User talk:WesleyDodds/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

New Discoveries

Hahaha that's awesome. What do you think of it? NSR77 ^T 05:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Blood Sugar is a barrage of music. Its incredibly long, especially considering the length of previous Chili Peppers albums. It really translates much better on vinyl, where the distinct styles are clearly felt. The beginning feels nothing like the end. Quite right about the beginning--but then again, I absolutely hate the first track on the record. I start with "If You Have to Ask" when I'm listening to it all the way through.

Other then that, how have you been these days? Sorry I'm not around much anymore. I check in pretty much every other day, I'm here, but I don't have any motivation to edit really. NSR77 ^T 16:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Too clean

Sure, I'll try to keep on top of it. --JD554 (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just added references for the video directors to Nirvana discography. While doing it I found that according Kevin Kerslake he only co-directed the "Lithium" video[1]. I found that the other co-director is likely to have been Mark Racco, but I can only find unreliable sources online[2]. Do you have any printed sources which might confirm this? In the spirit of WP:V I left the director as just Kevin Kerslake for now. --JD554 (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Their early electro-pop is very very good. Their later stuff (1986 onwards) is good, and I can see that, but it just doesn't move me. --JD554 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A belated Merry Christmas to you too. I hope you're having/have had a good holiday. All the best for 2010 --JD554 (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd think someone who comes across as being as well-read as Morrissey would have been more carefull, but then again... --JD554 (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish I did have more time at the moment. Hopefully in a couple of weeks, I can be back up to my usual editing level. --JD554 (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added references for the chart positions already mentioned in the article. I'll try to go through adding relevant chart positions and certifications over the next few days. --JD554 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana discography

Why did you archive the discussion? You haven't even responded. – Zntrip 08:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You reverted all of my edits. The only thing you did was change the dashes to em dashes. – Zntrip 08:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You archived an active discussion. You haven't addressed any of the points I've made and you are circumventing having a real discussion. – Zntrip 08:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems we agree on everything but the abbreviation of "United States". My point is that since both "US" and "U.S." are acceptable (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)), the abbreviation on the article should match the abbreviations for other countries that don't have periods (UK, CAN, JPN, etc.). Basically I think the abbreviations should be consistent. – Zntrip 08:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. – Zntrip 09:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Control (Janet Jackson album)

Hey there. Originally, yes, but after having it pass GA I randomly decided to nominate it for FA as well. It's got 3 supports and no oppose. If you can think of any other improvements, great, but it seems to be doing alright. So, no worries. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Its too bad we don't have more musicologists who happen to be editors. Actually, it would be better to have more professionals as editors across all projects. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative

What the hell dude? Why would you undo every single actual alternative band I added, in favor of a bunch of thoroughly non-alternative garbage like Nickelback and Tokio Hotel? You're really bad at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParadoxBacklash (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sly and The Family Stone

Hi Wesley; there is very little needed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sly & the Family Stone/archive2; are you able to peek in at what's left? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Trent

Dude, I think a reorganization would be an awesome idea. Unfortunately, I have basically no time for Wikipedia for the next month or so (I mean, just check my contributions). So unfortunately I can't help you with that at the moment. But by all means, have at it for now! Drewcifer (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good man. Hopefully I'll be done with what I'm doing by late-December, and I'll try and give you a hand then. Drewcifer (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt Rock Info Box

I will move your reasoned answer and add my response to the Alternative Rock discussion Page so other editors may chime in. I did like your change to the "New Music" article I wrote.Edkollin (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on Hey Ya! succession boxes

Since it just seems between the two of us, I've asked for a third opinion on the subject at WP:3O. Your opinions on succession boxes in general should be discussed at the talk pages for WP:ALBUMS and WP:SONGS (and possibly even WP:SBS) to gain a larger consensus rather than limit it to a single article. I do agree they can be a clutter on some pages, and there is a way to reduce the clutter by adding a collapsible header, such as I have done on Boom Boom Pow. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Distill the life inside of meeeeeeeee

At what point of The Beatles history do you think a "Background" section in Please Please Me should start from? —indopug (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just the off-chance I might work on it. Sadly though, I have little time for anything these days. —indopug (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any major projects lined up? —indopug (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

