight Anthem's "Old White Lincoln" off The '59 Sound. The opening riffs are incredibly similar. That angle might be worth a little expansion if reliable commentary can be found. Thanks for the great work. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK Computadora
Sounds good, I'm still making small additions here and there. I want to expand each song to about a paragraph's worth of content and maybe include a paragraph or so on the tour. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it... It was in the interest of cross-OK Computer article consistency but that's not really a huge deal anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Advise?
Hey there, I was asked to contact a user who worked on an album that achieved FA status. I am currently working on the Dreaming of You (album) and would like some helpful advise on what needs to be fixed before a FAC is placed. I had read your profile and it seems that you do like to help out others, however, your FA articles are more Alternative rock music. This article is about a Latin pop/crossover album. I think it would be cool to work on something from a different culture, but its up to you. I hope you can help out and if not its cool :) Thanks, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  16:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Reminder
Here's your reminder per your request on my talk page. Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  22:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

pp
Hi Wesley. Regarding this edit, I am genuinely curious, could you please point me to a manual of style or citation style that recommends using "p.", rather than "pp.", for multiple pages? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I now see that you are the primary author of the article (I only glanced at the FAC, not the FAR, before), so I understand why you didn't want someone fiddling with your citation style. I do understand that all citation styles are accepted as long as the articles is consistent, it's just that I've honestly never seen a citation style that recommends using "p." and never "pp.", but I'll take your word for it. Anyway, it's a great article and this is very small issue. I will note, however, that I have seen this mentioned at FAC quite a few times – here and here are two examples I got from a quick scan of the current FACs. But I have never written a FA so, again, I'll take your word for it. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

talkback.....
Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sub-templates of Infobox album
Please do not remove sub-templates, ; they're necessary for the correct emission of metadata, as explained at Infobox album documentation. Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Templates aren't required on Wikipedia. They're optional. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

While you are not required to apply them in your editing, that does not mean that they may be removed on sight.


 * 1) There are 74180 transclusions of Start date. Its use clearly has community consensus.
 * 2) An attempt to delete Start date in 2009 resulted in a seedy keep, due to its importance. Its use has increased significantly since then.
 * 3) It is included in the documentation of hundreds of templates; again showing community consensus.
 * 4) The use of Start date and duration makes the data in the infobox (itself a template;) readable by machines and browser tools, allowing our readers to do more with them.
 * 5) Without the sub-templates, the metadata emitted by the infobox is compromised.
 * 6) Erik Möller, Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation has spoken, in an article called Wikipedia to Add Meaning to Its Pages, about "making some of the data on Wikipedia's 15 million (and counting) articles understandable to computers as well as humans". These templates do that.
 * 7) You give no reason, other than apparently not liking them, for the removal of these sub-templates.

Your removal of sub-templates appears to me to be disruptive. This can go through the dispute process, all the way to an RfC. Do you really think it worth such drama, and that your view will prevail? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't intend my edits to be disruptive. I removed the templates because they are optional (the fact that it's commonly used doesn't make it many more mandatory--just that it's commonly-used) and it's plainer to simply write out proper dates; utilizing these templates isn't intuitive to unfamiliar editors. Now, we can discuss the rationale behind my intent, but these weren't intentionally negative actions. I don't feel that strongly about them; I'm a reasonable person and am fine following the edit-revert-discuss cycle that might end simply with the templates remaining in these articles, so I think it's a bit much that you told me "Your removal of sub-templates appears to me to be disruptive. This can go through the dispute process, all the way to an RfC Do you really think it worth such drama, and that your view will prevail?" after I only spoke to you once. It's quite an assumption to make that I'm going to dig my heels in over this, one that I question assumes good faith. But again I'm not going to get hung up on that aspect--just wanted to orient the conversation from what could be a potentially (and unnecessary) standoffish siutation. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You reverted me twice on a single article over this, if that's not digging your heels in, what is? If I restore the templates there, would you remove them again? And elsewhere? (I'm watching for replies here, BTW) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, that's a gross assumption. My second revert had a short rationale that led to you messaging me, leading to a discussion. And I haven't touched the page since. Disagreeing edits don't necessarily correlate to long drawn-out edit wars. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question; and I'm not clear what it is that you want to discuss. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, let's start over from the beginning. Your tone feels unnecessarily confrontational. Can we agree to start this discussion from scratch? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my previous comment. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You questions were "You reverted me twice on a single article over this, if that's not digging your heels in, what is? If I restore the templates there, would you remove them again? And elsewhere?" That to me is rather aggressive. I think we should go back to you bullet point list of pro arguments in favor of the templates, but without dwelling on the last sentence about dragging this through dispute resolution, which I felt was needlessly excessive for a second message. Can we do that? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a point, please make it; if you have a question about my editing, please ask it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is I find your tone unnecessarily confrontational, which I have indicated above, and I feel it's hard to have a discussion with you about the issue until you acknowledge that. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that you find my tone unnecessarily confrontational. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. I would honestly like to restart the discussion about the actual editing matter as cleanly as possible, so would you be willing to repost your bullet point list of arguments for the templates in a new section on my talk page, and we can go from there? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of such templates *is* disruptive. Andy's right. Alarbus (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Redux
While you are not required to apply them in your editing, that does not mean that they may be removed on sight.


