User talk:Teflon Peter Christ/Archive 2013

Muse Sick

Hello Dan56,

I did not mean to move anything that was not supposed to be moved. I just wanted to get a credit on the album since I worked on . I was the a&r executive working for Def Jam. I wanted to make sure I get credit for the work. I wanted to put a personnel section on the page so I could be included. (Drumdragon7 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC))

Thanks!

This is Drpaulgleason again. Thanks for the helpful info. Now I know what to tell my boss about our reviews of more mainstream albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpaulgleason (talk • contribs) 13:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Laisse tomber les filles"

Hey, I think there is some miscommunication here. "Laisse tomber les filles" is a massively famous song written by Serge Gainsbourg. I get the need to cite but I would not expect to have to cite that, say, "Here Comes the Sun" was written by George Harrison. In any case here is a page on allmusic showing the writing credit for the song. http://www.allmusic.com/album/release/france-gall-vol-1-laisse-tomber-les-filles-mr0001914461

As I have said twice I am not very experienced with Wikipedia conventions so instead of just removing valid information I would appreciate it if you would improve upon the information given since you seem to be an expert on this convention. Please let me know how I can assist in this matter. zellin t / c 19:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, you said to find a source for "both its sampling and its writing credit." I don't think you understand. For one, there is no sample in the song "Montreal"—it is an interpolation. Second, the fact that Gainsbourg was not credited for the interpolated element, which he composed, and someone else is erroneously. Again, let me know if I can explain better. zellin t / c 19:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is tangential to the main point, but surely you agree we do not need to cite that Paris is the capital of France on every page where that information appears. That's what I'm saying with "Laisse tomber les filles," but I gave you a citation so that is beside the point.

You say "perhaps those elements it happens to use were those written by Gall, not Gainsbourg." Look at the citation. No element of the song was written by France Gall. Serge Gainsbourg is the sole author of "Laisse tomber les filles." This is documented all over the internet and is not controversial. Serge Gainsbourg's songwriting for France Gall is well-known.

Many of the song writing credits in Trilogy are inaccurate in minor ways, such as misspelled names. If your line of reasoning is that a) we know that the songwriting credits in Trilogy are incorrect but b) it is not Wikipedia's place to mention this, then I disagree but that is fine. If your line of reasoning is that the songwriting credits in Trilogy are correct you are objectively wrong.

I apologize if I seem to be coming off a little strong here—it's just that "Laisse tomber les filles" is an extremely well known song and this is a rather glaring error made by whoever put together these credits. zellin t / c 19:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to try one last time. The fact that Serge Gainsbourg wrote "Laisse tomber les filles" is verifiable. I am not disputing that the Trilogy compilation credits France Gall, erroneously, for writing the song. If you are telling me that this verifiable AND true information does not belong on Wikipedia, I dare say that you are what is wrong with Wikipedia. zellin t / c 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

One example of a misspelling. "Simon Raymmonde" [sic] is credited as a co-writer for "The Knowing" on account of the Cocteau Twins sample. Simon Raymonde is the member of the Cocteau Twins. There's at least one other example, I remember going over these notes in detail—there are quite a few errors, mostly involving spelling but in the Gall/Gainsbourg case simply crediting the wrong person. You're out of your element, as I am mine by trying to reason with you. zellin t / c 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the songwriting credit of France Gall. I defy you to find me ONE SOURCE ANYWHERE that says that France Gall wrote or co-wrote "Laisse tomber les filles." You will find sources that say she is credited for co-writing "Montreal," sure. But these are all sourced from the erroneous liner notes. If you simply Google search for this song you will find dozens of pages saying that Gainsbourg wrote the song. This is NOT CONTROVERSIAL. What do I have to do to find a citation that satisfies you, have an original copy of the 7" single? zellin t / c 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What I'm proposing, as I've made clear many times, is that the Wikipedia page for Trilogy make clear that France Gall was credited for the song erroneously. There are countless other examples of incorrect songwriting credits (take a look at almost any Led Zeppelin song page for instance) and having both the listed credit and the correct credit is useful. Since I seemingly can't edit a page without you reverting it (ownership, anyone?) I'm asking you to synthesize this information in the proper way. Let me know if I can assist in this—otherwise, take care, and I again apologize for the heated exchange. zellin t / c 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, really last post unless you ask for help, but your most recent edit is again incorrect. There is no sample of "Laisse tomber les filles" on "Montreal." There is an interpolation. Also, since the information in the "sample credits" page does not directly mirror the liner notes anyway, I see no reason why Serge Gainbourg can't be mentioned as the songwriter there. I agree about the credits in the tracklisting—they should mirror whatever is given in the liner notes. If there are errors, they should be noted elsewhere in the section. zellin t / c 20:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FutureSex/LoveSounds

Wanna work together on it and try to bring it to FA status? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, I will try to do something on my own. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 07:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Unorthodox Jukebox

OK. Thank you for telling me. My love is love (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN

See Talk:Climax (Usher song)/GA2. Till 13:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hello, nice to meet. I have opened a discussion here. I hope you can pass. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland

Hi, would you please participate in this discussion about the lead section of Kelly Rowland? Thanks. — Oz 02:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaliyah

Your input strongly needed here: [1] WillieLimpD (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks!!!! Ibrahimkhan7 (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

FutureSex/LoveSounds

I saw you labeled my editions in the page as "unconstructive" and "disruptive". How so?! Even if you tought they were that, you should have clarified exactly WHY. One was a typo and the other is absolutely adequate. I hope you could answer back, regards. --Watquaza (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, both are typos. You should remember to assume good faith editions. Both were typos, did you even bothered in checking the source of B2B? The page also states that FL/SS have a Diamond certification, the only one actually. And as for Hong Kong, the certification is also there. I missed the year, it's 2006 not 2005. But the next time care to check what you are labeling as "unconstructive" and "disruptive". --Watquaza (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Still you should have. At the end my contributions were right. But I can't asume that from you now that you've been reverted too, can I? Anyway, it's fixed --Watquaza (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, gave a "last warning" to that A$AP Rocky IP user

Hey there, I doubt he or she is even reading the messages, and would certainly never heed them. I figured the last warning on User talk:69.121.0.8 was needed before moving for a block. It will almost certainly be ignored and necessary. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dan!

Hey, what's up? I guess all the drama from yesterday will be gone now. Anyway, I see you are good at copy-editing, especially that you did couple of FA articles [mostly on your own i guess]. I am planning to nominate "Cry Me a River" for FA really soon, can you give it some c/e before I do that? I will appreciate it. Cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wooow. Thank you, it is reading better now. Btw, do you think I should FAC it already? Btw, I reverted the edit about the charts because I think that separate charts have better access. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw they changed the design, and I new they would fuck up something. Bad really bad. Alright then, I will let you check the Billboard links. Thanks — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ridernyc

Hello, there is this user named Ridernyc who is constantly reverting edits I noticed on Btbam articles. Reverting sourced genres with many sources and reverting removals of unreliable sources on genres. Saying there isn't a consensus but started the argument recently. Currently, I need him to know that there hasn't been arguing on the genre until he came.

Ihy34 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick civility note

Comments like this are great... until you add in jabs like "genius". Please don't do that. Cheers, m.o.p 04:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Danny, I responded on my talk about the issue what you suggested me to comment on. Have you seen the comment? Anyway, what happened with the Biilboard links and stuff? Greetings! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright then. Glad to hear that. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

OMG! Their design was dope! Modern and everything, they didn't have need to change it. Now wtf is with those circles. :/ Billboard must complicate something... always! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Scroll to the link and see on the right side you can find a legend on what the circles mean. Btw, did they delete the archives :O? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaliyah (album) FAC

Hi Dan56, thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I can't remember the last time I edited an FAC review page, and my infrequency there probably means that I'm not the best person to ask when it comes to reviewing the article to meet the exact FA critieria. I will say here, however, that Aaliyah (album) looks like an impressive, quality article, and I'd be surprised if it didn't pass the review. Best. Acalamari 23:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: FAC Aaliyah (album)

Sure, I'd love to. I'm not all that familiar with commenting at FAC reviews, though. Is there any specific way to do it? SnapSnap 16:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. :) SnapSnap 04:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Socks

In case you weren't aware, User:James edwin, who you have worked with, was blocked as a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony254trill/Archive. As the user seems to edit music articles you might be active in, you can help report on any future socks by observing past behavior. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article ATLiens in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. DivaKnockouts (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
· · ·

Hi

Hey Dan! How are you? I just wanted to tell you that I nominated "Cry Me a River for FA. Catch by if you can... Thanks :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kendrick Lamar

Go look it up. It's not incorrect, I know not with which you're claiming that to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.10 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Would love an explanation

http://www.prefixmag.com/users/ClydeErwinBarretto/

Does this really appear to be a professional author to you? Really? It's self published. Read: Self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Nicholas (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

A discussion relevant to you

Please see here Since you have been involved in previous related discussions and editing in the past day or so. I have created this centralized discussion for further input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Until the Quiet Comes

I am willing to review this, but before I started I thought I would check to make sure you are still around to respond to any potential questions. AIRcorn (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sweet will do so know. AIRcorn (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Harlem Shake (song)

Dance, Song, Video, Meme : How to tell the history? How was this excessively redundant, since the 3 pages are so small ? If everything I did has sources how is it a "dubious addition" ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

relapse (eminem album)

I have seen your edit. I read that the relapse had reached 6 million worldwide sales. Still i think i will re-edit it after finding some reliable sources. If you have some queries you can post it on my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinav0927 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aaliyah (album)/archive1

Be sure to let me know when you'd like me to revisit. Best, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dan!

How are you? Hey can you please comment at the "Cry Me a River" FAC... it is getting kinda of inactive. :/ Thank you — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Write me back GA review

HI Dan Having looked through some of your articles I sense a trend in the way they are structured. It is my opinion that it could be beneficial for you to look at some other albums and maybe try some different methods. My issue is still that you could create a more neutral tone by keeping opinions about the album to the reviews section and only statements for the rest of the article, like this Odyssey Number Five article, that way people can easily distinguish it.

I also looked at your Aaliyah (album) page and noted you have done the same there. The difference I see though is that the music and lyrics section you give differing points of view which makes it work much better. Maybe you could do the same for this so it doesn't seem like you've only referring to one persons opinion.

Hope you understand my point. I am going to approve your article as GA since I may be in the minority in this view on this one. I am happy to continue this discussion though as I still think my original reasons for denying it based on its neutrality are right. Mebored81 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Harlem Shake (song)

I reverted your recent edit to this article. WP:SEE ALSO says that the links included in such a section should reflect those in an article on the topic that's relating them, in this case Internet meme. Neither "Crank That" nor "Lisztomania" are mentioned in that article. Regardless, there are far more songs that share that meme aspect, and it wouldnt be practical to list them all or pick and choose. Dan56 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please name those "far more songs" that resemble "Harlem Shake" in the regard that they featured millions of user-generated videos following one specific theme. I'd like to know. --bender235 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Abbey Road

"Artificial" is fine by me. 1960s Moogs were not digital, as the wave function was not discontinuous. I don't know about their more recent products. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Wow! I award you this, original barnstar, for your AMAZING work at getting Aaliyah (album) to FA status! It happened oh so fast! I remember looking at the article a few months ago and it was a piece of shit! Great job man! Keep up the great work!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Lumineers

I will give you an opportunity to make me a better wikipedian editor, since you know so much more than I do. So, where did I go wrong with respect to this article in the critical review section, which was basically nothing before I got to it. I could easily get bitter of The Truth About Love, which I will now focus on becoming a better editor instead, and grow from your criticism.HotHat (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to take out grades and non-Rating, and put some more of those into the ratings box, but you did not like the prose.HotHat (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, on the P!nk ablum article, I exchanged Spin for COS in the ratings box, which I did not put COS in prose, but since it had a starred rating. I took it instead, and I took and put back in the Metacritic score in the box, which many editors seem unwilling to do on album articles. See, I see it that if I got the parameter, why not use it? I belong to the "use it or lose it" mentality.HotHat (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay point taken, and point addressed in the aforementioned article on the noteworthy review. So, what about the Metacritic score? Furthermore, where did I go wrote with the critical review on The Lumineers?HotHat (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, for all the help and assistance!HotHat (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you like the critical review section now on The Lumineers? Should I use Paste instead of Ham&High in the ratings box? I want your opinion on the matter because I am trying to learn.HotHat (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work on that later!HotHat (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

When you get the time, I have worked on The Lumineers, just wanted to let you know.HotHat (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Engineering work on the John Legend & the Roots-WAKE UP! Album & Common-FINDING FOREVER

Do i have to go to the major label to get them to give me proper credit? Or have u call Chung King Studios nyc 212-463-0032 and have them send u copies of the session logs when and who the engineer was on the sessions? I know sometimes labels don't always get the credits correct or they forget some people cuz it was late into the album getting done and the artwork/credits were already completed. The John legend &roots album i help track a lot of the music , we did 4 days in a row,, it was when the yankees and phillies were in the world series cuz i had to bring the big screen from the lounge into the control room so Questlove and the rest of the roots (from Phily) could watch the game while they were recording and the engineer, Steve Mandel was the engineer , which they had brought from the jimmy fallon show.

