User talk:Teflon Peter Christ/Archive 2014

Archives

2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing for Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dark Magus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dark Magus for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on that one Dan!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I came here to apologize if you found yourself offended by me. I've said nothing personal in the discussion I've raised, just questioned some of your editing (which you started first by the way, see Talk:...And Justice for All (album)#Questions by Dan56).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, you've listed a concert preview (see bottom of page) by Mark Lepage from Ottawa Citizen. Why did you use it since you have zillion other proper reviews of the album already listed in the article?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for criticism to balance the section. I didn't read the entire thing, but the opening paragraphs on the first page read like a profile, along with the title and subtitle. The same could be said about your use of the Turman article on Newsted, from which "creating landmark albums including . . . And Justice for All and Metallica (a/k/a 'the Black album')" was picked out. Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for this btw. Dan56 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great achievement, lol. Listen, can you include something from the first paragraph of "Commercial performance" in the lead, let's say the opening sentence or MTV's comment perhaps?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The linking I did to the Raphael Saadiq album Ray Ray was to disambiguate the names Michael Angelo (as he was a member of the group Portrait), the composer Benjamin Wright (who has worked on all of Saadiq's solo albums as well as a couple of albums by his former groups Tony! Toni! Tone! and Lucy Pearl. I wasn't trying to do an easter egg link, as I thought it was okay to link members to their band or group's pages- I have seen this done on Wikipedia numerous times. It wasn't my intent to do vandalize the page of the album. I was doing what I thought was normal procedure here. I apologize if any harm was done. Shallowharold (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No accusations here. But WP:EASTEREGG states not to create piped links that "require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on." In this case, linking "Michael Angelo" to the article "Portrait (group)" would require readers to read the latter before understanding why his name in "Ray Ray" is linked to "Portrait (group)". Other instances of similar piped links in Wikipedia are not precedent (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Thinking of this without citing policies, I would argue that any other article mentioning Angelo's name (such as an article about a song he wrote/produced) would be fair game for a piped link. Also, the "Portrait (group)" article offers readers no information on Angelo other than naming him once in the lead sentence as one of the four members. Dan56 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what's up? Can you take action against that non-registered user who persistently writes the worldwide sales about Metallica's albums? Although it seems that there are a few IP-adresses, I believe it's a single user who constantly adds these unreferenced claims.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan. Could you chime in this post I made about music genres? I would appreciate your input. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm replying to the message you left on my page. It was my first time ever editing a wikipedia article, I don't know much about how this should be done and don't really plan to learn. Yes I did not justify the changes I made to the Rivers of My Fathers article, partly because I can't really cite anything for them. I removed the fender rhodes appellation a two places before piano because I play a Fender rhodes piano and can tell there is none in this recording. I have also verified and Wikipedia was the only source on the internet claiming that instrument was used in this song. So what's next?

Thank you for writing back, Thierry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.189.89 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is cited in the article's "Composition" section, attributed to this source. Dan56 (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article mentions the characteristic fender rhodes on the album, not on that particular song, and I can assure there is none. 173.179.189.89 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I've removed it. Dan56 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please knock it off. I can't see any reason for your activity on that page at the moment, other than to provoke GabeMc who is obviously working hard to bring the article up to a certain standard. If you persist, you will be blocked from editing. --Laser brain (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain, he tried to sneak in this genre removal after saying he'd "concede acid rock". Dan56 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, that's the issue here. You seem to think that you are a consensus of one. I conceded that the genre might be appropriate, not that the Miami Herald is the authoritative source. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm your words were "I concede acid rock", not "might be appropriate". And you didnt remove The Guardian, which was effectively citing "psychedelic rock", so the double standard makes one wonder. Dan56 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reserve the right to edit as I see fit; you are not the genre gate-keeper. Also, The Guardian is listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCE#Online_and_print; the Miami Herald is not. You are a time-waster that should be double-checking your FAs for plagiarism, nt hounding other editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This list is also merely a collection of suggestions, and other good sources may exist. ... This list is not exhaustive: Additional websites and print sources may also be used, provided they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:MOSALBUM#Critical reception. Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You've already wasted too much of my time; goodbye! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kk. So it's not a matter of whether they're a musicologist, but whether they're included on a list of recommended sources that primarily cover musical topics and is not exhaustive? Dan56 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted me and left the talk. Real classy, and evasive. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrebd, MrMoustacheMM, JG66, Tomica? I restored GabeMc's unjustified content removal, and for the nth time was reverted without a valid reason. The perp has edit warring and 3RR on me. Help. Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Blimey, I'm surprised you've given me a shout, Dan, given our differences over the All Things Must Pass genres mid last year or whenever it was. Вик Ретлхед made a couple of points today over at Talk:Are You Experienced that sum up my thoughts on this genre-policing thing you seem so obsessed by: "[I] cannot find any rational explanation for disturbing other editors while they attempt to improve articles to certain criteria" and "I certainly don't approve listing every genre that is found on the Internet."