QUEEEEEEEEN!!! Although I have much better access to sources on The Beatles thanks to my library. —indopug (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Heard "At Home He's a Tourist" for the first time today. My first reaction was "is this just one song playing?!". The guitar and bass parts have nothing to do with each other.—indopug (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you a fan of Lester Bangs?—indopug (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess: Live at Reading and Queen Rock Montreal? I have Montreal; more than that concert, I love the bonus DVD with the Live Aid Wembley performance.—indopug (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Since I have nothing better to do, I think I'll watch it on YouTube now. As for U2, I hate them because of their sloganeering; so I could never bring myself to try much of their music. I like their big songs from the 80s ("With or Without You", "Bullet the Blue Sky", "Sunday Bloody Sunday"), but thought "One" was rather tame.—indopug (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Random conspiracy: I just noticed the Ziggy Stardust album cover has a "K. West" sign in it. I fear Kanye has come to earth to warn us of our impending doom in five years.—indopug (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So I get all impressed by the quality of Suede (band) and a few related articles, and I decide to chip-in and copy-edit. I'm also all set to thank the main contributor for his effort and award him an barnstar, when I notice he's been indefinitely blocked today for sockpuppetry.—indopug (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a Rock's BackPages account?—indopug (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting work on a Fabs/Queen/Zep article, so anything would be great.—indopug (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you check if the genres at Cocteau Twins are okay?—indopug (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you are gathering the troops for a Queen collaboration; count me in. What's it going to be then, Queen II?—indopug (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Queen II temp page: User:Indopug/remdiscog.—indopug (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. But I think PhilisOak is an alternate account of the (blocked) main contributor of the article. Maybe we should try pinging him?—indopug (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to see this.—indopug (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How come Joy Division doesn't mention that Tony Wilson signed the group with a contract written in his own blood? Isn't it true, or just legend?—indopug (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised you haven't come across alt text already; it's been at FAC for close to a year now. But yeah, it is rather dumb. I just couldn't be bothered to kick up a fuss about it.

But I would like to hear testimonials from actual blind people whether it is useful in any way.—indopug (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many more songs Billy will churn out before he gives up on Teargarden by Kaliedoscope. Sooner or later he's gotta realise that nobody cares anymore.—indopug (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Catalog numbers

Despite our differences elsewhere, I am ready to work with you regarding the catalog numbers. Let me explain what I tried to do...

In many Beatle album articles, the catalog numbers were in the lead sentence and I thought that was abominable. In some of their album articles, the catalog numbers were in the infobox. I thought the infobox was the lesser of two evils. I considered deleting them entirely but didn't because I assumed there would be pushback from people who want that sort of info in the article somewhere. I suppose another alternative was to add it to the body of the article, but using prose for that sort of thing is unnecessary and I didn't think we needed another table in most of the articles.

Anyway, I edited all the "canon" Beatle albums, moving the catalog numbers out of the lead (if they were there) and into the infobox (if they weren't there). Perhaps that's not the best arrangement, but they are consistent.

If the catalog numbers are deleted from Sgt Pepper, they should be deleted everywhere... unless you have another alternative. I can probably live with anywhere except the lead. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems we are basically in agreement, and I'll remove the catalog numbers in the album articles sometime soon. If there is a negative reaction from other editors, I hope you'll indicate your support for removing them.

Separate issue: was it really necessary to include the jibe at people who edit Beatle articles? It's not pleasant to work with someone who thinks he's better than you are, and your comments often indicate that attitude. I am not saying that to pick a fight, I'm saying it because you might not realize it. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Grunge music WikiProject

Hi, WesleyDodds! I've proposed a Grunge music WikiProject and would like your feedback on it. Thank you for your time! mheart (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

White Lies COTW nom

Just a quick note to say thanks for your support on the above! If it gets it, then I am thinking about FA nom'ing, pending everyone's creative input. Thanks again! --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas Everybody

Hi, would you mind commenting on this when ypu get a chance please? Thanks, Majorly talk 13:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana discography

Wesley, tell me, does adding one more list of charts on the Nirvana discography really hurt the article ? I've checked the article history and you seem to have the final say on everything. I just wanted to make a well referenced contribution to the article. Does one more chart really class as eing to much ? There is space for more. Please can I add the Netherlands singles charts. Thanks. 193.195.193.183 (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

John Frusciante

Why are you re-adding that unsourced paragraph about Daniel Delgado with the edit summary "unsourced" as the anon is removing it? Don't we want it removed? Am I missing something? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk!

Yeah, it doesn't really surprise me any. In a lot of interviews since they took a hiatus it was pretty palpable that he had no interest in being with them. Its kind of sad, though, I was really hoping they'd be able to continue on. It'll really tick me off if the awful Stadium Arcadium ends up being their final album. NSR77 ^T 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, whats going on man? I just checked the reference and the most immediate following reference covers it. No reason to cite each sentence when more information is derived from it.