The Common FINDING FOREVER album (also at Chung King Studios in the Blue Room) i worked with Bilal tracking the vocals for "Start the show" and Kanye was on the phone half-singing to Bilal how he wanted it to flow. And the other day was thee final day of the album when Common came in to track the vocal for the lead on "break my heart" and after he got done, he listened to the entire album with his A&R and i had to hook up an extra SUB to make it Boom more for him while he was listening to the album.Royalplaid1234 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For your new FA and all the good work on Wikipedia! Keep it up... — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Adam Hemleich's quote on Illmatic

Where do you think Adam's quote should go on the Illmatic page? I'm thinking the section "Retrospect"? Or do you think it should stay where it is? 150.209.41.46 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Song(s) of Innocence

Despite some of my comments, I do recognise that you've done an excellent job there. I don't have a whole lot of respect for GA or FA processes, but good luck! If I can help, let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC) PS: Just out of interest (!), what value does the latest RRG place on the UK LP? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you help me edit this page?

Hey Dan56, I notice you have authored a few featured articles. That's great! Can I get your input on the Illmatic page, to see how we might improve it? And hopefully, we can make that into a FA as well. Chubdub (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be helpful! Chubdub (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The critical response section looks easier to read now that you broke it up into section. I was thinking, should we include a pic of the 5mics from the source? Chubdub (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dan. I'm looking for an image for the hip-hop artist section. And I figured this would be a perfect one... copyright rules. http://speechismyhammer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/elzhi-elmatic-640x420.jpg Unfortunately, its copyrighted by XXL mag. Could I justify its use on the Illmatic page? Chubdub (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Further research needed

How can you ignore Wikipedia's own article on the subject of Third Stream Music? It's Gunther Schuller's own term meaning the merging of TWO streams, jazz and classical, into a new THIRD stream. I don't believe that "world music" was included in Schuller's definition.

I would hope that with your obvious dedication to Wikipedia that you could research the subject and further improve the paragraph.

Why did you omit "Quiet Nights?" Of the four Davis/Evans collaborations this is the one example that was informed by what could be reasonably called "world music." And by the way, this was not a "test edit." JaneOlds (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Illmatic

Hey Dan56, I notice you have authored a few featured articles. That's great! Can I get your input on the Illmatic page, to see how we might improve it? And hopefully, we can make that into a FA as well. Chubdub (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be helpful! Chubdub (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The critical response section looks easier to read now that you broke it up into section. I was thinking, should we include a pic of the 5mics from the source? Chubdub (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dan. I'm looking for an image for the hip-hop artist section. And I figured this would be a perfect one... copyright rules. http://speechismyhammer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/elzhi-elmatic-640x420.jpg Unfortunately, its copyrighted by XXL mag. Could I justify its use on the Illmatic page? Chubdub (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the link to the photo review page. Chubdub (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Weeknd

Hey Dan56, I was signed off on my work computer and noticed you left this message on my IP's talk page.

Unfortunately, that address is shared by many dozens of individuals, so it's unlikely your message will now reach its intended target.

Keep up the good work! tdmg (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gil Scott-Heron

Category:Gil Scott-Heron, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Heres what it says in that article "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material." which i cited a relibale source so how is that original research. Koala15 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Right no other articles about musicians post the album title in the discography section. Koala15 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The Weeknd Videos

Cool, understand what you mean about not having it on his main page and it breaking flow. What were you suggesting would be a good place to add this content? I think it's useful and relevant information. Jabrazeau (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding it to his album page now. Thanks!Jabrazeau (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Valotte

Hello Dan56. I'd just like to say thanks for adding the reception section to Valotte. If you don't mind/not busy, could you also add reception sections for the rest of Julian's albums? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough then. In terms of GA standard, I don't think there's enough info for the rest of the albums. However, I do have some other GANs that are in need of a proper reception section. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 12:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Rusch review

The entire sentence regarding the Civil rights movement is as follows, "This is a large, cohesive work, and I'm not sure, besides the stated connection between Civil Rights Movement and the music—I was active for a while with the Civil Rights Movement in this country in the 50s and 60s, and into the 70s, and music played a very large part in that, whether it was Robeson or Pete Seger, Mahalia or Aretha, but I don’t hear those echoes in this music." It wasn't clear whether this was criticism or not, I guess Rusch simply meant that the work was inspired by the era, but he didn't hear the influence of the music of that era. As for the composition itself, he did have this to say: "This work, for the most part, is compositional, IE classical, and, like Leo's trumpet music, it's often sort of projecting spires out into the universe. Inner Space, with its mostly chamber sound, is Smith's own group, which he calls the Golden Quintet, which is Smith, Anthony Davis on piano, John Lindberg on bass, Pheroann Ak Laff on drums, and Susie Ibarra also on drums. I found all the four records here all engaging, but for the jazz listener who doesn't have broad tastes I guess you could program out the parts that aren’t with the quintet, which are mostly found on discs three and four." Again, I'm hesitant to put the whole thing online, but I hope this helps. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Same Trailer Different Park

I created the critical section, which you might want to look at it, and get back to me if you have any problems with it.HotHat (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for correct my mistakes in the section, and working on the music and lyrics section.HotHat (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Beatles album genres

In your last message to me you said that the genre changes I made to certain Beatles albums weren't reliable because i got them from a source that "wasn't reliable" because it was copied from a previous wikipedia info box. The people who had copied the info box were the admins of the OFFICIAL Beatles website, the most reliable info source for the band, so surely if the previous info wasn't true they wouldn't have put in on the website. Therefore i think my changes had very reliably sources. Y45ed (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Tinashe genres

I have notice nearly all the music artists articles you work on, even the ones you have received awards for do not even have sources for their genres. But you keep undoing everything that mention the genres Tinashe is consider. But for example your work. A few

Ray Ray, Illmatic, Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik, Congregation (album), LiveLoveA$AP, Life Is Good (Nas album)

But most artists in general don't have sources cited for there genre.

Nelly Furtado, Rihanna, Melanie Fiona, Jamie Foxx, The-Dream, Mariah Carey, Brandy Norwood, Christina Aguilera, Janet Jackson, Leona Lewis, etc, etc. no source cited.

She work with Producers in those Genres, She's often compared to artist of those genres. She even describe herself as being a mix of those genres. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. Wikipedia:No original research Most artists don't have genre cited sources. Your over challenging this with no reason for rejection. Most artists don't have cited sources for music because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.

Toneythegreat (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:75.65.123.86

I have reported him to 3RR. He then reported ytou to 3RR pbp 20:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

24.146.185.201

yo yo yo, what up Dan56. I was wondering what is up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.185.201 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Hi, I'm replying to your message about my edit of the Channel Orange page. I added a new section to the talk page regarding my edit straight after I'd done it. Please check there (Golden Girl songwriter credits) and let me know what you think. Thanks.27.252.192.64 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hendrix project and troublesome IPs

Dan, I'm not ignoring you, sorry I didn't respond more quickly. FWIW, I have had enough of genre wars in general, and more importantly, arguing with IPs. I want to help out, but have had my fair share of anon sock/trolls who are really just here to cause trouble, and seem to care little about improving the project. I suggest you ask an uninvolved admin for advice/assistance. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A Love Surreal

Greetings Dan,

I corrected the information because my brother and I are the actual co-writers or the song. My name is Aziz Collins and my brothers name is Joshua Collins. I am aware that in the liner notes the credits have us listed as "A.Collins and J.Collins" if you would like to provide me with your email address I'd be happy to share with you our conversation with Bilal's management about our publishing info for our work on the song. I'm not sure who Albert Collins is and while some people may refer to my brother as "J" (Jay) his name is Joshua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azizcollins (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: FAC comment

Oh, course. When I have some time. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

¡Hello, Dan!. I know that "Publishers" are generally excluded but I used common sense (They are needed for FAs; since I am an editor of several Wikipedias, I can assure you that is a good point to include these). But nothing happens =). I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your good work. Chrishonduras (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. I can ensure that "Editorial Visión Libros" is not a self-publishing house (I'm living in Latin American).

bird and diz

What exactly do the liner notes say? Monk's first studio appearance took place six years before this recording, and his Minton's recordings were several years before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.75.127 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The liner notes say: "in addition, these are the only recordings by Monk between July 2, 1948 and July 23, 1951". Since you've edited the article on Monk, you're familiar with the section on "Early recordings (1944-1954). Do with that what you will. Dan56 (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Goin' Home (album)/GA1

See Talk:Goin' Home (album)/GA1 review. — Robin (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Goin' Home to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! — Robin (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring A Love Surreal to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! — Robin (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Dan, Hope you're well. Feel free to go through some of the changes I've been making to the Illmatic and East Coast hip hop pages. I'm hoping to go through and include citations wherever they are still needed (it should take me another day, I'm just caught up with work). Also, I'm curious why the East Coast article was heavily cut down from its older version? It seems to be missing a lot of content that could still be relevant to the topic, don't ya think? Chubdub (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the barnstar got caught up in my message. Chubdub (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Prose over tracklisting

On the album Wheelhouse, User:BuddylBat thinks that it is more important to put the tracks over the prose, so do we have a policy to cite to this user.HotHat (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wheelhouse

I took and replaced Taste of Country with Billboard in the ratings box because I am learning something from you to ask the question, which source is the most reliable and trustworthy? No question, it is the well established and highly regarded magazine over the genre specific music zine. By the way, the reason is because Billboard finally is starting to provide some semblance of a rating.HotHat (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Confessions Good Topic

Hi there,

I'm re-nominating Confessions along with its singles to become a Good Topic. As a major contributor to the main article in the series, I was wondering whether it would be alright to include you as one of the contributors. Et3rnal 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That'd be fine. Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. I've contacted another editor, Efe, who promoted the album along with its singles to GA. Though if his current status of being semi-retired is indicative of anything, we may have to do this without him. I'll wait a day or two to see his response. Et3rnal 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gotten no response, so I went ahead and made the nomination. Et3rnal 17:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Accolade table

Hey Dan,

I was having trouble including a new accolade on Illmatic's Accolade section. Do you know how to work the table in that section. If so, would you mind including this under the Rolling Stones section?

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-100-greatest-debut-albums-of-all-time-20130322/illmatic-19691231 Chubdub (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And this too

http://www.complex.com/music/2012/11/the-50-greatest-debut-albums-in-hip-hop-history/nas-illmatic Chubdub (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense

"may cause readability or accessibility problems" - in fact, it helps readability because that's how people talk. They refer to Rodgers & Hammerstein's The King & I not Rodgers, Hammerstein's The King & I. Who wrote HMS Pinafore? Gilbert & Sullivan not Gilbert, Sullivan... Thank you.--The Totter 21:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegraph Totter (talk • contribs)

Finally Rich

In your opinion, do you think that the deluxe edition cover for Finally Rich meets the Fair-Use criteria for use in the article? I seem to believe it is very similar to the standard edition album image and should not be used per Template: Infobox album. What do you think? STATic message me! 02:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. It is neither "significantly different from the original" nor "widely distributed and/or replaces the original". Should be removed. Dan56 (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have time for a GA review?