* On the latter point, the multitude of genres in the Are You Experienced infobox looks ridiculous right now, in my opinion. (Is that something that's come about through your challenging GabeMc on specific genres?) I made a change to ATMP's genre field recently that's certainly an improvement on that lone "folk rock" you insisted on (from a Jody Rosen quote that I still maintain does not relate to the album's sound at all); but I would never have gone for Leng's full "gospel, hard rock, country and western, Motown" if I thought there was a chance you wouldn't insist that all of Leng's categories had to be included.

* As you know, there's currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Genre_in_the_infobox, where one of the two proposals is to streamline genres into a selection of general categories. To some extent (as one of the contributors there says about Infobox musical artist), it seems we should already be aiming to use more generalised genres. The purpose of an infobox is to provide readers with a brief and clear overview of some of the most pertinent details. So, in the same way that the Recorded field gives a date span rather than listing each and every day within that span, it's logical to be discerning about the number of genres. Yes, that does involve some interpretation of what the sources say, and most importantly, standardising terminology. But it's utterly naive to think that subjectivity and an editor's personal interpretation don't have a bearing on a number of aspects in a music article. I've seen a few cheap shots dished out your way of late, and I'm not trying to serve another now – but I agree with others who draw parallels between your need to adhere so rigidly to precise wording re music genres, and the issue of uncomfortably close paraphrasing in some of the articles you write. We have to interpret and paraphrase, otherwise it's plagiarism. As a for-instance, with the "Gospel, hard rock, country and western, Motown" I added to ATMP, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that those terms are straight out of Leng's text; my inclination would be to use "country" and "soul", to vary the wording – but again, I was keenly aware that you'd only arrive there and revert.

* To go back to that first point of Вик Ретлхед's, I think you've got to trust the editor, GabeMc, and let him do his work. Other users are free to provide comments at GAR, apparently, so why not raise the genre issue then if it's so important? The only thing that really matters is that an important album article like Experienced is being expanded – that's good for Wikipedia. It seems to me that too many editors forget about the outside world, as if the readership is made up solely of other editors. As I remember saying to you before, anyone can grab a guideline and police it obsessively; but it's an obstructive activity if you can't or won't discern between a serial genre warrior and an editor who's doing genuinely good work.