Sorry I haven't been around very much. Just two days ago I finished a week treatment in rehab; I've been going through some really rough times and my vicious cocaine addiction (that I thought was finally done and over with) resurfaced. I'm laying low so perhaps I'll try and focus my editing here. Best, NSR77 ^T 00:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and next year I'm finishing out college in San Francisco at USF. I'm so tired of LA. I've been spending so much time in Frisco lately visiting friends and going to clubs and local shows that I fell in love with the city. I know you live in Sacramento, perhaps some day in the future we could meet and discuss all things alt rock? Hahah. NSR77 ^T 00:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

By that criteria, why aren't Kid A and What's the Story (Morning Glory)? "Top"?

Oh, because they're not grunge (or American). Pitiful really.

Opinions

Please stop editing based on your own personal opinion. If this kind of disruptive editing continues, you will wind up violating WP:3RR. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

• You are doing this. Read the sources on Talk:System of a Down. (Sugar Bear (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC))
  • It doesn't change what the source says. It removes one band for which there is significant coverage contradicting MTV's reporting. (Sugar Bear (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC))
    • Please stop adding the content back. There doesn't need to be a specific band cited in that sentence, especially not a band which is significantly sourced to not be a part of the subgenre for which the sentence claims it is a part of. (Sugar Bear (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Greetings WesleyDodds!

I'm almost a part-time WikiGnome. I focus half my time editing, and the rest, doing cleanup on articles that need lots of things; copyediting, wikifying, creating infoboxes, and esp. obtaining hard to find CC-BY-SA photos from various genres including garage punk, alternative rock, New Wave music, and the like. (Band photos are esp. the hardest)! I found your name first in line on the alternative rock project portal, so I'm writing in the hopes that you'll contact anyone invoved in the articles who may have been hunting for such pics. I just uploaded about 20 band photos that fall into the alternative category, and have far more listed alphabetically on my user page. I haven't really frequented any of the music portals, except to sign up, and have never ventured into Wikipedia's official "Community Portal", either. I don't know more than a half dozen people who edit/or administrate etc. here, even after doing this for awhile. Would you be willing to contact anyone who can help identify additional photos of The Tubes, and other bands? I have access to photos but am unsure who the bandmembers are in the photos. I do know photographers who will change their photo copyrights to Creative Commons if I ask them to do so for Wikipedia use. In many cases I am unsure about identifying which member of a band the photo is showing, but also sometimes there are bands with the same name but from differing countries.. At least two of those photographers have a limited grasp of English, (one speaks Japanese). Can you help? I'm no newbie; but I don't wish to disturb the generous folks who allow us use of their photos, if they aren't going to be used. Please see my usersite to see the list of hundreds of photos I've uploaded and placed. I began to keep a list for my convenience, but they are alphabetized. Thanks so much for your time and attention; I just wish to help! Let me know if you'd like a recent list of the uploads. I'm never noticed, so I don't get a chance to suggest much, so I have to rely on being bold. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U

Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I pulled out a few of those yesterday (see item #4). Probably some of the ones you're thinking of, too. I'll take a look at Eternity and see if I can find something there, too. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun.

Also, you made statements pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there; just wondering if you were interested in participating in this RFC? BOZ (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation! BOZ (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

80s Top

Considering that it's "Alternative music", surely some 80s albums deserve to be of the top importance because, let's face it, they created the genre, i.e. Murmur (album), or mainstream-ed it (and influenced Nevermind as well), i.e Daydream Nation.

"Hey Jude" citations

Are you going to support or oppose my proposal to make the "Hey Jude" citations consistent? See Talk:Hey Jude. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

GA noms

Hi, you wrote on my talk page a month ago about reviewing my GA noms. I red it today for the first time since i've been busy. Are you still willing to give me some feedback on them? I currently nominated Radar (song), If U Seek Amy and i'm planning to nominate The Circus Tour. Xwomanizerx ((talk)) 13:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you write this??

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hZxCfzOeLmoi9vKoK2D3bqypeaZA

Damn you! (fist shake)

Do you like fish sticks?