Hi Dan! I recently nominated Britney (album) for GA status, and seeing your fabulous contributions to music-related articles, I was wondering if you would be interested in taking on this review. Regards, WikiRedactor (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be a good reviewer; I'll probably nitpick to death over style changes. Dan56 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thank you anyway! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Neo soul

Finally worked out how to use the talk page, having taken out that opinion thing you mentioned earlier and still getting my edit reversed please explain what I need to do for approval? The multiple IP addresses thing isn't intentional just seems to happen (at no stage have I intentionally changed IP address), I use different devices at home. Please understand that I have never edited a page before and having been learning with the feedback given from you and other users on that page, and am only trying to help rather than vandalise (92.5.238.211 (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

Also I'd like to apologise for missing your messages on the various talk pages made for the IPs, as a new Wikipedia user I did not know these existed and I can kind of see why you thought I was being hostile, in truth I only found the messages a few minutes ago and had I seen them earlier we'd probably not have come to this situation. (92.5.238.211 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

Alanis Morissette

I wonder what you think of Havoc and Bright Lights, since I worked on the critical reception section?HotHat (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would try to rely less on quotes and paraphrase instead, while avoiding redundant points of criticism and praise: use each review to represent a specific aspect of the overall reception. Also, "gave a positive review" wouldn't be necessary for readers if already summarizing a positive aspect of the critique, which, along with which paragraph it's placed in, would imply already that it was a positive review. And quoting Metacritic's "mixed or average" phrase is saying the same thing as the section's first sentence, so that could be removed. Otherwise, your section seems sufficient if the article is ever nominated for good-article assessment. Dan56 (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I used to make such bloated sections, but have improved through others' assessment when nominating articles for GA or FA, sort of trial-and-error (see this older revision I made in comparison to the current for The Ecstatic for example). Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, those are some good observations about the section. I was bothered by the section not having any favorable ratings that were of the standard/caliber that the mixed or the negative ones were from. Take for instance, DigitalSpy and Contactmusic are not up to the standard of say USA Today, The A.V. Club, American Songwriter and Paste so I took and replaced those because they were just used for scores/ratings alone. On the flip side, BBC Music and The Boston Globe do not provide ratings, which the article in question had said positive or favorable in the box. So, for BBC I took A.V. and for Globe I took Today. The box now according to my calculations equals 55/100, this is done by Metacritics own formula by the way.HotHat (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh goodness, you don't even want to know what my old critical sections used to look like.HotHat (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

You reverted my edit again on In Utero (album), i really don't see where the guideline says that you can only use "a numbered list" while nearly every other album uses template a track listing Like all The Beatles album's and every other Nirvana album. Koala15 (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't use Nirvana as an example since you yourself changed the track listings on them to the template. Need I also point out you broke the three-revert rule on In Utero? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 00:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks for your work to bring Goldenheart to Good Article status. Your prolific contributions are much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Tabloids

Even Metacritic uses tabloids to get their scores from, such as The Austin Chronicle and LA Weekly to name two that I found. I just wanted to alert you to this fact that I found out.HotHat (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between Tabloid (newspaper format) and tabloid journalism. "Tabloid" is often used colloquially to refer to the latter. Dan56 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I got it. Thanks. On another note, someone deleted SPIN magazine rating and review from The Next Day article because it was mixed, and it needs at least one mixed to be a representative sample of the reception.HotHat (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted him. Feel free to revert unexplained content removals. If an edit is challengeable, it usually requires a valid edit summary. When one isn't provided, you cant be blamed for reverting them (WP:FIES). Dan56 (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Article guidance

I overhauled the Capital Kings critical section, what did I do wrong?HotHat (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks better. Just cite a source for what's in the infobox's "recorded" parameter and what's in the "Commercial" section. Dan56 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable Doubt (album)

I have blocked the IP address of the editor who has been repeatedly adding disputed content to Reasonable Doubt (album). However, you need to be aware that your own edits to the article constitute edit warring. I am not blocking you, because you have repeatedly attempted to communicate with the other editor, and received no response, but you need to bear in mind that you should not edit war even if you are convinced you are right. Whether anything at WP:Dispute resolution can be any help I don't know, but you should at least consider it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Added or not

Do you think that by adding Mojo to Rumours that I added to the article in a good way or not?HotHat (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Dan56 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Neo Soul

Hi. Sorry, the reason I added it was because on Timberlake's page for his album The 20/20 Experience, the genre is listed as neo soul, (which I thought was unusual/interesting) so I thought it may help the article to have more recent releases listed as it was referring to late 2000's music. Check it out and see what you think, otherwise sorry for changing it. Thanks 124.183.250.43 (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote you changed with this edit was taken from this source, which does not mention that album. Dan56 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ratings box

What do you think about Rumours 35th Anniversary ratings box put in the article that I created.HotHat (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the most pertinent of those quotes/reviews be included in what is already an efficient reception and legacy section(s). It might be difficult to incorporate the whole thing. Perhaps get an opinion from one of the main contributors? Or those involved in the article's original featured-article nomination. Dan56 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to thank you for the guidance.HotHat (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Dan, it's been a while. How are you? I hope you are doing good. Hey, I was thinking about nominating Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded for a FA. I know the article is not big enough, but looks cute and I think it can become a FA. But before that can you give it a copy-edit treatment. I would appreciate it. Cheers! :) (Note: It is at GAN now, but I resolved all the issues so I guess it will pass soon) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but maybe in a few days. Dan56 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e. Do you think I should FAC it already? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Cant speak on the topic, but the article seems to be as comprehensive as possible on it. Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your copyedit of Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, I award you this barnstar! Thanks so much for the help Dan!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fishscale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Noir

Marquee Moon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Richard Lloyd

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Illmatic article and speculative research?

Just wanted to get your opinion on a very interesting piece of information I found about Illmatic's cover. I've come across two blogsites that speculate whether the cover art for the album might have been influenced by an obscure jazz album, A Child is Born (1974) by Howard Hanger Trio. 1 2

I think it would be nice to include in the article, but I'm concerned that it might border too much on original research. What do you think? Chubdub (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Only use what notable sources have said or published about the album. Nothing at GoogleBooks or GoogleNews shows up for "'A Child is Born' illmatic", so I'd forget about it. Dan56 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the blogs is from Ego Trip, which I think is a credible source amongst hip hop publications. Chubdub (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly would be used in a list of album cover parodies, tho? Dan56 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Not sure I understand the question.. Chubdub (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I know what you're asking now. What exactly am I citing in that blog? Here's the segment that I reference: "But even more common are the tributes to, and appropriations and parodies of Illmatic‘s iconic cover art (itself reputedly inspired by a Howard Hanger Trio LP)." I'd like to point out, however, that he mentions "reputedly", as in "according to general belief" not according to Nas. I don't know if Wikipedia would want to include information that's speculative, but it's an interesting theory/rumor! Chubdub (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So if you don't mind, I'd like to insert this information into the article - and I will state plainly and clearly that the source is from a Ego Trip blogger, and that the information given is purported by general belief/reputation. Chubdub (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Dan56 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! Chubdub (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Black Sabbath (album)

Hi there. I'm just trying to get some understanding of your revision of my recent edit and your comments "Why make a deal of this?". Well, I attempted to get some clarification about the year of the second RS list on the album's talk page and neither you nor anyone else gave a suitable response. So I changed the year. The source in the Sabbath article states 2009 and not 2012. Don't make it sound as if my edit was somehow inappropriate. You could have just answered my question in the first place. ChakaKong^talk 10:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't say the revised edition was published in 2009, it says their list of the 2000s (that they took into consideration for the revised RS500) was in 2009. BTW, I was offline, as the status bar at the top of my user and usertalk pages indicates. I'm not omnipresent bro. Dan56 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Axelrod album covers

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The versions of covers I've uploaded are not high resolution by any means, however they are of a higher quality because of less jpg compression, less cropping and a more realistic dynamic range -- this is a matter of accuracy to the original artwork. When you reverted I assumed it was because I did not take the time to explain the reasons for my uploads, which is fair. I made sure to state the reasoning when I reverted back to them. I understand that you may have a certain attachment both to the article and its related media, but the inherent philosophy of collaboration on Wikipedia is to be bold. That the article passed FAR is largely irrelevant and there is no precedent for lengthy talk page discussions or notifying an uploader of a new revision (watchlists take care of that).

I have no interest in a "beef" with you, my uploads were good faith attempts at improving content of a substandard quality. The album covers I use are minimized versions of official digital releases by record companies, not blurry uncleaned amateur scans. Note the differences between [2] (blurry, washed out scan) and [3] (a clean digital version of the original design released by the distributor). I think you are mischaracterizing my uploads. Please note that I am well aware of WP:ALBUMS guidelines as well as NFCC guidelines, I was actually involved in drafting the latter and in fighting for the inclusion of album art in articles to begin with. I am going to proceed to revert the Keys album art for the aforementioned reasons and I welcome a discussion of choosing the best version of the Axelrod covers. I don't have the time right now, but later this week I can link to several variations of the album covers and discuss the differences in fidelity and release history. Though your messages to me had an adversarial edge I look forward to a fruitful collaboration in hopes of avoiding future editing conflicts. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Got some questions

What is more reliable when it comes to music reviews because I am just curious? Is it music magazines, music webzines, or newspapers? I would tend to think first and foremost music magazines secondly music webzines and lastly newspapers, but am I correct with this assumption or not?HotHat (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what is being researched. The more editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking a publication has would give it an advantage over other sources (WP:RS#Context matters; other relevant guidelines at WP:SOURCE). Music reviews are different in that they are used for how critics received an album rather than fact reporting, so the notability (its coverage and reputation among third-party sources; ex. PopMatters is aggregated at Metacritic, and its articles are indexed by GoogleNews [4]) of a reviewer or publication would be decisive. Long-running music magazines tend to have more clout, such as NME and Rolling Stone, and have staffed notable music critics, such as Nick Kent and Robert Christgau. Christgau has more recently written columns and reviews for The Barnes & Noble Review and MSN Music; I would give these as much weight in an article as a review by a novice Rolling Stone critic, because it is still a notable journalist, even though the publication is not so much. Newspapers have staffed equally notable critics such as The New York Times (Jon Pareles, Ann Powers) and The Observer (Kitty Empire, Nick Tosches). The most notable journalists and critics tend to freelance. Dan56 (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I just want to thank you for responding.HotHat (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I wouldn't recommend Entertainment Weekly unless it's one of those notable critics writing the review. Their reviews are usually superficial and generic. Dan56 (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, God YES! I only use them if I don't have at least 10 others that are of a highter caliber.HotHat (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

On another completely unrelated note, I want you to watch Once I Was an Eagle article because that one is in hideously bad condition, and that is because the ratings do not match the source in the reception section. I took out the itunes charts and I even tried to fix the ratings to no avail.HotHat (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist, although I'd recommend starting from scratch in a sandbox if there are less constructive editors impeding progress. Dan56 (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Magazines

I have the Q and Mojo magazines from January-May of this year, and I got the Mojo for June, which I will be getting the Q. In addition, I have Uncut magazine from March, April, May and June of this year. I am telling you this if you want me to go and pull any reviews out of them for you to utilize on here on some album articles.HotHat (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not intent on working any newer album articles right now, unless Christgau grades another A+ album. Usually, though, those magazines have snippets and scores available (sooner or later) at Metacritic or AnyDecentMusic? Right now, I'm primarily working on Marquee Moon, getting it to be promoted GA and then FA. Dan56 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Help?

You reverted my edits on some mixtapes about DatPiff downloads and I'm not mad, just hoping you could clear things up. Dozens of mixtape articles have that info. What's the problem with these? Are there certain articles that its not OK to do that? And also you said "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." If that's true, you could say that on any edit adding info because nobody has put that. Isn't that the point of WP? To add info while keeping it to the point? I just want to understand this so I don't make the same mistake. Thanks. Charlie the Pig (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Datpiff should not be cited as a source on itself, i.e. the mixtapes it hosts at its website. It is a questionable source to begin with, because there is a conflict of interest; they are reporting figures about themselves. The notability of one vendor's downloads should be verified through an independent source with a reputation for fact-checking and meaningful editorial oversight. Using a mixtape entry at Datpiff is self-serving and appears only to have been "reported" in that one source. The point about the information having to have been reported already concerns this: if it is notable that a mixtape has reached a certain amount of downloads at Datpiff, a reliable source independent of Datpiff would have reported it already, and that independent source could be cited instead. Dan56 (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So are you planning to revert any edit that uses DatPiff as a source? Charlie the Pig (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be used again? Dan56 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of articles have it as a source. Charlie the Pig (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

They're most likely stub or start-quality articles of relatively low importance. If they're not on my watchlist, I wont notice it and bother reverting the addition. Dan56 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Track listings

Hello Dan. Could you help on the Bleach page? ADN-9 added the track list template there, and previously on In Utero before you reverted them, and it seems Bleach is the only one they've re-added the template again to. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Fame Monster

Damn. I was checking a previous revision, and didn't notice I was editing that instead of the actual article. My bad.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

When you remove Cosmo Lee's references from all 50 articles (which all are extreme metal) then tell me it's not reliable.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you'd remove them yourself, you would be making the most constructive edits of your time here so far. Dan56 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm done discussing with you on this topic. Almost forgot, how many months are you editing articles?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since 2008. Dan56 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How did you find the entire digital version of the book Justice For All - The Truth About Metallica on Google Books? I was trying to get some other related books, but all I managed to get was a short preview. I would very appreciate your advice. Salutation.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Typed in "Justice for all" with McIver, finding this preview of most of the book. If a page doesn't show up at their previews, I usually play around with the search engine, trying different variations of the words from the last available page. Dan56 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucky you. I can't find a word outside the previews. Anyway, I supplemented the article with reliable sources, IE Blabbermouth, which certainly is accepted as reliable.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not. It's a blog--consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order (the most recent post appears first). Written by unknown, un-credible authors who are not experts on the topic, just bloggers who easily made an account. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Overview. Dan56 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Funny how the biggest part of the sources from the Metallica article are from that web site. The biggest irony is that Metallica is a featured article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Shit was passed four years ago. A BLP article especially, it wouldn't pass GA today, let alone FA. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiki's Blabbermouth.net article doesn't appear to be in favor of your words. Especially the linked paragraph. And BTW the second added reference is an interview with Lars Ulrich, so you I bet you can't find something more reliable than his own words.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