* That's not to say I don't realise what's also been going on here and at other talk pages. With the spectre of your past FAs being called into question, it's got all the hallmarks of a multi-front attack. I certainly sympathise with you on that level – and something tells me that's why you invited me here. JG66 (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, there are now at least four editors that I am aware of who feel that you have been too controlling regarding infobox genres: JG66, Вик Ретлхед, Rvd4life, and me. I'll bet there are others, many of whom might come forward during an RFC/U or an ANI report, should one get filed on you. Don't push this to a topic ban, just loosen your grip a bit and stop obsessively policing infoboxes. You apparently see yourself as the self-appointed gate-keeper across a broad swath of articles. Maybe just concentrate on those that truly interest you, versus albums that you havn't even listened to. I will also say this again, you should be correcting the plagarisms in your FAs before genre warring with editors who are trying to improve articles. Please take this advice before you burn too many bridges. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget editor ChakaKong, who had a dispute with Dan56 at Talk:Black Sabbath (album). Unfortunately, Chaka appears to be inactive at the moment.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, check this out. Seems Popoff wrote something completely different in 2004. The book you cited was published in November 2013, while the article got promoted in July 2013, which leads to my assumption that the author took a peek at your incredible (meant falsified) work. And don't say critics don't read Wikipedia, because those first three paragraphs of the album's review by Classic Rock, published in July 2013, read like a copy-paste from the article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan I'm confused by your edits at Daydream Nation. Why did you revert Thrashcanman16's addition of alternative rock with the edit summary: "rvv; not in source cited", but then when I added it back with a source you poked-fun at me for adding a source that was already included in the article? If you knew the genre was already sourced in the article then why did you revert Thrashcanman? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternative rock" is not in Stearns, pp. 9-15. Christgau's quote, that the album "made alt-rock a life force", is ambiguous (what makes it a characterization of the album's music rather than a reference to it as a commercial breakthrough for the genre?) "Life force"? What does that mean? He's not being explicit (WP:NOR) Dan56 (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This speaks to the heart of my concern with your genre warring. You require explicit comments from others, but you interpret sources for yourself. Kinda like how ostensibly radically changes the meaning of "this is a pop album". So, if a reliable source said that Daydream Nation helped the popularity of alternative rock, you would not take that as an expression that the album is alternative rock? Why would it help a genre that it isn't? You do remember that the best source you had for including acid rock at AYE was the Miami Herald which said: "AYE Ushered in heavy metal's guitar style, acid rock and plain-old classic rock". Is that really more explicit than "made alt-rock a life force"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (I also found several other sources that were even more explicit, when you opened that RfC to remove "acid rock" from AYE's infobox). And honestly, trying to get "acid rock" removed from every infobox on Wikipedia by having that article be a redirect is more concerning. Dan56 (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a concern, Dan. I honestly believe that acid rock is a sub-genre that does not need its own stand-alone article. Do you want it added at AYE because you think its accurate, or because you don't like the album or artist and you want to use a derogatory term to describe the LP? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it derogatory. If you do, then that's a POV issue you shouldn't be allowing to decide how or what you edit at Wikipedia. (Is there a critic or writer that has shared that opinion?) I don't understand why you'd suggest I dislike either; I did try to add to the reception section with more flattering prose/ratings in my first edits to the article ([1]). Dan56 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not the only editor who has expressed a concern that you are genre warring at articles about music that you do not like. I noticed that your edits at the Black Album seem to be centered around the album getting praise; that you are there to be sure that its critics have a strong voice, which in and of itself is not a problem, but if you show a pattern of passionate debate regarding these articles that only brings disparaging comments and negative opinions, that might be a problem. Acid rock has a drug connotation, that's disparaging, IMO. Its insulting to the music and the artist, and FTR, none of the reliable sources that I own describe it as such. Its a multi-genre album that's based in blues and R&B motifs, and sources readily support this, but they do not support acid rock. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, the RSs are in general agreement that Hendrix had not yet taken LSD by the time of the album's completion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sure you have detractors of your own who've felt rubbed the wrong way because of past discussions. It's silly to call it "genre warring" when it takes two, and it's revisionist history to say I started any of these debates--I added "reception" prose to some rock articles and cited the genres, which were unsourced before and not a result of some RS-based consensus, but instead a result of the POV of the editors who typically edited or hung around those articles. I have a right to defend my additions as much as anyway, especially when in most cases an editor has challenged what I cited with their opinion rather than a source. Dan56 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, Dan; most of what you do around here is great and helpful; I mean that. I'm just trying to get you to see that you might be a little too adamant at some articles about which genres will be included and which won't. For example, why is Unapologetic a one-genre album, and why have you and Tomica decided that nobody else can have any say in which are listed in the infobox? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You found "acid rock" to be inappropriate, I felt it was appropriate to draw the line at something explicit like "pop album" when IPs are disrupting the article with either unsourced genre additions or others are citing the mere mention of a genre in a review to use it out of context, like that a critic says there are EDM songs on the album means it's an EDM album. When I originally wrote the article's "music and lyrics" section, the infobox included others (a while back), but constant genre warring and IP vandalism made me realize that something cited like "[genre] album" from a critic would be the least arguable, and several editors who were contributing to that article (including Tomica) did not object. Dan56 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you do realize that the word ostensibly is an important qualifier that radically changes the meaning of his statement and casts doubt on your assertion that Kot means pop and only pop? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I linked to in my previous comment here (Unapologetic#cite_ref-Koski_69-1) Dan56 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Greg Kot said that the album is ostensibly pop, but that is not explicitly stating that its a pop and only pop album. Why not include two or three genres, so that more than just you and Tomica agree? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Click Unapologetic#cite_ref-Koski_69-1 → Koski of The A.V. Club ("pop album"). Dan56 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but why do you think that's enough to declare that only pop should be listed in the infobox? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I explained that in the comment on "19:57". Why do you think another genre should be listed? Dan56 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because its a multi-genre album, as most are. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what writer said that? Dan56 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review from Vibe that says: "In the usual, sometimes vexing, Rihanna way, she achieves all this using a grab bag of genres, including ’90s R&B (“Jump” samples Ginuwine’s “Pony”), dub step, pop and a token Irie jam (consider "No Love Allowed" a less violent version of "Man Down")."" GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't directly support saying it's a multi-genre album--I could just as well interpret it as saying it incorporates elements of disparate genres, since the writer says there's a sample of a '90s R&B song on one of the album's 14 songs, hence Rihanna used '90s R&B. After all, I wouldn't use the writer's "Irie jam" line to support "reggae/dancehall". And like the point you made about Kot's qualifier, the Vibe critic says that the album is "another hodgepodge Rihanna album" but it introduces that line with the qualifier "on the surface", so how could this source directly support it being a "multi-genre album"? Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, are you able to find the rating of Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! in Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Thanks a lot.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cant find it. This edition of Larkin's book has no ratings, while this one has no preview at GoogleBooks. Dan56 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to comment on Talk:Acid_Mothers_Temple#Acid_Mothers_Temple_discography? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan, this is Shallowharold again. I'm not sure if you're overseeing the page to Al B. Sure!'s debut In Effect Mode, but I wanted to ask this question about it. I came across a couple of interviews with the album's producer Kyle West from a couple of years ago and he gave a lot of insight on the recording of the album, the songwriting and the production. I wanted to know if I could add that in being that the news is coming from a reliable source. Just asking to get permission before I do it. Shallowharold (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need permission to add reliably sourced material to an article. If you need help citing it, however, I wouldn't mind. Dan56 (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Marquee Moon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marquee Moon for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Niwi3 -- Niwi3 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring the article Marquee Moon to Good Article status. Keep up the good work! --Niwi3 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 February 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marquee Moon, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although Marquee Moon sold fewer than 80,000 copies in the US, Spin and NME ranked it among the ten greatest albums of all time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marquee Moon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