Ye, he's massively overrated. I only ever liked that song with the chipmunk. M'n'M has his moments too but the decade has been a bit crap for proper hip-hop (although the 90s weren't that great either). If you've got the open mind and patience, try Dizzee Rascal's Boy in da Corner or the more accessible Showtime. Beats Ye and Jay Zed any day. Talib Kweli's Beautiful Struggle was alright as well. Oh, and happy christmas. RB88 (T) 01:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just remembered

If you want a nice introduction to grime, get Roll Deep's Street Anthems, just released as a historical compilation. Also, I think I've covered all the bases on the Is This It FAC. Have a look and pop back. RB88 (T) 09:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Modern Talking

Hi, I'm proposing a WikiProject for a German alternative band called Modern Talking, I was wondering if you can help me taking it to a descendant of your Alternative music wikiproject or a task force for them. Thank you. Cheers, MisterWiki talk contribs 16:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Help" On Articles

Hey, Wesley! During our "run-ins" in the distant past, you've offered me help on raising articles, and I've responded by asking for specific help. No answer was ever given, and as I suspected, your pat general "offer" of "help for FA articles" seems to be more a way of saying, "Neener, neener, neener! I've edited FA articles and you haven't! Will I help you? Mmmmmm... nope!" I think that if you are going to genuinely offer your help, then make good on it. I've been working on The Doors; a massive influence on your Kurt Cobain and your Michael Stipe, and this article has been in dire need of proper citation to get it to the article status it deserves... forever! You want to make good on a promise to truly improve an important article? Help me on The Doors, if not just a little... Doc9871 (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehee... Okay, so within three(?) days we'll see some sort of improvement on this vastly influential band's article from you? I mean, we want to raise the status of articles, don't we? I can't stand Peacocks, and gaining true FA article status isn't for remoras either, don't you agree? You've got to start from the ground up; let's see where this article goes in the next few days. Peace and love... Doc9871 (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

PS - I'm not calling you either a Peacock or a Remora, just expressing my distaste for these creatures :> Doc9871 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks great so far... trying to remove an image of Jim Morrison at the historic Miami concert, among all others... top notch history work, there, fellas! You and your pal Indopug will never see a solicitation from me again about "helping" get an article get to "FA" - and I don't ever again expect a smarmy, disingenuous "offer" from you again, either. Keep your unsolicited and dishonest offers of "help" to you and your cronies :P "FA" indeed... Doc9871 (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! I wouldn't have asked you if I thought you couldn't help... Doc9871 (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not reacting to my "dripping" sarcasm btw; I'll always get carried away from time to time. Good man :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Achtung Baby...

I note your suggestion that the Achtung Baby article hasn't "consulted all major sources" to which you specifically refer to Q and Mojo. Do you mean have not been checked, or have not been used? While I agree that they should be checked, I don't believe that they have to be used simply because they are, say, Q and Mojo - ie, if they don't add anything that is not already there, then why use them?

Looking at those two specifically, I've found the following through Rock Back Pages and I've offered some comments:

Q

• [3] U2:Achtung Baby by Mat Snow - this is review - and reviews are a dime a dozen, covering very similar ground mostly already included in the article - a journalist's opinion of the music. Sure, he discusses Achtung baby's break with the past, the album cover, etc, but that is already in the the wikipedia article. To me, passages such as the following, don't strike me as that useable for an encyclopedia, or are you suggesting otherwise:

U2 get their payload of blues airborne with music of drama, depth, intensity and, believe it, funkiness. The Edge's guitar is more than ever a superbly flighted aerial sprite of gleaming, streamlined rhythm play and a stylistic range that draws as much from the wah-wah psychedelicists of the Hendrix school as the industrial-strength calculated savagery of a cheesed-off Robert Fripp. Messrs Mullen and Clayton, meanwhile, have clearly clocked that Funky Drummer rhythm as appropriated by The Stone Roses and their disciples, and the dub-deep sound thus recorded is so subterranean it will give your speakers stretch-marks.

• [4] U2: A Perspective Mark Cooper, Q, 1991. Does not cover the album in any depth - the limited AB specific info is already mentioned.

Mojo

• [5] Brian Eno Andy Gill, Mojo, June 1995. I got a couple of sentences out of this and added to article - but I'm not sure - perhaps the additions are a bit trivial. The info on Even Better Than the Real thing is better in the song article.
• [6] Brian Eno: "So Why Are We Doing This?" Andy Gill, Mojo, May 2001. Minimal on Achtung Baby which i have now included although it's probably a bit trivial.

There are a number of other articles provided with a search on "Achtung Baby" (24 in total) although a number are of marginal relevance and, once again, most seem to cover either info already in the article, or opinion that I find hard to use in the album.

Could you please review your comment, and let me know if you believe that there is anything in these items above that is pertinent to the WP article? Particularly with regards to the opinion in review such as the sample i posted above. Or, perhaps you could be more specific about which sources you are referring to and what it is in them that should be in the AB article. Note - I've actually placed an order for the 33 1/3 book and should have it in a few weeks. I hope it's helpful!