But I think Review Sites is on Dan56 side. Plus Dan56, I think we need to have a new discussion about what sites are to be included and how on Review Sites. By the way, if you want metal stuff get some metal magazines!HotHat (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Look here first. Blabbermouth.net is recommended by the Wiki community. And it's not a classic magazine because it's own printed versions do not exist.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? You mean I shouldn't write on Wikipedia because I want metal stuff? Or should I read metal magazines and not bother with Wiki's articles? Or both maybe?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What does "in favor of your words" mean? And no, an independent third-party source is always considered more reliable than a primary source such as an interview: that's the point of an encyclopedia. BTW, read the attempt to prove your source's reliability at the talk page. Dan56 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant in support of your words. Didn't know that phrase wasn't included in your language.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I read the discussion, but I saw no conclusion. Anyway, the user L1A1 FAL offered to help us as a third-side party.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Also sorry for the late responses, but what can I do since local time in Skopje is 6 hours before New York (if that's where you live).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me where I can find this recommendation by the "Wikipedia community" of this source. Dan56 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Here it is. The fourth one.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's on its way to being overturned LOL (Talk:Metallica#Self-published_source_in_a_BLP_article) . Dan56 (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

On AJFA it is featured only two times, so no worries for that.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And please express your desire for a third side party at the L1A1 FAL's talk page. --Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A what? Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you want him to be a mediator? If you do so, tell him.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A mediator for what? Dan56 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The genre. You say Progressive/Thrash, I say Thrash/Progressive.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You lost that discussion, because the majority of the sources said "progressive metal". Get over it. Dan56 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion, a neutral editor should resolve the dispute. As far as I've been improving the article, none of the sources I found doesn't necessarily describe the genre as „progressive“. They all noticed difference in the overall sound, but their comments were more based on „the band experimenting with longer songs“.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So what's your decision?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Return the sentence you deleted, I was working on finding a source.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just find the source first? It wont be restored without a verification tag. Dan56 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Return it and mark it with citation needed. Can't find it in a minute.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no dispute. You're ignoring what's clearly cited in the article's "music and lyrics" section, which cites the the most reliable sources on the topic, not self-published garbage from metal blogs written by people who don't have an ounce of the clout that the journalists and critics I've cited have. I don't have to defend my position anymore. The sources speak for themselves. You want a neutral editor, you're speaking to him: I'm not disagreeing with what reliable sources say, and I'm not looking for sources that support how I feel about the album's music. I have no opinion of an album I've never listened to. All I know is that the majority of reputed sources characterize it as "progressive metal"; even the recently added quotes from the band members describe it as "progressive". "Progressive metal" is not being removed from the infobox, whether you like it or not. Not please, stop bugging me about this issue. Dan56 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As you wish.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Genre edit

The genre is properly sourced, so please revert your own edit.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing my daily work, I coincidentally noticed this little mistake of yours. Seems you've got your own way of citing the reviews.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about admitting that you also made an error. BBC Music's review was quoting just different and you wrote very different - in support of your own personal view.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

One more question - Does www.setlist.fm serve as a reliable source? Thank you.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Listen, is my latest added Rolling Stone source enough for you to expand the Live Performances section?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you'd read the policies, you wouldn't have to ask (WP:RS). Dan56 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Those filles are about to exist. I am working on it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

But why does the sample template need to be there if the files aren't uploaded yet? It seems like a distraction to readers and bloats the section's prose. Dan56 (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Three/four is all I demand. I wrote a message to Eddy and he conformed he would put the samples today.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have mp3s of the songs, you can do it yourself. There are several sites for converting mp3s to ogg files; I usually use this one, which allows you to lower the bit rate down to 56 or 64kbbps, which is recommended under the non-free file criteria. Dan56 (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Haven't seen that convertor before. Anyway Eddie is already preparing the files, and he might take my request unseriously if I put them instead.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And now can you put them back?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Scale quality

You got any expectations on the album getting promoted into B class on the album project quality scale?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly good enough for a "B". Requested an assessment. Dan56 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed it.HotHat (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Good looks. Dan56 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this usable to be put in the Justice article - "Commercial performance" section?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be possible--it was written months before the album was even released. Has a lot about making the album and touring in its promotion, so it would be useful for that kind of section (MOS:ALBUM#Touring). But there's nothing about its commercial performance. Dan56 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Does AJFA stand any chance to be labeled as "good article" in it's current form?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks sufficient enough, although the sources should be checked if they support the text (parts of the article that were there before you started editing it). The criteria is at WP:GACR. Dan56 (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Submitted a request. I've checked most of them during my past edits, but if the reviewers have any notes, we can always correct them.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Although I can make another section about the song content (I think there's enough material for that) but I'm afraid it can contain trivia.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to fix a little mess I've made? I've nominated ...And Justice for All (album) for GA article, but accidentally I've put myself as a reviewer. Thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Move the quote a little, do not remove it. Glenn Pillsbury is professor and respected musicologist. His opinion should be heard.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You used a quote from him (cant find anything about Pillsbury or who he is online) out of context, which is original research (WP:NPOV#Reliable sources); what does some other album have to do with this article? Quoteboxes are for illustrating or highlighting a prevailing view as established by cited material in the rest of the article, not a minority opinion. You were not being neutral: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (WP:UNDUE) How is giving the out-of-context line from a relatively unknown author a way of "indicating the relative prominence of opposing views"??? Dan56 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the GAN page, you can ask for someone to delete the page you created at Wikipedia:Good article help. Explain the mistake and they'll delete the page without deleting the nomination. Dan56 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone on mind?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that. The correct page is WT:GAN. Just start a post and someone will get to it. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Listen, you can read his biography in the reference I've put recently. See the article's old version. And place it where you think it fits the best. He is professor and musicologist.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make him notable; notability is gauged a subject's coverage by reliable independent sources. That's why Simon Reynolds and Michael Azerrad have Wikipedia articles, and Pillsbury doesn't. There's nothing about his credentials online. Points two and three at WP:TRUTH#BOOK further address why the quotebox you added was inappropriate. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Passed through that. You don't have to put it in a box (point 2). Place it where it's most appropriate. If it is against someone elses opinion that doesn't mean it's not true. And to address another issue, by removing my sources one by one, you're making your point go through. Last time you also removed one of my added sources. I'm beginning to question your good will to participate in the improvement of the article, so put back the quote somewhere down.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're not finding very good sources. You overlooked Pillsbury's quote of Reynolds and instead cherry-picked some trivial line about a Megadeath and a "relationship between structural complexity, virtuosity, and control with thrash metal." I'm beginning to question your neutrality; maybe you cherrypicked this line (and nothing else from his book) just to name-drop "trash metal". Dan56 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I've put that line before you, so I could not possibly have "overlooked Pillsbury's quote over Reynolds'". Secondly it's not trivia, just a comparison of the best albums by the two bands. I've spent couple of hours reading 3 releases on Google books and I know exactly what I write there. And third of all, I've never removed any quote of your. I clearly see that my quotes clash with your personal opinion, and that the reason why you don't want the statement to be included in the article (even if it's an intriguing one).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Where do you think I got the Reynolds review from? Pillsbury quotes Reynolds' review in the page preceding the one you cited ([5]), so I'm guessing you found your quote by just Googling "And Justice for All" with "thrash metal" (again), and that's why you cherry-picked that quote. What "relationship" is examined? You're just cherry-picking a quote without giving any context to the "examination" (WP:TRUTH#BOOK), offering readers nothing. There's no pertinence, as it comments on nothing that is presented in the rest of the prose, which along with the lack of notability of the author, justifies my removal of the quote. Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't have a basic idea how wrong you are. You can see what have I written (googled) if you look at the older version. It is a reliable source as it can be and it deserves to be placed in the article. I've asked you nicely where do you think it fits the most. And it sublimates the whole "progress and complexity" thing (listed first) and thrash metal (listed second). I'm being cooperative and I'm building the article structure so to "progressive metal" be mentioned first although I've found at least three (deleted) citations which indicate the opposite. You are the one who says "it's gonna be my way or nobody's way".--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me remind you of this: Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a COLLABORATIVE project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be VERIFIED in a reliable source and otherwise BELONGS in Wikipedia.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Notable

Well, I have come across William Tyler, who is a guitarist for the band Lambchop, and he does not presently have an article on Wikipedia. So, by looking at AnyDecentMusic?, Metacritic and Allmusic, do you think he and his albums are notable or noteworthy for inclusion in this encyclopedia? His first solo record was released on an Indie label and his second on a mainstream record label by the way. Do they have to chart for notability to occur or can they become notable by another means? Just curious.HotHat (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The notability guideline is at WP:MUSBIO. If there is biographical information published by reliable independent sources, then that's usually enough. Dan56 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Look here, I think by criterion No. 6, he is assured notablity, so that is the reason I created the article with the album ones to follow.HotHat (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think you have a good example to use with a certain user that "universally acclaimed" is in a source by the Allmusic biography on this artist.HotHat (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job! Dan56 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Vampire Weekend

Hey Dan, I was going to attempt an edit on Vampire Weekend's album Modern Vampires of the City. The reason being is I saw a slight error in reference to the origins of their song "Step". On the page, it says this:

Step" was inspired by a lyric from Souls of Mischief's 1993 song "Step to My Girl", which sampled Grover Washington, Jr.'s cover of Bread's "Aubrey". The vocal melody of the chorus interprets the melody of "Aubrey" so close that the band had to clear it as a sample.

However, on their YouTube VEVO page for the audio of the song, they credit YZ and his song "Who's That Girl" from his debut album Sons of the Father- as does the website WhoSampled. The reason why Souls of Mischief came into the picture as a sample credit is they too used the same sample of YZ's song. I was wondering if it was okay to change that. Shallowharold (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WhoSampled is a questionable source (lacks editorial oversight, no reputation for fact-checking, user-generated content as mentioned at this RSN post); a YouTube page of the artist is not appropriate--sources should be independent of the topic or subject being discussed in the article. The source citing what is currently in the article is a profile by Electronic Musician of Vampire Weekend for their album (photos of the article available here). Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Frank Ocean

Frank is a nickname -- the format for nicknames with legal names is well established on Wikipedia and we could list hundreds of examples all inconsistent with your edit (everyone known by a nickname, essentially. If you really need examples, they couldn't be easier to find). --Walor (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's "well established" (rather than just a common error at articles that haven't been proofread), then why does WP:CREDENTIAL shows an example of a BLP's nickname placed in the manner I reverted back to? Unless you can find a reliable independent source that proves "Frank" is part of Ocean's legal name, it remains the stage name that follows, as shown by MOS:BIO#Pseudonyms, stage names and common names. Dan56 (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're missing. Are you saying that every page with a nickname as part of the lead name needs to be changed? You're going to be one busy guy. You can start here: Frank Sinatra and then go to Steve Martin next and then, say Joe Biden. Are you really that unfamiliar with Wikipedia practices or are you trying to start some one-person movement (or n-person with n=small) to change them? --Walor (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Frank Ocean" is his stage name. U still haven't shown what sources say "Frank" is Ocean's nickname; its definition doesn't apply here. And brush up on the guidelines please. "That other similar entities exist is an argument to avoid in content disputes, deletion discussions, and other discussions. It will typically be dismissed while still assuming good faith." (Maybe we should include some red links in "Frank Ocean", since Frank Sinatra, Joe Biden, and Steve Martin all have them too). The guidelines at WP:CREDENTIAL and MOS:BIO are all I need to cite for consensus, if you want to make a discussion out of this. Dan56 (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Lift Off

Can you start a new discussion regarding Lift off not being a single?.50.89.124.11 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would I? I was part of the first discussion that supported the opposite. Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Posted you an answer on the noticeboard.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it. I've went ahead and solicited comments from editors of the RSN board who haven't themselves used the source in the articles they edit. Dan56 (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Beatles - White Album "Critical Reception" section

Hi Dan,

I hope I am reaching you the correct way - I have not contacted a Wiki editor before.

I appreciate your interest in my edit to the "Critical Reception" section of the Beatles White Album page here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Beatles_%28album%29#Critical_reception. If I may, I will take issue with your action to remove my edit of a quote from a review of the album by Chuck Klosterman (here: http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles,32560/).

The review as currently characterised on Wiki is misleading, in that it simply quotes the review as saying the album is "a blandly designed masterwork".

What this fails to reflect though is that the entire review (beginning to end) is highly sarcastic. For example, the article opens as follows: "Like most people, I was initially confused by EMI’s decision to release remastered versions of all 13 albums by the Liverpool pop group Beatles, a 1960s band so obscure that their music is not even available on iTunes." A little later the reviewer says: "It is not easy to categorize the Beatles’ music; more than any other group, their sound can be described as “Beatlesque.”"

The article continues in that fashion throughout, for example saying it's hard to remember the names of the band members and saying things like: "1967 proved to be a turning point for the Beatles—the overwhelming lack of public interest made touring a fiscal impossibility, subsequently forcing them to focus exclusively on studio recordings." Of course, it was their excessive popularity that made touring impossible.