On 28 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abbey Road, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the cover of the Beatles' Abbey Road is one of the best known in rock music, and regularly imitated by fans (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abbey Road. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it may be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Songs of Experience (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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Songs of Experience (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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Songs of Experience (album) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan56 - many thanks for the message re Agharta, but it's not me making the changes whilst logged out! I'm only making changes when logged in as Bill E Bailey. The other changes are being made by the author Paul Tingen himself who wishes to point out:

I've just been scanning Szwed's book, and can't find any reference in it to Miles Beyond or to Ernico with regards to how he arrived at the titles for the different sections of Agharta (and all the other electric Miles live albums). Enrico's titling method is explained in my book on page 285 (note 14) and by Enrico himself on page 303. Many of these titles are not titles Miles or Columbia used. Until Miles Beyond no-one had a clue as to what was going on with the live albums (hence "Wednesday Miles" or "Interlude" or "Call it Anythin'"etc), and Ernico was the first one to identify and map the different segments and give them appropriate titles with a clear, verifiable logic. Bob Belden tried to do the same, but always made mistakes. He told me that he always feared the letter or e-mail from Enrico after the release of archived live Miles material, correcting him. Why he or Columbia didn't take the logical step of hiring Enrico as an consultant, I never understood. And relevant to this situation, the fact that Szwed's simply copies these titles and states them as fact, without acknowledging where they came from, is one of the things that really annoys.