On a related side note, I have a copy of Brian Eno's Rolling Stone article on AB - a great read, but once again I find it hard to use (apart from using the great "buzzwords" quote in a quote box). Perhaps you could read it and give me your opinion on its further potential for use on the WP article.

cheers --Merbabu (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - this one looks promising. [7] --Merbabu (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PPS - Rock Back Pages also has articles "U2 Anew" and "Saint Bono defrocked". Both are very interesting and discuss the album in depth - but a similar problem in my opinion - they either cover stuff already included, or fluffy review style material that i reckon is not overly fit for an encyclopedia. But, i'd be interested in your opinion on them. --Merbabu (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This beats your Bauhaus review...

...hands down

Release history

You were half right about those boxes. They're impossible to fully source for old albums. I keep finding more and more idiosyncratic ones for Remain in Light as well. Damn LP pressings. I still think though that internet-era CDs are completely fine to source. More straightforward. RB88 (T) 19:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Green Day

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Green Day/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

MTV Unplugged in New York

. Both the album and the broadcast omit a short jam of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s "Sweet Home Alabama", and instrumental jams of "Sliver", "Negative Creep", "In Bloom", and "Scentless Apprentice"

You undid this edit because, you said: This does not belong in the lead section. So, instead of helping expand the article and putting the addition wherever it "belongs", you just omitted it. Thank you, that was very helpful. Geeky Randy (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting Smashing Pumpkins Songs

I couldn't help but notice that you and Indopug have been redirecting some Smashing Pumpkins songs to the albums that contain them. Might you consider holding a vote on the talk page next time? Thank you. Lord mortekai (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that voting is discouraged on Wikipedia. At any rate, I think there are better ways to indicate ones belief that an article fails to meet notability criteria. One could tag the article as lacking citations, since external sources are a measure of notability on Wikipedia. One could go through one of the deletion processes discussed here, some of which, incidentally, involve voting, or at least a democratic discussion in order to reach a consensus. By redirecting to another article, one renders the article in question virtually unreadable without having to go through one of the deletion processes. If redirecting is standard practice in this case and I am simply unaware, by all means let me know. Lord mortekai (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that not every song should get an article. But if a song's article is more than a stub and has citations, I would think twice before dismissing it as non-notable. I'm sure you'll disagree in this case so we'll just have to make plenty of Bold reverts... Lord mortekai (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Featured content

Hi Wesley. Are only select articles/lists put in that list? This list became FL in late 2009 but i havent seen it there. Thanks. Suede67 (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn the winter

So what risque websites were you browsing when the malware struck? RB88 (T) 15:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

U2

Sandy is asking if we can give the lads a hand. Poor buggers. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm back! In the land of faries and mushrooms. Lets do Queen, but please, Sheer heart attack. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine. Deal. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We need sombody with rocksbackpages access. I dont think I've read a good book on Queen, any I had over the years I've tossed in the bin. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No - the recession. I can barely afford milk these days. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you actually have food, please man. Ceoil ^sláinte 10:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

your opinion

Hello WesleyDodds we need you to opine on the talk page of Led Zeppelin. The sources claim that Led Zeppelin is a hard rock band, but not the parents of the same. The history says the parents of hard rock are Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Jeff Beck. The same sources call Led Zeppelin one of the fathers of heavy metal. There is a POV about it that was imposed without consensus. The first paragraph stable as we knew it was amended by a partial view. Reliable and reputable sources are removed and an editor imposes his POV that Led Zeppelin is the progenitor of hard rock. How Led Zeppelin may be the parent hard rock if it existed before them? LZ is the progenitor of metal, not hard rock. Your opinion would be welcome. Have a nice day! Have a nice day! Paulotanner (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the allegations made by Paulotanner are absolutely false and bogus. For the true, logical version of what's actually happening, please see the Led Zeppelin talk page. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

GAR notification

Letting you know I've opened a GAR for Sonic Youth, to which you are a major contributor. You can read my list of concerns at Talk:Sonic Youth/GA1. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Aspirin

Hope your computers back to being healthy ;) My editing is taking a back-seat for me at the moment as I try to sort a few things out and I'm only going to be able to pop in every now and then to check on vandalism etc to my watchlist. But I'll only be keeping an eye on the main discog and album articles I've done. I'm hoping to get back to normal editing in a month or two. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good news on the computer front. I keep meaning to get this[8], which I'm sure would help. It would also help me finish off the two discogs I started. --JD554 (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No I've not come across them before, I'll have to check them out. I'm going to see Thee Silver Mt. Zion tonight in Leeds, looking forward to that. --JD554 (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll try to keep things ticking along till you're back. I'm so glad we don't have to do tax returns over here! --JD554 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Marc Sinden/Hey Jude

Hi - have been tackling circa ten well established socks that appear to have a very limited scope of interest, and noticed you'd had similar issues a year or so ago re. some very focused puffery around 'Hey Jude' filming. Did you happen to make any further progress on this after the first round of Clegg-clones were blocked? Little grape (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Album reviews

Hey, I was wondering why you are against the professional reviews being placed in the albums article's. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am interested as well. Any reply? Nymf _talk/contr. 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello !!! Just though you should know we appreciate all the you do here!!!