This is the tone of the article throughout, so when the reviewer describes the White Album as "blandly designed" he is being tongue in cheek (or sarcastic or ironic, whichever word you chose) about an album that is the very antithesis of blandly designed. Indeed, the chaotic, sprawling, messy design of the record is the most remarked upon element of it amongst critics.

As such, I don't think leaving Wiki readers with the impression that any serious critic actually thinks of the album as "blandly designed" is correct. That the reviewer was being ironic needs noting I think, hence my edit to reflect this.

Best regards, David, Dublin, Ireland.

Talkback

Hello, Teflon Peter Christ. You have new messages at Eleventhblock's talk page.
Message added 7:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 11Block |talk 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Our Blabbermouth debate

Hey Dan56, just wanted to leave you a message to say that while we definitely had some opposing views on the whole Blabbermouth debate, that at no point did I mean anything personally (and I hope you didn't take anything I had to say personally). You're a great editor and I've seen a lot of great work from you, so I just wanted to make sure that you knew that, and that while we disagreed on this issue, I still have a great deal of respect for you. Keep up the good work! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Same to u. Dan56 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Question?

Is Hellhound Music a reliable and noteworthy source to use for album reviews?HotHat (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No. On my Internet Explorer tab, I can see the WordPress insignia when I open their website, so it's a blog. Unless by some chance a notable, reputed critic writes a review for them, it shouldn't be used. Dan56 (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.HotHat (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern Vampires of the City edit

Obviously it is going to be biased. It is an edit in a section called 'Reception' - a section talking about opinions. I stated his opinion, which is heavilz biased towards the album, and worthy of note since he is The Dean of American Rock Critics. Clearly this is a fact about an opinion not an opinion about a fact. This sort of thing is irritating. If you have a problem with the wording, edit it, but I merely highlighted a noteworthy detail. Sincerely, fuck off. (by the way, don't report this IP address it isn't mine, my account is P100jboo)

My Way (Usher album)

Hey, nice work on the critical reception section of My Way. However, it reads a bit like a quotefarm; would you be able to paraphrase the reviews a bit more? I did a couple, but many of the sources are offline. Cheers, Adabow (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Dan, how are you? Can you please tell me per which consensus the Metacritic is not included in the box for CR? Thank you :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 07:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There was never a consensus. I usually cite the guideline at MOS:ALBUM#Critical_reception, which says the ratings template is optional, never mandatory, with the sole purpose of "supplementing" the text. By definition, repeating what the text says (if in fact an MC score is said in prose, or any rating for that matter) is not supplementing, but reiterating it, which is undue emphasis. The template shouldn't be used if the ratings can be stated in prose tastefully, like I tried at Confusion (album) and Ten Freedom Summers (articles that have relatively less reviews w/scores to mention). Hope this response helps. Dan56 (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am planning to nominate Overexposed at GAN, can you please give your magic touch at its Critical reception? I would be grateful! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic

On the article ATLiens, the editor whoever put in Sputnikmusic failed to include the other staff rating and emeritus one, which give UNDUE influence to the one used from the site, so I put the other two in to give the site the proper balance it needs. See, this is the reason that I don't like to use sputnik in the first place is they have multiple reviews/ratings from staff/emeritus reviewers. This is similar to New Release Tuesday and Jesus Freak Hideout with respect to Christian music articles. This stuff is difficult!HotHat (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here

Hey Dan56

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

On Human Feelings

Hi.

Sorry, didn`t see it was already mentioned on legacy, but i put the template again since taht one should be anyway. Zidane tribal (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine, is just that i`m so used to the template being there, that i always find it lacking instead of optionaly missing

Yeezus

Only reason you won't find Gigwise on Metacritic or ADM is because they don't give any scores in their reviews; it'd be impossible for a review aggregator to use them. 2.127.89.190 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Both use scoreless review sources, including the New York Times and The Quietus. There's no reason to incorporate an (relatively) insignificant review source when there's an abundance of others validated by Metacritic or ADM. Please bear with me on this. Dan56 (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that about Metacritic. Still, Gigwise fits the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, does it not? The criteria isn't whether or not the site reviewing appears on Metacritic. 2.127.89.190 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So would numerous other entertainment and music sites. Again, if this were some less reviewed album with limited sources, Gigwise may be appropriate, but the section as it is now could use a major trim. And what Metacritic indexes is further validation of a review source's notability, which should also be taken into consideration if there are numerous reviews available for an album article. Dan56 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings my supervisor. You might wanna see the latest change I did to Metallica. Have a nice day.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why, my underling? Dan56 (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thought you would be interested to see if the sources I added are reliable and adequate.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)

I've begun the GA review for Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album), and would like your thoughts on a few small points; the article looks otherwise ripe for promotion. Thanks as always for your contributions, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album) to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ram

Hi Dan56. I'm confused by a recent change you made to the article on Ram, undoing changes I made to the section on critical reception. Confused by your accompanying comment, more than anything else. In line with the point made in MOS:Album re Album ratings template, that "When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view. For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews", isn't it more informative, and a truer indication of this album's critical reception, to include the 1971 NME and RS reviews in the ratings box than going with a majority of 21st century ratings? I had/have every intention of adding to the main text, to quote from Smith's NME article. Having said that ...

I've just discovered your apparent reasoning while trying to paste in a link to what was until recently clear guidelines on the use of terms like "favourable", "mixed", unfavourable", etc. I see you've instigated a major change to the album ratings template. A change that I think is quite insane. Now, visually, a reader can come to an album article and with a quick glance at the ratings box, leave with a completely false impression of an album's standing among music critics. Simply because the majority of reviewers back in the 1960s and '70s didn't use a recognised rating system. And readers do skim through an article in such a way – not every reader is a contributor who's aware of wikipedia guidelines, far from it.

Needless to say, I wish I'd known about this proposal of yours, back in February. This is such a major change you've made, I also think it would've been wise to seek input from, say, any contributor who had nominated an album at GAN over the previous 6 or 12 months. I really despair when guidelines that invite a bit of intelligence are replaced by proscriptive rules ... JG66 (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If they are "readers", they would read the section's prose rather than merely have a "glance" at an unnecessary ratings template. It doesn't create a false impression if it's place in the section of retrospective reviews, reviews that actually gave the album a rating. My proposal wasn't original at the template talk page; it's been discussed and proposed several times before that, including me as one of the proponents, but after working on FA articles and learning to be more tactful, I learned that regurgitating a critic's position that is duly noted in the prose is undue emphasis and offers readers nothing if they actually are readers of an article. If readers skim an article, a ratings template doesn't offer any more than a sentence such as "[album] received generally positive reviews from critics", which would belong in a lead. I believe it's certain editors that would rather see the template; how would readers unfamiliar with the inner workings of Wikipedia care about a template that hasn't been in place that long?, only used as a temporary outlet for moving ratings out of the infobox. If you want to discuss this further, use the article's talk page, but you cant argue that "favorable" is a rating, and that it isnt undue weight and unnecessary reiteration to have such a thing in a ratings template side-by-side with the prose that already makes that evident. Dan56 (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Style

Thanks Dan. I simply corrected the tense in the commentary, not in the quotes. You can't discuss old quotes, and imply she is still living. The tense is untouched inside quotes. Venuzza67 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The section is not discussing old quotes; it's paraphrasing what the reviewer's said, and the tense they used was present. And if the tense used in the quotes is still present, your changes would make it inconsistent. Dan56 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dan56, you're full of it. Here's your quote on the Nicki Minaj talk page for Roman Reloaded, where you cite Meta Critic as the end-all.

By a show of hands (or comments), does this revision to the article's "critical reception" section smack of POV content removal (WP:VNT), editorializing (WP:WORDS), and undue weight to minority viewpoints (WP:UNDUE)? Oh, and being neutral in form, considering most of the reviews that the album received were "mixed", as verified by Metacritic and The Independent, both of which are cited in the article, yet the editor seems to overlook that ("using metacritic is lazy"?), along with a few other reliable third-party sources (GoogleNews' index of sources, The Huffington Post) Dan56 (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The Aaliyah album was rated 76. That's a fact. Reverse me again and I'll bring your words from the other page to the forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venuzza67 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Listen, I appreciate what you're saying. But it's also abundantly clear that you respect old-school artists- so do I. But, when I viewed the discourse, you showed a lot of bias on that Nicki Minaj album. Be reasonable. You can't "as verified by metacritic" on one, and then "it's not the end-all" on another artist. Let up on one or the other. You need to be consistent. i think you're probably a great editor- but that kind of thing will sink you. It's way too obvious you are leaning to the old-schoolers. Which I can't blame you for. I agree!! But seriously, when I read all your comments, your definitely in the old-school camp, and clearly "shaping it," shall we say. I'll change it to "highly positive." But if you get in those pissing matches trying to prove the new artists like Nikki whatever are not as cool, I'm gonna call attention to your contracdictions. Wikipedia has to be consistent and you are not the king- ok? I'll change it back if you feel that strongly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venuzza67 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Undid my changes- wanted to show good faith. Venuzza67 (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

REchecked all the reviews. They are actuall a bit more negative. Have to use Metacritic as it stands. Venuzza67 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chris Brown (American entertainer)#Requested move 3

Hey, Dan. Do you have any interest in weighing in on the above linked Chris Brown discussion? Given your experience with music biographies on Wikipedia, this discussion seems like something you should weigh in on. I've stated about all I have to state on the matter, and don't mind too strongly if the move closes opposite my "vote." But the discussion, so far, looks like it should be closed as "no consensus" to me. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Blowout Comb

Hey Dan. I've added a bit on the Blowout Comb page using the liner notes from the 2013 re-issue. I was wondering if you would collaborate and help expand it from other sources, and possibly get it to GA status. Let me know. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the offer, but I'm backlogged right now with other things; still working on Marquee Moon in my sandbox. Here are some news sources; if you cant read them because they're behind some paywall, I'd be happy to play around with the search engine and transcribe relevant ones for you in their entirety. I've gotten pretty deft with it, LOL. I could also do the critics' section. Dan56 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

ATTENTION visitors, shameless plug

Anyone visiting me here, if interested, feel free to voice your support or offer constructive criticism at my feature article nomination of Confusion (album), a relatively short article to review. Dan56 (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Diamonds (Rihanna song)

Can you give your magic touch to the article and copy-edit it please? I am planning to use it as my next FAC. Thank you! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you did a great job! I cut some of the North America chart trajectory, but is that the song has made so many records for Rihanna that is practically impossible to do more trimming. I just added this section, can you check on it too? It's a small one... Btw, I will comment on your FAC today. Cheers!— Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I commented. Although, yeah, it seems like over. :) Good luck! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(Tiny help with an issue from the FAC) "The single topped music charts in more than twenty countries and was a top ten hit in over thirty countries." — Two "countries" in close proximity. I can't think of a resolution for the issue. Any ideas? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Maxwell

I'll keep an eye out on the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Dan56 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's impossible for people to add content to an article when you think you own it. Reasoning with you is like trying to reason with a glass wall. I won't touch the article again. You can do whatever you want with it. I'm giving up.Dumaka (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The diffs and edit history show you removing more than you added. And you're giving up because you cant dispute neither my argument nor the other editors who've disagreed with you. Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm giving up because I'm tried of you reverting all my edits. I'm also tired of warring with you. You must obviously get a kick out of warring with people but not me. It's not even that important. Find someone else to war with. Dumaka (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That's that sore loser talk. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am now convinced you're an immature 7th grader that likes to argue.Dumaka (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Even so, that would still make me an immature 7th grader who knows how to edit fairly and without bias... and with temperament. (funny, LOL. Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, immature 7th graders do have a talent for annoying people to their breaking point and making them give up any chances of removing POV from articles that said 7th grader puts there. But that must be your strategy, right? Annoy and revert someones edits until they go nuts? Well, it works! Congratulation! Dumaka (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you didn't make it past the 6th LOL Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice comeback... lol Dumaka (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Article work

The Blessed Unrest has improved and greatly benefited because of your coaching me on here in the sections of music and lyrics and critical reception. Just wanted to let you know, and as always if you don't like something that I do alert me to the situation.HotHat (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Dan56 (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have got another started New Publications.HotHat (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor problem

About the charts. According to Hung Medien, the album entered the charts in Australia and New Zealand in 1986, but according to this and this, the years seem to be 1993 and 2010, respectively. Any solution?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no discrepancy; the first link is just the Swiss charts site, hitparade.ch (has the Swiss flag as their site's insignia), so the entries noted there are for the Swiss charts. It also shows several other flag icons, and if you click on the Australian one, it leads to the album's entry on the Australian charts. Hung Medien is the publisher of all those sites. Dan56 (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide the starting link to Hung Medien about the album?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What starting link? Dan56 (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