Hope you can understand our reasoning behind the changes we are trying to make in respect of the ownership of the song titles? Please let me know if this isn't appropriate or if a compromise can be reached. Bill E Bailey (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As you know, I am the editor who has added the genres of noise rock and minimalism to the genres section of the article for Human After All. I am concerned and confused about your reversion to my edits. As the prose states, the members of Daft Punk applied elements of minimalism and rock to their music and went on a noisier, more robotic route with the music on the album. Why did my edits get reverted? --Dankyhashpants (talk) 20:14 CST, 7 March 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Songs of Experience (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Songs of Experience (album) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan, you might want to check the WikiProject Albums page, our "friend", who has now resorted to harassing me too after I commented on that Beatles album talk page, is changing the wording of the page to fit their opinion and seemingly doing this to gain traction in the dispute. STATic message me! 19:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. But of course The Stones were nothing like what we called "hard rock" in those days: Led Zep, Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, MC5, The Stooges, Hawkwind. Grtz, AlterBerg (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have come up with this , so that we can show properly how their rating is displayed. So, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotHat (talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Dan56 (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you worked on quite a few Kanye West album articles, thought you might be interested in this GT nom. igordebraga ≠ 02:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed this. Some admins would probably block for a legal threat for that. I won't, but I am asking you nicely to leave Gabe alone for a while and not to repeat anything like that. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, I'm not a lawyer--do you honestly believe some admins would think I was using "slandering" in a legal context? If that's what he argued, then that seems an even more desperate reach to get his way than when, after not getting the consensus he desired at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Edit warring by Dan56, he got into an edit war and was blocked for personal attacks over this issue at WP:ALBUMS, and when he was blocked, he went to great lengths to change policy over being blocked (Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Does_Change_.3D_Revert.3F, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Block_review_process_page_suggestion), which distracted him from continuing his work more than anything I've ever done since he was away for a week from the Sgt. Pepper article. "Leaving Gabe alone" doesn't apply to me when he's the one whose hounded the articles I've edited (after the dispute that really ticked him off at Are You Experienced, he proceeded to make a "prove a point" edit and dispute at Unapologetic and its talk page, and then reverting me to prove a point at... [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], ...and accusing me of bullying) Dan56 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I've never removed any of the personal attacks he's littered throughout at Talk:Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band#Edit_warring_by_Dan56. I'm not the one whose been hostile and dismissive. I'm not following him around and the articles he edits, but I'm not obligated to bow out of an article just because he starts editing it. I cleaned up and helped expand Are You Experienced and Sgt. Pepper's Reception sections ages ago when they were in a state of trash, before his attempts at expanding them further, so it's ludicrous to suggest I've been editing those articles recently to spite him. I've no complaint with you, but I hope you're not telling me to avoid and hide from him and the articles he ends up editing because he can't control his attitude whenever I raise a point, none of which have been unreasonable. Also, please tell him to change that talk page heading--I don't appreciate it being called "Edit warring by Dan56", especially since the majority of the editors who commented there agreed with me on that particular edit. Dan56 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your message at my talk page, saying all I could. BTW, I've gotten a consensus at the WP:ALBUMS talk page for what GabeMc disputed and I've restored what he removed, citing the consensus in my edit summary ([10]). I linked Gabe's name at the talk page where the discussion took place to ping him, but he didn't weigh in or anything, so a revert shouldn't be expected, right? Dan56 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to stay away from each other, so I am not sure this was a smart thing to do. --John (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you people want from me? I've been playing by the rules this entire time, being bullied out of articles and into the talk pages, and trying to get consensus for little changes like keeping a review quote in an article. Editors at WP:ALBUMS agreed, what do you John and Gabe expect from me at this point? How can Gabe call it edit-warring when it was his idea to take it to the talk page over an issue he says involves "Music that is heavy or hard"? All the while under some "Interaction ban"? How convenient for him--I keep my mouth shut for 48 hours and have no ability to get the correct change passed through an article. and how does any of this fall under edit warring? Before trying to restore that review quote, I hadn't edited that article since January 23. Dan56 (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I thought it might take the heat away if you could both withdraw from this for a short while. Since you both do not want to do this, let's try to resolve it in article talk. --John (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Since you both do not want to do this"? I did this, and gladly. If you ask two editors to accept an involuntary IB then you ought not change your mind because one of them can't stop edit warring. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, John offered the IB idea as a "friendly suggestion", so it's not fair to hold him to anything. And after you agreed to this supposed IB (18:30, 21 March), you proceeded to communicate again four minutes later (18:34, 21 March). Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, its not an active IB—voluntary or otherwise—until both parties agree in writing, which you still have not done. If John proposes formal IB language that we both agree to in writing then I will absolutely respect an IB. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be up for that if it becomes necessary Dan? I'm still hoping we can iron the content dispute out in article talk at this stage. Maybe I am over-optimistic but that seems like the best solution to me. --John (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, while I'm here, is it true that you fact-tagged genres at Electric Ladyland, Axis: Bold as Love, and Jimi Hendrix, that GabeMc had worked on, and that you did this following a dispute with him? --John (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They were unsourced so I tagged them, along with other music articles' genres he didn't work on that day. I don't know what dispute we'd been having when I did this. Take a look at my edit history the day it happened. Dan56 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to address Gabe's suspicion that Christgau dislikes Hendrix--apart from him being "appalled" by Hendrix's performance at the Monterey Pop Festival, almost everything he's written since then about Hendrix has been positive, at least from what I could find. The "psychedelic uncle Tom" reference was exclusive to that performance at Monterey. Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as discussing the content at AYE, hasn't the discussion at WP:ALBUMS' talk page provided enough consensus? Furthermore, why hasn't this been reverted]? A dubious edit summary reverting something supported by the aforementioned consensus? Dan56 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so that you and three of your Wikibuddies have discussions at a project page that dictate the content at articles? That's absurd! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• JG66 might have something to add regarding Dan's timing of these disputes, which seem to directly correspond to the moment an editor starts improving the articles, which is exactly what happened at Are You Experienced and Sgt. Pepper. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's finish this at my talk, rather than spitting the conversation up. --John (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to his wikipedia page because there is missing information about his beggings as a musician and I thought people will like to know a little about his musical career before adopting the stage name The Weeknd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.63.201 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Are You Experienced shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --John (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, when I was recently reverted by AstroMan67, this user referred to me as "Danny boy". This eerily sounds familiar to the heading title of a chat between GabeMc and Rvd4life at the former's talk page not too long ago about me (User talk:GabeMc#Danny boy) (GabeMc later revised the title). The latter editor has opposed me in a couple of content disputes, including this one, where he said "Lets just say, Mr Christgau isn't a fan of metal". Forgive me if this all seems suspicious. I don't mind being opposed to in a content dispute by Rvd4life, but badmouthing me with what Gabe refers to as "Wikibuddies" and the possibility of me being roped into a block for edit warring is upsetting. BTW, if it's any correlation, I did appropriately message AstroMan67, who subsequently reverted it ([11]). Dan56 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, John, I noticed that when Gabe request full protection for the article just now (22:45), a random IP removed the review quote (22:44) again. Is it possible this is another attempt to circumvent things? Dan56 (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noted all the things you mentioned at 22:29 apart from the (possibly coincidental) matter of the "Danny" locution. My aim going into this was to avoid blocking anybody but I will certainly block either you or User:AstroMan67 if you continue to edit-war especially while the matter of the disputed material is under discussion. Let me now look at the other thing you mentioned. --John (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to edit war. Removing without a valid rationale but with the edit summary "Christgau is a tool" seemed like vandalism, so I reverted. But it's whatever at this point. Btw, John, does that mean you'll look into whether that was Gabe's IP? Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now protected the article. I don't have the power to look at IPs I'm afraid. You would have to take it to WP:SPI if you wanted to pursue that angle. I'll continue to keep my eyes open though. I really think it is important now to discuss in a civil way at article talk. The project talk discussion is interesting but it does not give carte blanche to add the material unless there is a local consensus to do so. On that matter I am entirely neutral. --John (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's unfortunate, John, because Gabe keeps giving me roundabout replies. I'll try soliciting random comments. Dan56 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the WP:3O and WP:RFC processes are for, and it's a great suggetion. I have only just noticed that the articles was recently promoted as a Featured Article. Do you think that might account for Gabe's defensiveness on adding a new source? --John (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how, because this review quote has been in the article since at least November 2013. He removed it a few weeks ago (with the edit summary "trim"??). I reverted, asked politely why at the talk page, and here we are. I checked at the FAC page to see maybe if that had been a point raised, but there was no mention of Christgau. Gabe has expressed dislike of Christgau as a source at previous discussion, including at Sgt. Pepper and Led Zeppelin IV, so I assume that's why he's made a big deal of this. Dan56 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've queried this with him at his talk page. There are too many bad assumptions all round, which is a large part of the problem. Can we be really clear that any continuation of the edit war will result in a block without further warning, regardless of which participant it is? I've warned everybody. --John (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to revert anytime soon, but after genuinely responding as well as I could in my last comment at the talk page, I still don't expect much from Gabe response-wise. I'm hoping those who I've solicited comments from can offer a refreshing voice. Dan56 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job soliciting comments, John! I had considered some of those editors too, but my previous contact with them wouldn't have made it appropriate. Dan56 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'd love to join in the discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFP2016 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The what any of it is worth is award