This editor is a
Senior Editor II
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

....{{Senior Editor II Userbox}}.......Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

dude, why would you delete my edits made to the john frusciante article? if you had a clue you would know that piano, bass, drum machine and synth's are played by him on SEVERAL of his records and they're also credited too. his wiki article is dumb mainly because it makes out that he's just a guitarist and that's boring because he isn't. he used the doepfer-100 on 90% of the songs on his last rhcp record as well as most songs of his solo material, not listing it in notable instruments would be ridiculous. also according to several sourced articles he works with venetian snares and rza frequently. so basically making him out to be a 'rock artist' and 'guitarist' only is the dumbest shit ever, stop changing that shit bro. also 'electronica' is the dumbest genre name and doesn't remotely fit any of his electronic music. fix this shit bro or just stop editing it

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Symphonic Rock

I have sited many sources in the article. I hope you checked the bottom of the article regarding the references. I have used the books "Rocking The Classics" & "The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia Of Rock And Roll", sites such as "All Music", and other sources. What items do you feel constitute "Original Research"? I would hate to put a reference on each and every sentence. I've put in a request to lift the WP:NOR on this article. Firstlensman (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of album reviews from Infoboxes

Hi WesleyDodds! Thanks for your message. Yes, I saw that you had been heavily involved in the discussion but you only need to look here to see what consensus was. As the table illustrates, 16 editors expressed an opinion - 4 were in favour of deleting the professional reviews altogether (yourself included); 8 favoured relocation to a separate template; 2 wanted things left as they were (but favoured moving to a separate template as second choice); and 2 had no opinion. That's a pretty clear consensus for relocation in my eyes - I don't know how it can be any clearer? This consensus is further reinforced if you read the comments below this table & also those here. I wonder if perhaps you are letting your own aversion to relocation colour your judgment on this matter? Again, as I mentioned to Indopug, I would ask why DASHBot was tasked with relocation of the professional reviews by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums community if this wasn't the consensus that was reached?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this process should be followed arbitrarily in every instance...obviously an editor should exercise their own judgment on the mater to some extent. For example, if an article has no relevant text section in which to relocate the reviews then I too would just delete them. Likewise if an article only has one review in the infobox and that same review is discussed and quoted within the text then I would delete it. But in the case of album articles like Bad, Thriller, Modern Life Is Rubbish, and Queen II where there were multiple reviews in the infobox, not all of which were mentioned in the "Reception" section, I feel these should have been relocated and not just deleted. Those reviews in table form would've provided a useful summary to compliment the text, which is the point of the new table as outlined at Wikipedia:Albums#Reception and Template:Album ratings.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about all this but I don't really see how. I'm thinking that perhaps I should contact some of the other editors who were heavily involved in the creation of this new policy to see whether I've got a clear understanding of the new policy or not. I must say that it seems fairly black & white to me but I could be mistaken. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply and clarification. Regarding the template not being a substitute for well referenced text, I totally agree with you. You won't know this, I'm sure, but I'm all about the text myself and I would say that most of what I do on Wikipedia is write content, add reliable inline refs to support written content or copyedit to improve readability of text. So, I totally agree that we as Wikipedians should be encouraged ourselves and be encouraging others to write good, well referenced content, rather than just simply adding links. So, I totally understand that the template is only supposed to supplement the text. But this is not really my argument.

My concern is that in deleting reviews wholesale (assuming that they aren't already extensively covered in the article itself) is that we're loosing the opportunity to give a quick, at-a-glance summary to readers. Which, as I understand it, is what the template is supposed to provide. I don't know, I'm just concerned that something useful is being thrown out when a large number of reviews are deleted from the infobox (as they were in the examples I provided) but I do also understand that editors must judge for themselves to a degree. As for community consensus, I understand your point about number crunching but then again, such "show of hands"-style summaries do provide a reasonably accurate indication of general opinion, even if it isn’t definitive.