About the charts which is not saying any country, just lists them.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. There isn't anything more than the pages those flags link to, which are archives of each country's charts, published by Hung Medien. If you're looking for a citation to verify for instance this recent edit of a chart position in 2008, clicking the Spanish flag from the link you gave would lead to spanishcharts.com's entry for the album, which you can cite (along with each individual chart and their respective website). Dan56 (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You see, in the chart section of the page I put the same reference for all international charts except the US and British. If you enter the reference No. 67 it opens the Swiss chart. I need the url that leads to the main page of Hung Medien about the album.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No such page exists at their sites. If you want to be exact, you can replace each of those <ref name="hung medien"/> with citations to each country's archive for the album, like this. Dan56 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Just one thing. Is obligatory to mention the author's names is the second paragraph about the impact?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course; they're not speaking for their publication, and it's their own opinion. Dan56 (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea to write a paragraph about Burton's death. By writing it does the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" (as the GA criteria says)?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In order for it to not be original research, you should cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and if they happen to go into something like Burton's death, then that would pass the threshold for inclusion. Be careful not to try and find sources on Burton's death, but instead sources that establish the relevance of the death to the album, which would theoretically prevent too much researching and unnecessary detail about the death in an album article. Dan56 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Check my sandbox and make some corrections if needed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither source is directly related to the article--one is a book about tragic stories in music history (the chapter is dedicated entirely to Burton's career and death rather than the album), while the other doesn't mention the album altogether. This would be a better summation, since it discusses the event in a paragraph dedicated to the album. There's no reason to fork content that's already at Cliff Burton#Death, unless some sources says the extended detail is in some way relevant to Master of Puppets. Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Have any idea where to place the short summation?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A section on the album's tour is common for WP:ALBUMS articles (MOS:ALBUM#Touring). Information on the supporting tour or promotion of the album could easily tie in Burton's death. Here's one source to start with for some kind of "Tour and aftermath" section, like at Blood Sugar Sex Magik or Voodoo (D'Angelo album). Perhaps even tie in that they started writing their next album on the tour for Master of Puppets ([6]). Dan56 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I'll move the links you provided to the talk page and will start with work.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Can you take a tiny look at Death Magnetic and see if I correctly used the BBC review? Thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Blurred Lines

I just want to thank you for taking my mis-shapen words or prose, and making them into something much more useful.HotHat (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously

Ain'tchu got anything better to do, AllMusic says its R&B leave it be yeah! H.Mandem (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Hello. What seems to be the problem on Master of Puppets? Is it the cover or the audio samples that need additional licensing?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Another thing. Can you find first week sales for Cryptic Writings?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Samples and other media should be kept to a minimum and should only be used if they illustrate something significantly discussed in the article. The song "Damage Inc." is not discussed at all in the article, and the title track (music/lyrics, which is what an audio sample would be illustrating) is only discussed in #Lyrical content, so it'd be more appropriate if the sample was placed there. Dan56 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Found this through GoogleNews. Dan56 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "Damage Inc." audio and placed the other into the lyrics section. As for the second issue, if I understood correctly, the first week sales were 75,000 copies without proper source?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The news search engine leads to the source, an article from the Telegram & Gazette. Dan56 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Really thanks mate.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to ask, should this review be placed in Dante XXI?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a blog from the appearance of their home page; self-published (copyrighted "© 2001-2013 Last Rites"); doesn't appear to have any notability/third-party coverage. I'd say no, but when in doubt about a review source, you can always ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums for multiple opinions. Dan56 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought so. I'll remove it right away.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverted The 20/20 Experience

Hi, I've recently requested an assesment of the article for B-class, and the person who did it wrote that the personnel should be divided – usually musicians and technical personnel are separately: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style_guide#Personnel. Until now the personnel was copied from AllMusic, and as a result listed alphabetically, which didn't make any sense – eg. a stylist was higher than Timberlake! If it will make you feel any better, I will make only two columns: Musicians and Technical personnel. — Mayast (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Stars?

With the Ciara you removed the stars, which Kerrang! gives KKKK, yet we are to use . Furthermore, XXL uses shirt sizes yet we are suppose to use for those as well. What makes Fact any different than those two instances?HotHat (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

XXL was actually discussed at the template talk page a while ago, so whoever wrote those "converted" lines at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES didn't take that into account. Otherwise, it's silly to think those publications' ratings should be illustrated as stars any more than something like this should be. Fact gave it four (things) on a scale of five, so "4/5" is less misleading than giving readers the impression that a publication uses stars. Dan56 (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Then, I would guess both are gravely misleading to use in the rating box. We should remove it and find another rating to put in the box. At the same time, we should write in the prose about what kind of rating it actually contains.HotHat (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If their rating system is based on a scale, a fraction is appropriate. Misusing a star-rating template to illustrate figures the publication doesn't wouldn't be appropriate. That they use images of LP records isn't pertinent or necessary for readers, unless someone is willing to create a template to illustrate that. Dan56 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Look at because this was on the template page.HotHat (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Perfect! Dan56 (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I love working with you.HotHat (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you, thank you, thank you... for the third time with your magic touch on my [edited] articles. "Diamonds" is a FA, and I appreciate your help there. New request coming soon hehe ;) ! — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Rocket 88"

I'm still at somewhat of a loss to understand why, when you implemented a change of wording in this edit, you won't accept the same change in the article text. Anyway, if you're not, I'm happy to go to WP:3O. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I compromised on it; you should compromise too. Dan56 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Of concern

You may want to have your say at this disccusion on Piero Scaruffi reviews.HotHat (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Strawberry Bubblegum

Hey Dan! Do you have a little bit of time to revise and copy-edit this section? The reviewer failed the GAN, because of the amount of quotes. Thank you! :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but maybe later. Going offline now. Dan56 (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! I noticed you've made edits to articles related to Kelly Clarkson. I thought you may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Kelly Clarkson a WikiProject working to improve the English Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Kelly Clarkson and her discography. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You. Chihciboy (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Live in San Francisco

Since you did such a beautiful job on Pull Up Some Dust and Sit Down and Election Special, I thought I would inform you of this article's existence: Live in San Francisco (Ry Cooder and Corridos Famosos album). Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Article work

I overhauled the critical reception section for Paradise Valley, so if you want to go and take a look at it and tell me what you think, I would be more than happy to read your critique.HotHat (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi Danny. How are you? I hope you are doing great. Hey, I am kind of embarrassed to ask again :$ and I will understand if you can't. I am planning to FAC Talk That Talk (Rihanna song), do you have time to revise the prose?! Thank you (x100). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to get to it soon. Dan56 (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ornette album nomination

Very good job. How is an article nomination done?Dogru144 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Favorable

You may want to have a chat with Lil-unique1 because the editor in question removed the Fact rating for The Boston Globe opinion.HotHat (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The article in question is Talk a Good Game by Kelly Rowland.HotHat (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You did an excellent job.HotHat (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars

I still don’t agree with the way you punctuate record labels and their hierarchy, Dan—every molecule in my body says your method isn’t right—so I asked Bill Walsh (author), the copy chief of The Washington Post, who’s an expert on the subject of punctuation, usage, and style and a published author on the subject, what his opinion on the matter is. I really don’t want to fight with you any longer. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your elimination of the Wrasse Records cover of The Best of the Black President is unjustified. It eliminates the version of the album that existed in the United States and the UK during the mid-2000s, after the MCA editions of the 45 Fela Kuti albums controlled by Universal Music were deleted in the USA. This was the only edition that was available in the US until the deal with Knitting Factory Records. Also, the Best Best edition on MCA is the second version that was released, and the French Barclay edition was first, which was released in 1999. What is listed at Discogs.com is incorrect. What can we do to restore it? Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And the grammar isn't my personal preference; it's as conventional to separate two listed nouns with commas as it is to end a statement with a period. Dan56 (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agharta (album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Agharta (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Вик Ретлхед -- Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

FAC for Fijación Oral, Vol. 1

Hey there! As you may be aware, Magiciandude (talk · contribs) and I have nominated Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 for FA late last month. However, since the nomination has been opened, activity has been very slow. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to leave some comments and help revive the discussion. Thanks! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Aquemini

Hey dude, how's work going? What's your opinion on the "Track listing" and "Personnel" sections in the article? They look kind of unusual. Are they supposed to be that way? And if you have the CD, can you fix those two section I'm worried about?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, this change was what reformatted that section. Otherwise, I couldn't speak on the CD (I usually pirate my music from torrents and blogs LOL), although Discogs is a convenient source for user-uploaded images of those releases/editions ([7]). Those images are what I usually look at first for whatever track listing or personnel section I write up in articles, since that's the closest thing to hard evidence. Depending on the album/topic, there are always various sources online for similar images. Often times, the people sharing those free downloads and torrents are courteous enough to include scans of their edition (which is what was the basis of some of the stuff I added to Agharta) Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Example: kickass torrent of Agharta vinyl rip (1975), avaxhome download of mini-LP reissue, and 2006 DSD edition. God bless the digital age LOL. Dan56 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Oups, sorry about the Spin summary. I kinda lost my patience after going through 12 reviews and only looked at "listeners who sleep on OutKast lyrically".--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A little help providing the writing credits for the album?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Another thing. Are the release dates of the singles available anywhere? "Rosa Parks" being the leading single and at the same time being release in 1999 (last of the three) doesn't make much sense.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

First thing that comes to mind is Martin C. Strong's book here. Dan56 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agharta (album)

The article Agharta (album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Agharta (album) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Вик Ретлхед -- Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Marquee Moon

Hi,

I`ll conply and make it a B, but it needs images and technical personnel; more categories would be fine as well. Zidane tribal (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agharta (album)

The article Agharta (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Agharta (album) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Вик Ретлхед -- Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

FAC for Fijación Oral, Vol. 1

Hey there! As you may be aware, Magiciandude (talk · contribs) and I have nominated Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 for FA late last month. However, since the nomination has been opened, activity has been very slow. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to leave some comments and help revive the discussion. Thanks! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

ATMP

Dan56, why are you such a fucking control freak? And what do you mean that folk rock is the only verifiable genre for this album? Why is it the only verifiable genre? Allmusic labels it rock/pop, for instance. I can't be bothered to look for more to support the gospel genre, but it's definitely out there. Are you saying that Hear Me Lord, Awaiting on You All, My Sweet Lord, Let It Down aren't gospel rock?

I'm looking to cut down the size of this article, in line with concerns SilkTork raised in the GAR – that's one reason I want to lose the Rosen quote. I've seen you vigorously defending the content of articles you've helped promote, and I've seen you goose-stepping across the edit histories of other articles. It seems to me you don't/won't/can't concede on any point. Does wikipedia have to be made in your image, and in your image only? JG66 (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's the only verifiable genre currently in this article. Feel free to find one elsewhere please.

• Allmusic's sidebar? (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES#Sources to avoid)

• The previous revision of the section(s) in question were filled with inappropriate synthesis and OR (apparently someone thought print sources could never be reproduced online for others to see), which I eradicated and replaced with something a music journalist explicitly and directly said was the genre of the album's songs.

Oh for God's sake, there's nothing sinister about it – "apparently someone thought print sources could never be reproduced online for others to see". On wikipedia, I'm used to plenty of users owning Leng's book; online versions are taken for granted. In that so-called synthesis you mention, the specifics regarding the composition of MSL, Darkness and Pity seem far more subjective points, compared with something as innocuous as Leng's list of musical styles, so it seemed correct to actually attribute those specifics to an author. (And no, Leng's "and everything in between" comment following mention of gospel, hard rock, C&W and Motown was not something I felt necessary to acknowledge in an encyclopaedic article, as you did by adding "various other styles".) As for the missing "folk rock" mention, it's either on one of those other page numbers in the Leng citation, or yes, I've missed a page number out. It happens – I correct others' refs all the time, I wouldn't think to suggest they've indulged in some OR. Especially when it can be so easily established that folk rock is one of the album's acknowledged styles. (It's not like I wrote "blues" or "calypso", you know.)

I notice, from the change you've pasted above, you don't think those specifics about the three songs need to be attributed to Leng, whereas something more general such as the list of genres/styles had to be signposted – "according to Leng". Why's that – why does a list of musical styles merit such treatment? Should any mention of lyrical themes be attributed, signposted with an author's name, along with the fact that these themes recur throughout Harrison's subsequent work? Can anything, for that matter, not be stated in an article without "according to Leng", "Peter Lavezzoli writes", "Robert Rodriguez suggests", etc? JG66 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• A relevant quote from Jody Rosen may arguably be the last thing that needs to be trimmed from that article. It is after all his "folk rock" and not mine.