 * 1) There are 74180 transclusions of Start date. Its use clearly has community consensus.
 * 2) An attempt to delete Start date in 2009 resulted in a seedy keep, due to its importance. Its use has increased significantly since then.
 * 3) It is included in the documentation of hundreds of templates; again showing community consensus.
 * 4) The use of Start date and duration makes the data in the infobox (itself a template;) readable by machines and browser tools, allowing our readers to do more with them.
 * 5) Without the sub-templates, the metadata emitted by the infobox is compromised.
 * 6) Erik Möller, Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation has spoken, in an article called Wikipedia to Add Meaning to Its Pages, about "making some of the data on Wikipedia's 15 million (and counting) articles understandable to computers as well as humans". These templates do that.
 * 7) You give no reason, other than apparently not liking them, for the removal of these sub-templates.

Your removal of sub-templates appears to me to be disruptive. This can go through the dispute process, all the way to an RfC. Do you really think it worth such drama, and that your view will prevail? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant without your closing comment, which was the initial stumbling block for me in the first place in regards to our interaction with one another. Could you strike that? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to, no. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of such templates is not optional; there is plenty of reason and consensus for their use. Editors are not required to add them, but once others have done so, their removal—once this has been explained—is disruptive. Alarbus (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed that their removal is disruptive. wikipedia is not about "doing only what I see fit", but about trying to accommodate the wide interests in subject matter and markup that the superset of users desire. A template very commonly applied which does not obviously cause harm, and which does some good, is to be supported. By contrast, as stated, removal of such a template appears to be the epitome of senseless and selfish disruption. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately my removal of the unnecessary messages, as documented on WP:WQA which you have already acknowledged reading has been reverted, so you'll just have to dump (or archive or ignore) them yourself. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Same to you and more of it
Happy New Year's I look forward to fruitful editing with and without you in 2012, "Wesley." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Collaborating on an R.E.M. album
Sure I could give Green or LRP a go. Thanks a lot. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny You see, I would have said that the strength of writing about Green would be precisely because it's a pivotal album and will have a wealth of sources. We really have precisely opposite approaches. I'm still undecided, but that would be my inclination--I would kind of know the "story" to tell with that album: first with Warners, lead to a massive world tour, four charting singles, half rock/half acoustic to lead into their Out of Time/Automatic for the People era, etc. With LRP you've got Don Gehman making Stipe be more intelligible for the listeners, the band shuffling around last minute to come up with the tracklisting (note that it's wrong on the sleeve, they lost "Theme from Two Steps Onward", they included the "Superman" cover at the last minute), and you could talk a little about how its rock-oriented sound was compared to Accelerate and Collapse into Now (especially as "Begin the Begin" became a setlist favorite in their last couple of tours.) Other than that, I don't know what to say about that album--what comes to mind for you? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great If you want to use your plain references style, I certainly won't object. Since I use reference templates and ISO dates as a matter of habit, I might trip up, but it's not to be contrary. I've never really collaborated on writing an article before although I worked with others on Illinois (album) and Live Show to some extent (the former was more of a proper collaboration, the latter was just copying and pasting together independent work.) I have a number of R.E.M. books and between that and a search engine, this could be written pretty easily. Please suggest the next step. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Books I have had all of them--the book entitled New Adventures in Hi-Fi, Black, Buckley, Talk About the Passion (which I love), Gray, File Under Water, etc. The only one I lacked was the Rolling Stone Files. As to whether or not I can find them, that's another question... I've seen you write that It Crawled from the South contains errors--what do you have in mind? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds right Originally, Green was going to be half guitar rock (metal) and half acoustic strings (air) and at one point in the composition for the album, they wrote the song "Trains (I Can Stretch My Hands Out)" but considered it to be too R.E.M., so that all sounds familiar. As far as it being haphazard, I don't remember that--it looks like I'll be learning something as well! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good deal My "weekend" is Wednesday and Thursday (in Indianapolis, Indiana, United States), so those are reasonable days to expect me to maybe put some effort into it. I don't imagine us tripping over one another, but it's possible. At the risk of being pedantic, you can always use inuse or underconstruction... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing You're the prose writer here--it's probably better if you just see where the writing takes you and I'll follow along. E.g. I edited the lead a little, I'll do it again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconds I agree--you and I are still at odds philosophically, but I have no doubt at all that you are interested in making the encyclopedia better and that you have much better prose skills than me. Thanks for the olive branch! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reveal Sure. My books are in boxes right now, but I go in to work late tomorrow, so I think that's a good bet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters
Hi WesleyDodds,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Online versus published citations
Does it really matter whether a citation was made originally from an online source versus an offline source in a publication? In fact, how can an editor even tell after the fact? So adding publication information to a cite seems like it should be a good thing especially given the sometimes transient nature of the web. And similarly, adding an online link to a cite of a publication should also be a good thing because it provides readers with easy access to an article's sources.