To close, you said in your last message - "DASHBot is moving the reviews to the article body so we don't lose citations that might be useful before the review field in the album infobox is depreciated." This is interesting to me because, as I say, I was under the impression that DASHBot was just carrying out the decision that the community had reached. Could you provide a link to a definitive source that specifies that this is DASHBot's mandate? Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

Hi, The Heavy Metal info I added recently is from Grove Music Online, it is the online version of Grove Music. It is not free on the Internet; you have to pay a subscription fee or be going to an institution that subscribes to it, or use it at a library that subscribes to it. This means that there is no URL or access date. I prefer to use free access material whenever possible, but in this case, the source is not free. Here is the website: http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/public/book/omo_gmo........and here is the blurb from the website: Grove Music Online has been the leading online resource for music research since its inception in 2001, a glorious compendium of music scholarship offering the full texts of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd edition (2001), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera (1992), and The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, 2nd edition (2002), as well as all subsequent updates and emendations. Including more than 50,000 signed articles and 30,000 biographies contributed by over 6,000 scholars from around the world, Grove Music Online is the unsurpassed authority on all aspects of music.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Is Peter Buck 'Sneering'"?

Hey, Wes! It's been awhile, brother! You and John Cardinal will always hold fond memories for me, as I was a brand-spanking newbie when y'all first educated me to the ways of WP! I don't do as much music edits as I used to, but I still watch plenty of pages. I had to comment because I must say I agree with you that WP:ALT is one of the strangest (and stupidest) things I've ever seen on WP. Explaining to a blind person what an image "describes" (according to who?) is something I had noticed on the Infobox image of the Lennon/McCartney article a while back, but had dismissed as "let the baby have his bottle" type "harmless" stuff. To find it is now a guideline recommended for all images! Yikes!!!

Keep the faith, Wesley! :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Joy Division

Hi, I just wandered by Ian Curtis earlier, noticed the 30th anniversary of his death is on 18 May, then noticed Joy Division was an FA and it seems it has not been on the Main Page yet. As you had the successful FA nomination of the article Joy Division I wondered if you had thought about nominating Joy Division for the TFA on this date? You probably have but I thought I would ask anyway. The potential upcoming requests now includes May 12 and 21. --candle•wicke 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I added it under May 18. Hopefully someone can add it up and do whatever else is required. --candle•wicke 00:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Depeche Mode

Nice edits, thank you. --John (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, WesleyDodds. You have new messages at John's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SPIN

Thanks for the Cornell interview link! I found an archive of SPIN magazine on Google today. It's been interesting to read certain articles and realize the interviewees were lying through their teeth and probably laughing as they read them later. :) mheart (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Twisted Kites

Thank you I have not read Buckley's book, but I have read Talk About the Passion, It Crawled from the South, R.E.M.: Inside Out (not the 2005 version), Behind the Mask, Reveal: The Story of R.E.M., Remarks Remade, and other miscellany, and my recollection is that some sources swear that they were "Twisted Kites" and others say they weren't. Either way, we know that there is some documentation that they were called that (the poster) and some controversy about the matter, so that should be stated in the article. Either way, there is no provision at {{Infobox musical artist}} about aliases only being for more than billing purposes. For (e.g.) Bingo Hand Job, they were called that name, so that was an alias. If you'd like to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Aliases Regarding the R.E.M. aliases, it actually makes complete sense to mention "Twisted Kites" in the body of the article (as it is already) as well as "Bingo Hand Job" as that name was specifically chosen to conceal their identity on their non-tour for Out of Time. The band have only played under two other aliases, so it's really not a list of minutiae. Certainly, if some band did have dozens of one-off novelty names or aliases that they were never actually billed as, that would undesirable to list, but with the handful of more-or-less substantial billings for this band, it is reasonable.

I don't know anything about It Crawled from the South being unreliable, but it is certainly worth bearing in mind in the future. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More on aliases {{Infobox musical artist}} only says that the Alias field is to be used, "For listing official stage names for the act; also for solo artists who change their birth name. This field is not for nicknames such as "The Godfather of Soul"(James Brown) or "Nippy" (Whitney Houston) which are not the artists' actual stage name." It seems as though these names apply. One of them is listed in the article and one other—Bingo Hand Job—could be easily inserted into the text and probably should, as those two shows essentially were the tour for Out of Time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Let's put it this way: do you know of a comparable example or a discussion on this matter? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Hate Machine

Synthpop and electronic dance are prominant on the album. The reviews for the album also acknowledge this. The music on the album seems to fit with the description of electronic dance music (see wikipedia article's lead), and its singles charted on Dance music charts, so it would make sense to have ele dance music as a genre. The structure of most of the songs are also more dance/pop-oriented than rock. Dan56 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I set up a discussion section for this issue. Dan56 (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mono