That's your opinion, and I don't agree. I don't understand why the assessment of someone like Simon Leng, who's researched the All Things Must Pass album in such detail, carries no weight. In fact, I don't see that Rosen's comment – "All Things Must Pass builds its big sound around a collection of typically modest Harrison tunes: downhearted, folk-rock confessions" – even means that the album's musical genre is folk rock. I read it that he's describing the compositions as "folk-rock confessions" at heart, but the album is the delivery, the realisation, of those songs into a "big sound". (For example, Lennon wrote "Strawberry Fields" as a sort of folk song, Jagger wrote "Sympathy for the Devil" as a folk song, but they both came out as something completely different.) Even if Rosen were making a statement about the album's genre – and it's far from being stated explicitly and directly – his assessment would cover only half the picture: "folk rock" covers the Band/Dylan influence on the album, but completely misses the Delaney & Bonnie/Preston/Troy gospel aspect. I know John Harris wrote a highly regarded feature about ATMP in Mojo, in about 2001; if I dig something up there, can I, may I please, use that? JG66 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not voicing my personal opinion on the topic of the article and am not indulging in characterizations of those songs (WP:GWAR) In keeping with WP:SUBJECTIVE, perhaps instead of arguing an opinion-based compromise with me you could find a reliable source/writer that interprets the album's songs as gospel, rock, etc. or that this is such an album.

I only went down that route because I figure you simply have to have your way, to be honest. And again, I can't see why Leng (or Huntley) don't fit the bill. JG66 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nor will I get into an argument no one ultimately wins when someone wants to make claims about what they have seen or feel about another. Dan56 (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What pisses me off is that where I'll come to a piece and at least try to cooperate with how editors have taken it, you just seem to be all about imposing rules. I knew I had a sense of deja vu – it's from the McCartney album back in April, when you reverted a change to the album's genre field (what, no verifiable source?!). Having seen that revert in the edit history, when I was working on the article a few months later I looked for a reason to support its inclusion, adding something that, by your definition, doesn't appear to support the inclusion of "experimental". There may well be verifiable sources to support that claim in the case of McCartney, I don't know; the point is, rather than adopt some WP:BlahBlah approach, I'll look for a way to retain the text unless it's completely wrong. JG66 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• If the line isn't drawn for the most explicit and direct commentary or interpretation available, then any IP can make those kind of edits (that I regularly revert). My only response to all the above still boils down to this: a subjective interpretation such as a creative work's genre needs a reliable source/writer that interprets it in that way. I'm not disputing any author's credentials, I'm disputing how the sources have been used to support genres in the infobox loosely (one of the Leng cites also mentions "hard rock, country and western, and Motown", which weren't included in the infobox) Dan56 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

PBR&B

- Can you at least tell me why you don't think 'noiR&B' is a term for PBR&B, when I have cited two published sourced from two different authors that use that term to discuss the artists The Weeknd and Evy Jane, who are both clearly associated with the genre?--Madrigalbladder (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because no source says "noiR&B" is a [alternative] term for "PBR&B"? Dan56 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi, I noticed you've been edit warring on Crime of the Century (album), and that you responded to edits which direct you to the article's talk page with "Directing me to the talk page would have required notifying me at my talk page if you think it's a priority". I'm writing to inform you that this is not the case. In fact, edit warring is against Wikipedia policies even if the opposing editors haven't directed you to the talk page at all (though in that case, they'd probably be guilty of edit warring too). Certainly there is no rule requiring that notifications be sent specifically to an editor's talk page.

However, since you've requested such a notification, I'm formally instructing you to stop edit warring and use the article's talk page, just as Y45ed and Martin IIIa have. Furthermore, I suggest that you stop writing edit summaries in an antagonistic and imperious tone (e.g. "stop reaching for questionable sources to support this", "two uninformed comments at a talk page do not constitute consensus") and posting false accusations to other editors' talk pages, as I see you did on Martin IIIa's talk page. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, so antagonizing other editors, especially over something so trivial as a single entry in an infobox, is not going to accomplish anything.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

PBR&B

Can you at least tell me why you don't think 'noiR&B' is a term for PBR&B, when I have cited two published sourced from two different authors that use that term to discuss the artists The Weeknd and Evy Jane, who are both clearly associated with the genre?--Madrigalbladder (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps because no source says "noiR&B" is a [alternative] term for "PBR&B"? Dan56 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but both sources discuss artists within the genre, one of which is the first one mentioned in the 'PBR&B' artist list ["Characteristics: Recording artists associated with the term include The Weeknd..."].--Madrigalbladder (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming the sources you're citing agree with that characterization (of the Weeknd as an artist associated with "PBR&B"), which begs the question why wouldn't they have used "PBR&B" instead of "noiR&B". Dan56 (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't beg that question. They are labeling them with another (far more accurate and less product based) name for the genre. Since it is the same genre, they would not use PBR&B instead, because they already named the genre. No music journalist is going to list every term for a genre when discussing any artist. That would be superfluous.--Madrigalbladder (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Where does this idea come from? You or the source? "They are labeling them with another (far more accurate and less product based) name for the genre". I cant see to find any source that makes that connection. You're simply introducing your personal opinion into a source that does not share or at least make that opinion known. Dan56 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not my personal opinion. It's in the source. Those professional music writers made the choice to label those noted "PBR&B" artists as "noiR&B." Obviously, given this wiki page, they had the option of using the corporate name of "PBR&B", but they chose to do something else. Given it's use by more than one writer, I believe I have demonstrated that it is worthy of being noted as an alternative phrase.--Madrigalbladder (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"PBR&B" is not in the source. Nor is "corporation name". And I don't know what you mean by "given this wiki page". Wikipedia articles are created after something (such as a musical phrase or neologism) comes to being and can be cited from actual articles written by professional music journalists. This is pretty simple: You say "noiR&B" is another name for "PBR&B".^{[citation needed]} Dan56 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, "PBR&B" isn't in the source. The professional music journalists I cited are using different name for the genre. Instead of PBR&B, they use a term I find to be more descriptive and less commercially branded name, but it doesn't matter what I think. They are the professional music journalists, and they are the ones using the musical phrase to describe the sound. If "Wikipedia articles are created after something (such as a musical phrase or neologism) comes to being and can be cited from actual articles written by professional music journalists", then "noiR&B" is relevant to this article, and should be listed. Considering the phrase is being used by more than one professional music journalist, it seems silly not to include it.--Madrigalbladder (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

They need to say it's a different name for the genre, not you. Dan56 (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

They do, by their decisions to use the term "noiR&B" instead of "PBR&B". If they thought "PBR&B" was a more accurate term, they would have used it. They are professional music journalists with internet access.--Madrigalbladder (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You're putting words in their proverbial mouths. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"PBR&B" and "noiR&B" both have "R&B" in their titles, and they are discussing artists already mentioned in the "PBR&B" article. They couldn't be talking about anything else.--Madrigalbladder (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. Stop coming to your own conclusions. If you want to write in the article that "PBR&B" is also known as "noiR&B", then find a reliable source that says just that (WP:NOR). Also, this author's neologism also has "R&B". Dan56 (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That author's neologism was used to discuss a band that was active 50 years ago. If that author was discussing an artist already listed on the "PBR&B" page, it would also be a worthwhile mention on that page.--Madrigalbladder (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Listed? Another source's characterization of the Weeknd as "PBR&B" (this is cited) + your source's characterization of him as "noiR&B" = "PBR&B is also known as 'noiR&B'"??? I don't think so. Please tell me how that isn't novel synthesis or personal observation by yourself rather than an individual source that comes to that conclusion on their own? Dan56 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A Hard Day's Night

Hello. I noticed you recently reverted my edit on the Beatles' album A Hard Day's Night. You didn't leave a reason for removing my sourced edit, instead you simply said "Seriously?". This album is listed quite high up in Allmusic's "Merseybeat Album Highlights", and Merseybeat is one of the genres mentioned on the album's Allmusic page. Y45ed (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Allmusic's sidebar is not a reliable source (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES#Sources to avoid); if this is the link you intended to cite (but did not actually include in this edit), then where does the writer mention the album? Dan56 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.allmusic.com/style/merseybeat-ma0000012018/albums Y45ed (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the exact same page I pointed out, bro. Dan56 (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Then I don't see the problem you have with it. All versions of A Hard Day's Night are listed on the Merseybeat Album Highlights. Y45ed (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're using the equivalent of Allmusic's sidebar categorization; the writer makes no mention of any albums. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The release date is wrong

The album 8701 was released on August 7, 2001, hence the title. That's pretty obvious, I don't know where you got July 1, 2001 from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodge1991 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrase issue

Strawberry Bubblegum was identified as having a close paraphrase issue.

I did not see the purported source identified. Perhaps this?

You edited and removed the tag. You have enough experience that I do not need to double-check, but I just want confirmation that you believed you addressed the issue.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to this line? "According to Mikael Wood of the Los Angeles Times, the song transitions from a stark electro song to an amiable keyboard vamp comparable to Stevie Wonder's 1973 song "You Are the Sunshine of My Life".^[7] Dan56 (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea, which is the point. I'm working my way through WP:CP, and trying to do an investigation, where warranted. I see that you appear to have resolved the issue, If so, I am done, and can mark it as closed. On the other hand, if you made an edit, and accidentally removed the tag, I can't close it without more work.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I was asked by another editor to copy edit the article's prose. Perhaps I removed the tag then? Dan56 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll look int it a bit myself.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

SOLA2012

Hi

recently i felt like people remove things without explanations for example http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lungs_%28album%29 the sales based on the certifications approved that the album has sold over 5 million copies worldwide

and when i tried to fix the sales number and i added the sourse by saying the sales number based on the certifications and so on and the same thing with the second album , and everytime i try to do something users just remove it .

i got really mad and i dont konw what to do ???

so if you can check the two articals that would be good and any advice would be cool too ????

Thnaks sola$$$$$$$$ (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You cant make novel interpretations of other sources (i.e. certifications, not all of which are based on sales; see List of music recording sales certifications). A source needs to state how much an album has sold worldwide, as it does in the "Commercial performance" section of Lungs (album). A source is not your rationale; it's this (WP:SOURCE). Dan56 (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

O.N.I.F.C.

Did you seriously just give me a warning? You are the one being disruptive. Koala15 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to O.N.I.F.C., without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Koala15 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Blur

Did you read the first sentence of that review? Please also read this well-sourced section of the parent article. I assure you, writing Britpop as the genre for Blur is as absurd and wrong as you can get. If you spent any time at all (or even a couple of days) researching the band, you'd see that as well. A consensus of sources say that Blur say this, but you cling to a throwaway mention of "Brit-pop" in a throwaway review.

Anyway, good day. I won't bother with this any longer. Silliness like this is the reason I've stopped editing music articles.—indopug (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"...[The album] may superficially appear to be a break from tradition (the writer's previous mention of Britpop), but it is a logical progression, highlighting the band's rich eclecticism and sense of songcraft." So I don't see how that supports your conclusion. And again, no mention of "alternative rock". Characterize the latter as "throwaway" all you want, it's still the most explicit characterization by a music critic of the album, unless you can find a better source that says otherwise. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it without an appropriate source explicitly saying what you seem to think is common knowledge rather than aesthetic opinion. If it's really that common an opinion among writers, it shouldn't be too hard to find and cite one. Dan56 (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're fine with the infobox blatantly contradicting the rest of the well-sourced Blur GA (which routinely talks of Britpop as a thing of Blur's past and mentions lo-fi and indie-rock influences—both alt-rock subgenres) because there's a source explicitly with the word "Britpop"?—indopug (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, here's what the source I added says: "Musically, Blur was already rejecting Britpop in 1997, as their fifth album, Blur, embraced American indie rock, which perhaps explains why they finally found success in America with hit single "Song 2", which James describes as "Muppet grunge"." As for why I chosen alt-rock over the indie-rock subgenre; it's to accommodate the various styles on the album (like lo-fi) all of which fall under the alt umbrella.—indopug (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 (Critical reception)

Hey Dan! How are you? Do you have some spare time? Can you give your magic touch to the section, it looks quite messy. Thank you! :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

invincible album

wouldn't it be best with all that has "occurred" with Michael Jackson to simply put final Studio album ?in the process let the album and him be) just a thought , do what ever ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,--65.8.187.216 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)

This is a note to let the main editors of Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 8, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 8, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) is the debut album of American hip hop group Wu-Tang Clan, released in November 1993 on Loud Records and distributed through RCA Records. Recording sessions for the album took place during 1992 to 1993 at Firehouse Studio in New York City, and it was mastered at The Hit Factory. The album's title originates from the martial arts film The 36th Chamber of Shaolin (1978). The group's de facto leader RZA (pictured), produced the album entirely, utilizing heavy, eerie beats and a sound largely based on martial-arts movie clips and soul music samples. The album's distinctive sound created a blueprint for hardcore hip hop during the 1990s and helped return New York City hip hop to national prominence. Its sound also became hugely influential in modern hip hop production, while the group members' explicit, humorous, and free-associative lyrics have served as a template for many subsequent hip hop records. Initially receiving positive reviews from most music critics, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) has been regarded by music writers as one of the most significant albums of the 1990s, as well as one of the greatest hip hop albums of all time. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Misterioso

Per your reverting my edit of the personnel order on the page for Thelonious Monk's Misterioso, the order I changed it to is the order favored by almost every other jazz album article on this site. In years of looking at jazz albums every day I cannot recollect once seeing the personnel in alphabetical order with production and musical personnel mixed.