For your improvements to Electric Ladyland, even though, probably, John Wesley Harding is the better album... “No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke “There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late” — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, thanks! I might agree with that too, having gotten into Dylan not too long ago :) Dan56 (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John. I'd like to make this edit (with that edit summary) to Are You Experienced, adding a different source and prose based on Drmies's suggestion at Talk:Are You Experienced#Protection. However, since no one has edited the article yet after the protection expired, I'm hesitant to do so. Will my edit be a violation of edit warring or whatever? I figured it'd be safe or wouldn't hurt to ask first. Dan56 (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. In the circumstances I would rather wait until a full consensus has become apparent at article talk. I see two different compromise proposals being discussed there but I do not think the discussion has yet come to an end. There's no hurry, and when this degree of acrimony has been generated it is well to give it a little time. --John (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I put some effort into these recent changes at Sgt. Peppers, John, bringing up the fact that the previous source did not explicitly say what Gabe used the source to say, hence it being OR (I even went through the trouble of transcribing each quote in the edit summaries), and providing a source from a more notable writer who explicitly said "the album has been credited for starting art rock" ... But only to have it reverted with no explanation again (although it might come if I bring it up at the talk page, along with bad faith and hostility like before). Like before, it seems like bullying in the form of aggressive undoing and ownership vibes. Would you recommend I let it go, even though my edit was constructive but may not be worth the trouble, or start a talk page post about it, which will invite more "content dispute" accusations? Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, the optimum solution for me and probably the wider community would be if you two could somehow leave each other the hell alone for even a short time. Failing that, I am drafting an AN/I report with a view to getting a formal interaction ban between the two of you. While I can readily see there has been fault on both sides, I sympathise with Gabe's feeling that he is being followed. I can see why he thinks (whether it is true or not) that you are being pointy in what you are doing. Finally I can sympathise with someone who has brought an article through FAR exercising some ownership over their peer-reviewed work. None of this is meant to sound like I am taking sides, just calling it how I see it. Is there no way you could both just back off from each other's articles (even though we do not own our work here), even for a week or two? --John (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Each other's"? That really suggests ownership. He's been editing the article I've nominated for FA--Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)--in what I'm guessing is out of spite, but I have no problem with his edits, some of which I respectfully reverted with a well-articulated rationale, others I've kept and expressed my appreciation for in the edit summary. I'd only agree to an "interaction ban" if there could be someway neither of us could edit a certain article. Anything short of that doesn't seem fair--just because he has great interest in improving and expanding articles such as Electric Ladyland or Sgt Peppers doesn't mean I should be removed from it, because that's what it would be coming down to--unable to participate in whatever rock articles he chooses to monopolize. He may feel he's not obligated to show good faith to me anymore because of whatever policy he's been citing, but frankly if he did, that would likely remedy most of this. His choice. Dan56 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing positive has ever come from Dan and I interacting. I agree to stay away from him if he does the same. I don't want to engage in endless content disputes with him, but he does not seem to show any indication that he feels the same way. Please, John, just draft an IB request and stop trying to find a solution where Dan and I work together collaboratively because its simply not in the cards. I have no good faith for Dan and I never will; he's a troll and a troublemaker pain in the but, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, Rschen7754? Are personal attacks like "a troll and a troublemaker" rewarded with interaction bans and a pass from having to show good faith to editors? If I can show an effort to show good faith while responding to Gabe's recent interest in an article I've nominated for FA, then how can it be this difficult for him to do likewise, John? Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is calling someone a troll and a trouble maker worse than calling them a sociopath? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calling them a troll and a trouble maker after they've made a concerted effort to show good faith and be civil in spite of their antagonism is worse than calling them a sociopath, but that was referring to the user at the bottom of that talk page, who I haven't had the pleasure of working with any time recently. Dan56 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I sure wonder why they stopped editing Wikipedia. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their contributions page shows they didn't stop (?) This remark, not appreciated either. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about questioning someone's intelligence over a simple mistake? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was that one of the articles you followed after our talk page dispute at AYE, where you had been questioning my ability to research sources? Was that from January? It's almost April, and you're still clinging to the past. Dan56 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this has been one long content dispute with you since January with only the occasional break. Plagarize and good sources lately? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as Drmies said: I didn't link it to make a point about chronology; I linked it to show a comparison of how you sometimes treat others, while crying victim all the time whenever anyone is even slightly rude to you. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave my talk page if all you have to respond with are ad hominems. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you think that "'art rock' is associated most with a specific period of rock music, usually demarked as starting with the artistic ambitions of Pet Sounds or Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" is not sufficient sourcing to say: "The musicologist Carys Wyn Jones credits Sgt. Pepper as one of the first art rock albums"? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you think that "At the time, Sgt. Pepper seemed to mark rock music's coming of age, an issue I shall return to at the close of this chapter" does not jusify adding rock music to the infobox? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this discussion was done with (?). Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my first edit summary for those changes, Jones wrote "'art rock' is associated most with a specific period of rock music, usually demarked as starting with the artistic ambitions of Pet Sounds or Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and ending with the nihilistic arrival of punk." So, the album's "artistic ambitions" (?) being the beginning of a period in rock music related to art rock? It's not clear that she's crediting it as one of the first art rock albums, at the very least not as clear as the Stubbs' quote, which was more explicit and closer to what you had used Jones to cite (Stubbs: "gone down in history as the album that started art rock"). Also, I found this source by Googling the album title with "art rock", and since Stubbs had a Wikipedia article, he seemed notable. If I cared about his position that Sgt. Peppers is "overrated", then I would have added that into the article too, but I chose the source because it explicitly supported "Sgt. Pepper has been credited with starting the art rock genre". I wouldn't be opposed to you revising it back to "considered the first art rock album" or whatever, but I don't see how Stubbs quote isn't better as far as verifying the sentence needing to be cited. I don't like in particular for a commentary on what is art rock's timeline or the timeline of a period associated with art rock (not clearly worded) being used for a "[genre] album" characterization, but I'm not arguing that your sentence is untrue, ftr, so this is just a matter of sourcing. My interest has faded from this particular issue btw, so no elaborate response is needed--just a "not agree" or "Ok" will suffice, and do as you please--keep Jones in or restore Stubbs if you please ;) Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, but I'm confused, because here you argued that "Can't Buy a Thrill (1972) and Countdown to Ecstasy (1973) were mostly rock sounds" is enough to justify the inclusion of rock music, but then here you say that "Christgau's quote, that the album "made alt-rock a life force", is ambiguous" as an argument that my characterization of Daydream Nation by Sonic Youth as an alternative rock album is incorrect. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ocean of Sound you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ocean of Sound for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of WonderBoy1998 -- WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...So La Ti....