Also making online cites for a publication such as Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone is somewhat misleading. I have found instances of posts on the web sites for both publications that were never published. In those cases I make the cites refer to the web site rather than the publication to make this clear. There is also exceptional cases such as the "The Downward Spiral" article from Rolling Stone, which was originally published and is also available to paying subscribers in the online archives of the magazine, but which was also posted again as a separate post with a new date (and a single author) on the web site.

So I think it should be reasonable and acceptable practice to add more information about the sources such as adding page numbers or links to (legal) copies of the source online whether originally accessed online or offline.

-- J. Wong (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Foo Fighters
I recently improved the articles on two Foo Fighters albums, One by One (Foo Fighters album) and Wasting Light (maybe aiming a possible "FF studio albums" topic!), and wondered if you could take a look at the articles, cleanup, see what needs help - or at least give me suggestions on the leads before someone complains they're too short! Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 03:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice - and I may need that copyedit after all! Are you available to help? (and just to reply something you raised: there's only one book because it's the only one Google Books has some visualization) igordebraga ≠ 03:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (BTW, Wasting Light is going the same way, your help is much welcome if you're available!)

I don't know if you're still interested/available, but I've reworked Foo Fighters (album) as well, and any input of yours would be welcome! Thanks! igordebraga ≠ 13:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In utero
Hey Wesley; as you obviously know, you undid a couple of my edits on In Utero, which is fair enough. So, I was wondering if you could help me find a reference anywhere on In utero's worldwide sales figure. I think becuase the other albums states it's worldwide sales figure, this one should do aswell. Secondly, the theme of the album being Cobain's fascination with life and death that I have tried to include, isn't allowed because the youtube video is copyright, so could you help me with that aswell. All I am trying to do is improve the page, because the album 'coveying Cobain's view on his personal life and newfound fame' isn't the only theme of the album. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShizlGzngar (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Salutations
Hey, good to hear from you. I've been on the road quite a bit the last couple months, so haven't had a ton of time for things here—also the cause of the delay in getting back to you. Are you pursuing any projects at the moment? I'd be happy to pitch in as time allows. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Smells like teen spirit
The link you un-did is copyright compliant - please look just below the last line of the lyrics and you will see credits and a link to the legal lyric aggregator. You can read what and how they power legal lyric sites here http://www.lyricfind.com/about-lyricfind/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstark247 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Basement Rock
Hello. Back in 2009 you tagged this article as lacking notability. I agree that the subject is non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Basement Rock. Robofish (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment on my proposed changes?
Hi. I had a disagreement with User:Journalist on changes I made to 21 (Adele album). I'd appreciate if I could get some comments to the talk page post opened, where I'm at step zero and proposing the changes. Comment? Dan56 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Project Punk Newsletter: February 2012 (Volume III, Issue I)
Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving 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, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Be Here Now
Hi, just thought that I'd drop you a line about our disagreement on the Be Here Now article. It's not really my style to serially revert other editors' edits so I thought that I'd offer an explanation for my actions. Firstly, I could have gone to the talk page but to be honest I find that in many cases people either don't see that or actively choose to ignore it until someone actually reverts their edit, which makes things a bit slow and tedious. Secondly, I understand where you're coming from about it being kind of anecdotal and pithy, particularly with the KFC ref, although Noel appears to mention them so often it looks like he's angling for some sponsorship. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you like his style), that's how Noel tends to do his interviews, with pithy little soundbites. In the absence of something more substantial from him or one of the other band members, I genuinely believe it adds something about where their heads were at at the time and also fleshes out where Noel's criticisms of the final album come from. That said, I'm not so adamant on its inclusion that I'm against it being debated, I just don't think it can be dismissed simply as “non essential”. If you want to put it on the talk page and look for a consensus that's fine with me (not that I would have any room for objection anyway but I hope you know what I mean). Best regards d a n n o  20:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did try and find a link to the original interview but without success, so it's difficult to say with certainty whether he was referring specifically to the recording of the album although that is how I read it – he mentions the studio and describes an urban locale. I have no doubts about its veracity, I have dim recollections of hearing this around the time of the interview (which is indeed 99 rather than 2009, my bad). The quotes from the observers about that phase of the recording are great, but as I mentioned before there's nothing from any of the actual protagonists which I see as a shortcoming. As you said, the article does fixate on the point about Oasis losing the plot, but it's always about "cocaine" which is the symptom rather than the root cause – a bunch of young men being given too much time, money and freedom, a point that Noel captures succinctly. In terms of being decorative, absolutely! I totally agree that we should be factual and concise, but I don't think that precludes us from trying to make articles a genuinely good read, so in my opinion colourful quotes like this one add rather than detract from the whole.  d a n n o  18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