This serves absolutely no informational purpose whatsoever, it is the lack of any kind of intelligent organisation. Why you can't see sense in having musicians and production personnel seperated with musicians in leader/horns/reeds/rhythm order like practically every single other jazz article is quite beyond me.

I would give examples but there is no point in me doing this because they are extremely easy to find. Better would be for you to give an example of one jazz article with production and musical personnel mixed into alphabetical order.

Digztytwo (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Trends among jazz album articles (which unfortunately aren't generally in very good shape/class) are not editing guidelines (WP:OTHERSTUFF) nor are they in any way exempt from the alphabetical order shown at MOS:ALBUM#Personnel. That guideline suggests to editors that larger, more complex lists of contributors may be split up into different sections (such as one with a "musician" heading and another with "technical") but your edit just put "Thelonious Monk" ahead of every name for no objective reason. Headings are already in place to split up the second personnel for the album's reissue. Alphabetical order is indisputable; order based on who we feel was most important is subjective and subject to any editor changing it. If you have a discernible way of ordering to propose, do so, but your recent edit lacked "any kind of intelligent organization". The trend you're referring to was not brought up in the article's good article assessment, so it's hardly a priority. Dan56 (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Too Much Too Soon (album)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Too Much Too Soon (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Too Much Too Soon (album) to Good Article status. Keep up the good work--I'm always happy to see more of your stuff in the queue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Too Much Too Soon (album)

The article Too Much Too Soon (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Too Much Too Soon (album) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

...

	Here's an award, and you can stick it up your ass.
	What's this shit you're giving me about editing based on point of view. You think your point of view is any better? Either way it's point of view. What are you stupid or something? Don't message me again, asshole. Your not the fucking boss of anybody. And STOP changing my FUCKING edits!! Eddster (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it'll fit LOL! Dan56 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Something I found incorrect on Guy's self-titled debut album

I was editing the article to include the remaining and correct names of the songwriters for the album, and then I noticed this slight error:

Along with Riley and Hall, Guy featured vocals by Damion Hall and Gene Griffin, who also contributed to the album's production with Riley.[4]

Here's the problem with this one- the Allmusic credits on their debut are horribly wrong. Although Damion Hall did appear in the music videos for the singles released from the album, he was not involved in the recording in any way. In fact, he didn't make any appearances on this album by Guy. He did, however, contribute to vocals and production on their second album The Future. The person you see on the album cover is original member Timmy Gatling- who left the group within weeks of the album's release.

Also, Gene Griffin did contribute to the album's production, but not the vocals. I was wondering if that little sentence can be changed, as the Allmusic credits made things a little confusing in this regard. Thanks. Shallowharold (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have a better source that verifies that information such as liner notes, feel free to change it. It's just one sentence I hardly care about. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sons of Soul...."Slow Wine"

The info I got was FIRST HAND info from the writers of the song themselves....

The BMI search reveals that the writers of the song Slow Wine are listed as.... SLOW WINE (Legal Title) BMI Work #1857792 Songwriter/Composer Current Affiliation CAE/IPI # HAYNES ONTARIO DAMON BMI 179396316 RHONE JOHN EDWARD BMI 179401362 ROSS BENJAMIN SCOTT BMI 179401460 STEWART MAURICE LAMONT BMI 179401950 WIGGINS DWAYNE P ASCAP 127787344

Publishers RAP AND MORE MUSIC BMI 247305478 Additional Non-BMI Publishers Artists TONY TONI TONE

This clearly states Dwayne Wiggins was NOT the only writer on the song. Rhone and Haynes are professionally known as "The Whole 9".

http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=1857792&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID

You also state Dwayne is the Bass player of the group, he plays guitar, Raphael plays bass on all recordings.

Cuajota (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to get antsy about it. Your original edit cited no source at all. What'd you expect me to do? Dan56 (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Good Girl Gone Bad FAC

Hey Dan! How are you? Do you have some spare time to view and check the article and give some comments at the FAC? I would be grateful. Cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not enough time for me. Sporadically editing as it is. Dan56 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

invincible album /Michael jackson

would it be possible to compromise and put at the beginning "his final studio album", and then in the second sentence or wherever 10th studio album( though it is his 6th with sony)??,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,--65.8.187.216 (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Why when MOS:ALBUM#Lead considers the chronological number relevant enough to be in the first sentence? Dan56 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

good question,,,,,,,,,,,,the answer would be most aren't actually the FINAL studio album (no matter what; due to the event of 2009) which means there is a finality that is not the common norm,,,,,,,,,this I hope you agree,,thank you...--65.8.187.107 (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dontgetit. What does Jackson's death have to do with whether or not it's appropriate to write "tenth and final"? Dan56 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Again it is the finality at the beginning of the article to let the reader know, do what you think best,,,,,--65.8.187.107 (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

opinion?,,,,,--65.8.189.116 (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how leaving it the way the guideline recommends prevents the reader from understanding the "finality". Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

cant we include "tenth" album in the second line?,,,,,--65.8.188.20 (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

IDK, cant we leave it as is? Dan56 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Article work

You may want to edit No More Hell to Pay.HotHat (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment

• Hey Dan. Since you are a major contributor to the article, would you mind sharing your thoughts on the talk page about making the song "...And Justice for All" a redirect to the album page?

• And a little help now. Can you locate the page number from the book used in the ninth reference? Thanks and all the best.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Hello, please do not vandalize articles by reverting cleanup changes, as you did with Chocolate Factory. Thank you. 216.150.182.2 (talk)

Talk That Talk

I did, I found a reliable source with top40.com which states it as an R&B dance-pop album, even the page itself states R&B as a genre. 86.142.54.250 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all that's R&B laced with dance-pop and going onto Unapologetic, I've got two pages that state it is R&B; so I win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.54.250 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, which of these sources here says "this album is R&B", or anything remotely explicit? Second of all, win what? This isn't a contest, this is disruptive editing. Dan56 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

London calling.

London Calling is Just as much punk as post-punk. Also what you are doing is considered genre warring. I have listed 2 reliable sources yet you still remove them based on your OWN rules that it's not reliable.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. Also, if you'd bother to see the links in my edit summary, it would have led you to Punknews.org's listing as an acceptable source and a note that shows what is a staff review. For example, notice the "staff" tag in yellow here? Slapping a genre in the infobox based on popular opinion among music listeners and not offering any professional critique to explain that side isn't in line with WP:SUBJECTIVE nor WP:NOR ("Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides...") Dan56 (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not what i'm talking about. it's the fact you think A random music critic thinks this is Post-punk makes it so? also the albums that are listed in the genre section of allmusic are not based around what appears in the sidebar take "White light?white heat", for example. It is listed as Alternative rock in the sidebar but does not appear in Alternative rock albums listing.Quit making up your own rules. maybe you should read thisWP:WINNING

"popular opinion among music listeners and not offering any professional critique to explain that side isn't in line with WP:SUBJECTIVE nor WP:NOR ("Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides...")"

Funny cause you don't offer insight as to why this is posy-punk and you seem to be biased against punk because it's the "popular opinion among music listeners", and i'm aloud to add a genre is i have reliable sources to conclude it is punk. --76.107.252.227 (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't have reliable sources. This reads "Alternative/Indie Rock Album Highlights", and each one of them is listed as such at their respective sidebars. I'm assuming it's popular opinion among music listeners b/c that's what misguided IP genre changes at Wikipedia are usually based on. Maybe you should read the first paragraph at London Calling#Music and lyrics, which doesn't cite "random" music critics. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a reliable source the punk album listing on allmusic is not based around the sidebar. like i said before "white light/white heat" is listed as alternative rock in the sidebar but does not appear in the alternative rock, so it is not based on what is LISTED IN THE SIDEBAR. you are making up lies in order to get your way, my allmusic source is reliable and you know it. If you think post-punk deseveres to stay add sources from sites not just what some music critic says, and Just because you Think the album sounds like Joy Division does not make it so to everyone else.(76.107.252.227 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC))

It says "highlights", bro. Not every single album that's listed as such. Dan56 (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unapologetic

Hiya hon,

I found a article from Billboard's review on Unapologetic which states it's R&B; here is the link[the article] to it and here in words are the article that mentions it, I've wrote it in italic; please see below.

"On paper, Rihanna releasing her seventh album in seven years would suggest a quantity-over-quality work ethic that's bound to wear thin. But on "Unapologetic," Rihanna proves once again that she can set -- and often raise -- the bar for modern pop music. Amping up on urban, dubstep-leaning R&B and scaling back on the often awkward sex jams that populated the second half of 2011's "Talk That Talk," "Unapologetic" is Rihanna's most confident, emotionally resonant work since 2009's "Rated R."

Hope that helps, happy editing D to the ina, R to the ae☻ ^{'My Talk Page} 10:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Some help over critics opinion

Hey buddy. I assume you are busy, but when you have some free time, can you re-write the "Critical reception" of Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!? It currently reads like a quote-farm, and it would be awesome if you can re-arrange it, like you did with Master of Puppets. See you.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Your comments would be welcome at this SPI. Thanks, Ruby Murray 04:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reported for edit warring on London Calling

You have been reported here: Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Edit_warring for violating WP:NPOV and WP:GWAR (76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)).

Miseducation of Lauryn hill

the numbers on the yahoo article was wrong it said By April 2012, it had sold over 7,106,000 copies in the US. the riaa website said it was certified 8x platinum in 2001, 11 yrs ago from 2012. mathematically does that even make sense?Wayn12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

RIAA certifications are awards based on shipments to retailers, not the actual sales from those retailers. Dan56 (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

HI ,,,ABOUT MJ INVINCIBLE

I had written you about the intro to the Michael Jackson invincible page, however I don't see it anymore on your talk page nor do I see an archive?,,,,,,,--65.8.188.20 (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded to you here a while ago, you didn't respond, so I removed the post. I don't see what else needs to be said on the matter anyway. Dan56 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, you've messagedannoyed me with three messages, ain't you got any thing better to do? 217.43.167.49 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you nothing better to do than genre warring? Dan56 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

can we get a concensus on this?.....--65.8.188.20 (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Speak Now - Genre

Describe by Allmusic as "blend of country and pop", but suddenly changed into pop rock. I should known that User:Status accidentally changed pop into pop rock as from genre sidebar without see that articles which says "blend of country and pop". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.9 (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring (again), as you did at The Breakfast Club. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Teflon Peter Christ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was wrong to slap warnings at the other editor's talk page and reporting them for edit warring, without myself engaging in more personal messages and efforts to discuss why they were making the edits they were making. I would like another chance at resolving this dispute, not to edit the article, but instead to start a discussion at its talk page (or at least someone can do this) regarding the content we edit warred about. I've tried and avoided this way of editing since my last block almost two years ago, but lost my cool in this case. I'm sorry for not discussing the changes and losing my cool to being reverted. I would like another chance to handle this properly and let someone else mediate changes to the article rather than me editing it. I should have known better, but had a moment of weakness and thought I could circumvent the most appropriate course of action rather than what seemed most convenient at the time. I apologize. Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Editor appears to be sincere in pledge to avoid edit warring. Happy holidays. Toddst1 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Given your last block was nearly 2 years ago I'm willing to AGF and unblock you (or reducing the block length), assuming User:Toddst1 doesn't have any major objections. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank both you and Toddst1 very much! I sincerely appreciate it, and happy holidays. Dan56 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha! And you have the nerve to write shade about me acting like you're holier than thou, I've got news for you bruv go get a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.54.202 (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

page protection

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I approved your requests for protection of those pages because the user appears to have a dynamic IP address in the range 86.128.0.0/10, which is 4194304 IP addresses. If you happen to see him doing that in the future, please let me know and I'll take care of it. I really wish UK telecoms didn't do stuff like that with their IP address allocation (</rant>), but if you want to file a complaint with his ISP, the form is here. Don't know if they will do anything about if you do, but yeah. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Hello Dan. Since you're kind of more involved in the FA process, can you offer some advice how to nominate articles for that award? Furthermore, an opinion whether this list meets the criteria and what to improve will be welcomed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you any more than what's at WP:FAC; just to be as prepared as possible, I would recommend either nominating it for GA first or a peer review, which would make for less things to correct during the FA process. Articles nominated for FA often have had either/or. I'm not too familiar with list articles, but there is a page on featured list critera here. Dan56 (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, that what's I've been looking for. And can you point some similar lists just to see what are the other requirements?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This category page shows all featured list articles, some of which are award articles, including List of awards and nominations received by Scissor Sisters, Fiona Apple, and Alanis Morissette. Dan56 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Scaruffi

I got the reverts arse about face - sorry! This is why edit summaries are useful, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Kk. Dan56 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)