Hi WesleyDodds, was just wondering if you could give some guidance as to what improvements could be made to the Mono (Japanese band) article to bring it up to at least B class? Let me know. Thom (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Enter the Grave

Hope you're well mate - been awhile since we last spoke. I've rewritten this article about a seminal thrash album (seminal as far as I am concerned anyway), which is currently at GAC. I wish to eventually take it to FAC. Are there any improvement suggestions you can make? Issues which might crop up at FAC? Any advice you could give would be much appreciated. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Achtung Baby

Hey, Merbabu and I are looking to re-nominate this article for FAC soon, but first, we wanted to know if you could review the Composition section. Last we heard from you, you had prose concerns with this section. Merbabu and I have done our best to revise/copyedit the entire article, but we need a fresh set of eyes to look at it - there's not much else we can do on our own. Could you please give it a look and let us know what you think? Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, looks like your planned Wikibreak is over. When you settle back into things, please review this article and let us know if you think it's ready for a FAC nomination. Thank you. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to broach this subject again, but I am ready to nominate Achtung Baby as a FA. It would be great to get your input prior to nominating, but your Wikibreak appears to be extending longer and longer every time it appears to be at an end. Since I can't reasonably predict when it will be over, I am proceeding with the next steps to try and promote this article. I hope you understand - I'd like to gather your approval, but the article's promotion should not be contingent on it. If your Wikibreak does end June 30, I expect that the FA nomination will still be open by then and you will still be able to comment on it. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back - when you get a chance, please check out the article's FAC. It's been open almost a month, so I'm afraid it may be closed rather soon. I would appreciate your comments before that happens. Thank you. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

John Frusciante

Hello, I recall you working on the John Frusciante article. For some reason, I can't remember the usernames of others who worked on the article as well. Anyway, have you had a look at the article lately? I am concerned seeing so many edits by people who either have no talk page, no userpage, and sometimes, are lacking both-- editing the Frusciante article, which is a FA-ranked piece that took a lot of work. Can you please keep an eye on it? I am not a part of the initial workgroup and have too much to do just now to watch it, but it would be a help! Hopefully, my fears are baseless. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Alan Vega birthdate

As you may know Alan Vega's birthdate is currently listed as 1948. There appears to conflicting evidence - the official book - versus the currently sourced Blast First Press Release. I'm trying to build consensus for a change. Please add comments on Talk :Alan Vega. Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we did settle on the birthdate of 1938, with a para noting that the the date was thought to be 1948 for many years until the 70th birthday releases and major art retrospective in France added the ten years. After a lot of struggle with a contentious editor a "Myth' para was added. After a break the same editor is attempting to delete the para. If you could look in I'd appreciate it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

May 18 TFA request

Hi there. I'm leaving this note to let you know that there is a potential clash at the "Today's featured article" request page (WP:TFA/R) for the request for the May 18 slot (I am one of those who has edited the other article). I've mentioned both articles in this section on the talk page, in case you would like to comment there. I'm not sure how clashes for the same date are handled, but wanted to let you know, as you made some calculations in the entry on the template. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Hello Wesley. I just thought you, being one of the primary contributors of the main heavy metal article, might want to know about the edit warring going on at the Led Zeppelin article. Appartently some editors are against the metal label, which frankly to me doesn't make much sense. Your thoughts? RG (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lucky (Radiohead song)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lucky (Radiohead song), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky (Radiohead song). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JD554 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Using About.com as a source

I started a discussion about this topic on the Alternative Rock Talk Page. Edkollin (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back sir! I'll drop in and have a look at Unknown Pleasures after I've caught up with checking by watchlist after a two-week holiday - should be in the next couple of days or so. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think those references in the Nirvana discography should be OK. They confirm the quoted peaks and if they are disputed then the WP:BURDEN would lie with whoever adds a higher position. --JD554 (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not clever. I've removed the certification table for the time being. I think there's no point in listing ones that haven't charted and we simply need an extra column on the chart table to list the actual certificates and not the sales thresholds. --JD554 (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No preference, I've got Touching from a Distance and a couple of recentish music magazines which might help. I'll dig them out and have a look. --JD554 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Direct quotations in Loveless

I understand that some of the quotations in this article put single quotes around the album title, but I would guess the reason this is done is because 1.) there was no consistent manual of style to follow when these reviews were originally published or 2.) the web versions of these reviews probably did not have an easy way for them to render italics thru their content management systems. I understand that direct quotations should not be altered, yet we are encouraged to replace double hyphens ("--") with em dashes ("—") in order to follow the WP:MOS. I don't see much a difference in italicizing album titles in order to adhere to the MOS. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)