TFA
Hello fellow nerd. Just to say congrats on your TFA...its a great page but, uh, have fun with those genre warriors dude. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Disintegration (The Cure album)
This is a note to let the main editors of Disintegration (The Cure album) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 1, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 1, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Disintegration is the eighth studio album by English alternative rock band The Cure, released on 1 May 1989 by Fiction Records. The record marks a return to the introspective and gloomy gothic rock style the band had established in the early 1980s. As he neared the age of thirty, vocalist and guitarist Robert Smith (pictured) felt an increased pressure to follow up on the group's pop successes with a more enduring work. This, coupled with a distaste for the group's new-found popularity, caused Smith to lapse back into the use of hallucinogenic drugs, the effects of which had a strong influence on the production of the album. The Cure recorded Disintegration at Hook End Manor Studios in Reading, Berkshire, with co-producer David M. Allen in late 1988 through early 1989. In spite of Fiction's fears that the album would be "commercial suicide", Disintegration became the band's commercial peak. It charted at number three in the United Kingdom and at number twelve in the United States, and produced several hit singles including "Lovesong", which peaked at number two on the Billboard Hot 100. Disintegration sold over three million copies sold worldwide. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes
Hi. I proposed the changes you reverted to In Utero (album) at the talk page. Dan56 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Paradox Me
Hey Sandman. Just wanted to discuss the business of Rape Me's title being paradoxical. I think you took it down as OR, but it's just a linguistic point, isn't it? I think it's an interesting and correct observation that doesn't constitute OR or need a reference. It's self-evidently true, like the vast majority of examples at List of paradoxes. Or isn't it? (Maybe that list should be sourced). I don't really mind - just interested! Cheers, Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Project Punk Newsletter: May 2012 (Volume III, Issue II)
Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving 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, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

Cheers,

benzband ( talk ) &  Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  06:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

PJ topic
Dunno how much you collaborated with the Pearl Jam albums, but since at least Ten and Vitalogy had your help, decided to add you to this nom. (unlike the guy from the Nirvana one, I know how the collaborators need at least a notification...) igordebraga ≠ 03:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

DC Universe Classics tables
I can see the reason for removing a lot of the info from the tables for DC Universe Classics (such as articulation), but are you going to fix up the tables? You left the description columns without headers. JLThorpe (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC
The Paul McCartney article has now been thoroughly copyedited top-to-bottom by numerous editors including User:Lfstevens, who is a member of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please consider stopping by and taking a look, and hopefully, !voting. ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion
Could you opine on this this matter. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Pearl Jam
Hi Wesley. Thanks for the recent edits to the PJ article. I was looking at that equipment section this morning and was about to raise a discussion (esp. as it dates from 1997). And I've never heard the term "Jamily" let alone been referred as being in it! Thanks again.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yes, that could be handy. I've kept a close eye on the article myself, reverting the rogue IP edits, etc. Hopefully it's not in too bad shape.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds good - I'll do what I can. Thanks!  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's some really good work there. I'll have a proper read through it over the upcoming days and look for more sources and get a cite for that fact tag.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Christian rock bands
Please stop edit warring on the article. We're sorry if you don't agree that they are a Christian band, but they are listed in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, pages 978-83 and the industry's primary magazine had reviews of many of their releases. That same book gives a definition of Christian music that is very general, and it's the one we as editors in those projects. It's in the lede of many of the lists, and I've added it to this article. I trust that you'll start to discuss now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I told you I was an editor of the U2 article. Check the article's edit history. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises
Hi - I am hoping you will agree to add back "The nickname 'the Dark Knight' was first applied to Batman in Batman #1 (1940), in a story written by Bill Finger." The source of a movie's title is significant, especially when not stated in the movie itself. Entries for numerous other superhero movies include such content, logically so. If not for Bill Finger, we would have no Batman, yet he is not officially acknowledged as Batman's co-creator, so the least we can do is credit his phrase in the movie named for it. What do you say? Thanks. Mtn (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of ComicsAlliance for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ComicsAlliance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ComicsAlliance until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  07:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: In Rainbows
This is a note to let the main editors of In Rainbows know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 17, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/August 17, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



In Rainbows is the seventh studio album by the English rock band Radiohead. It was first released on 10 October 2007 as a digital download self-released, that customers could order for whatever price they saw fit, followed by a standard CD release in most countries during the last week of 2007. The album was released in North America on 1 January 2008 on TBD Records. In Rainbows was Radiohead's first release after the end of their contract with EMI and the end of the longest gap between studio albums in their career. Recording with producer Nigel Godrich, Radiohead worked on In Rainbows for more than two years, beginning in early 2005. In between recording, the band toured Europe and North America for three months in mid-2006. The songwriting on In Rainbows was more personal than that on Radiohead's other albums, with singer Thom Yorke describing most tracks as his versions of "seduction songs". Radiohead incorporated a wide variety of musical styles and instruments on the album, using not only electronic music and string arrangements, but also pianos, celestes, and the ondes Martenot. The album earned widespread critical acclaim, and was ranked as one of the best albums of 2007 by several publications. In 2012, Rolling Stone magazine ranked the album #336 on their updated version of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

OK Computer
It's so close! Once I've written a bit more for "Lucky" it's essentially done except for tidying up the prose. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think it's finally ready for prime time. Once you review it over I'll nominate it at FAC. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the review boxes are redundant, but I think the general standard now is to have them. I'd also much rather have it arranged logically as it is now over having to constantly combat poorly-made templates (bad enough that I've already had to take the 5/5 RS review out of the contemporary section a few times). And strangely, the reissue didn't get picked up by Metacritic. What are you going to be recording? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's awesome to hear, I never realized you were also a musician. Is it a solo or band project? What instrument(s) do you play? What style? And I finally put OK Computer up at FAC, have a peek. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, I was actually working on "Lucky" a few weeks back but lost the progress when my laptop died. From here it should be a pretty easy Featured Topic. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I responded to all your comments. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cole Porter
Thanks for the nice note! Happy editing, Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see anything wrong.
I'm just curious. Why did you revert this edit: I'm not too familiar with Post-hardcore, but I'm almost positive that it, and Emo are both alternative rock. Please explain.  Lighthead  þ 02:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Help
Hi Wesley! Not too many projects on the go now as far as albums go. I've only had time to do little by little things on wikipedia lately rather than full blown GA's. If anything comes up I'll let you know. Is there anything you are thinking of tackling to get help with? If there's every a thing to do for a Alternative music weekly focus things, I'll be happy to help on those again when I can. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Underground: Issue 1 (August/September 2012)


Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving 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, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

Cheers,

benzband ( talk ) &  Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  00:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Hi. I was wondering if you could comment at Talk:God_Forgives,_I_Don%27t? An apparent fan is giving me a hard time with changes. Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. BTW, an editor recently made a change to In Utero (album), adding a ratings template in. He commented here after telling him that this has been discussed a couple of times before, so he's probably expecting a response. Dan56 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Review box template on albums
WesleyDodds, about the review boxes for album pages: the reason why review boxes are necessary, is because it is an easy-to-read, visual representation of the critical reception of the album, that fleshes out the best reviews so that one does not have to read through a dense paragraph that details the overall critical reception of the album, so that it in turn highlights the overall quality of the album. I, and a lot of other users, feel strongly about this. Even though it may seem as if the critical reception box is unnecessary, doesn't mean that it is, in reality, unnecessary, warranting removal from the article itself. Zinger12345 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC) WesleyDodds, is it not clear to you that reading through the prose to get a general sense of the professional critical reception of an album is difficult and that adding a review template box would make it easier to at least get a gist of the reviews? Besides, I don't see why not have a review template. Why is it so unnecessary that it warrants constant removal from a page? Zinger12345 (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Deftones
Just wanted to make you aware of the discussion at Talk:Deftones. User:Trascendence is claiming you (based on little) and he came to a consensus on nu metal being removed from the article. HrZ (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)