Congratulations on getting Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album) to FA status. It was hard work, and you deserve credit! Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx Dan56 (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brown Sugar (D'Angelo album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brown Sugar (D'Angelo album) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prism -- Prism (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan, how do you suppose the Illmatic reissue Illmatic XX be covered in the Illmatic and Nas discography articles? The album has already peaked in the UK at number 53 and I feel like this should be covered somewhere? Especially in the discography since it will probably also chart in the US, at the least. STATic message me! 21:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I haven't even heard of this reissue till you brought it up just now LOL. The first example of something similar I could think of is the reissue of Songs in A Minor (Songs_in_A_Minor#Weekly_charts, Songs in A Minor#Track listing), so that's something to look at as far as your question is concerned. Dan56 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album) to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,307 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be).
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 13:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

u gay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hacienda Guy (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jerome Kohl, Since you enlightened me about citation consistency at my previous FAC for Misterioso, I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing that aspect of my latest FAC for Marquee Moon? The FAC is here. Dan56 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, great work on unquestionably one of the great albums of the punk/post-punk/new wave era. Going by their UK chart entry dates, I would say that the singles "Marquee Moon" and "Prove It" were released in March and July 1977 respectively. I can probably find exact release dates for these and the album itself (at least in the UK) when I visit the British Library in a month or two to have a look at their back copies of UK music magazines: I'm currently working on trying to get what I consider to be some of the key singles and albums from 1975 to 1985 up to or close to GA status over the next year or two, so I trawl through the magazines quite frequently (I currently have about 70 singles and 30 albums on my 'to do' list – I wanted to concentrate on these as this seems to be the era of music most overlooked by Wikipedia: classic 60s and 70s rock has any number of articles and books already written about it that can be used as sources, and music since 2000 has plenty of information available on the internet).

Those dates would be useful, Richard3120. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Marquee Moon was also voted number one album of 1977 by the critics of Sounds? I can try and get issue dates for this and the NME critics list while I am at the BL. I can also try and look for the original album reviews from February 1977 – as the album was well received and sold relatively well in the UK, it might be a good idea to include some UK reviews in the 'Critical reception' section to give some colour to the British response to the record. Many apologies if my assumption here is incorrect, but as the majority of reviews in the article are from US magazines I assumed you were American, and therefore you don't have such easy access to British sources.

The Sounds list and issue would be very useful, although NME's ranking is included already in #Critical reception. I don't think sources touching on the album's reception (like the 33⅓ book or other retrospective books) made a distinction between the critical reception in the US vs. the UK, although Hi-Fi News & Record Review, NME, and Gramophone's reviews are included. I'm American, but I really rely on GoogleBooks' preview for sources either way and rarely have print sources on hand or go to libraries for them. I've heard that Rock's Backpages is a good archival source, but I don't have access. There are five US reviews and four UK reviews in the section, but I would consider adding another UK review if it's from a really notable critic or publication like Q or something. All things considered though, I think the points of praise most critics had for the album are established by the section as it is. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a copy of Fear of Music: The 261 Greatest Albums Since Punk and Disco, a book by British journalist Garry Mulholland listing what he considers to be the key albums from 1976 to 2003. It includes Marquee Moon – do you think any of his quotes about the album would be useful to include in the 'Legacy and influence' section for the article? Cheers. Richard3120 (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be interested in his quotes on the album. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll see what I can find and collect together and send it on to you in due course, and then you can decide what you would like to use in the article. What I meant by the NME critics list was a proper citation for the issue date in which it was published (almost certainly the last issue of December 1977, but I'd have to check to make sure). Rock's Backpages is an impressive collection of articles and interviews, the trouble is that unless you have access to it by being a member of an academic institution, it costs a fortune to subscribe as a private individual. So what I do is search RBP for articles on the subjects I'm researching, note the publication and issue date, and then go and look for the actual copy in the British Library, which doesn't cost me anything to be a member of. Richard3120 (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome! Btw, Richard3120, do you support the article is it is for FA or are there more things that could be improved or raised? Dan56 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to support it, I don't think there's anything I could personally add to the album's history! I'll write a line to that effect on the FA nomination. One thing I have just thought of is the album's release history: as this basically only consists of the original 1977 release, the first CD release in the late 80s, the 2003 remastered CD and the 2012 remastered LP, there probably isn't a need for a separate section for this, but maybe a line either in the lead section or in 'Recording' to say that it was reissued in 2003 with bonus tracks. Richard3120 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, in "Legacy..." so it flows with the prose better. Dan56 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message on March 26, Grapple X, the editor who opposed the article's last and second to last FACs required of me an independent editor to go through all of the sources (which he said explicitly at the last one). That's clearly not practical, even though another editor concurred in the last one that there needs to be a "concerted effort" to address the former editor's points. I don't have or own any print source, I used Google Book's preview/search engine for all of them. I can transcribe some of them in their entirety, as I was able to do with this one for the Detroit Metro Times review by Kofi Natambu. I successfully went through a source check of print sources at my last FAC (for this article), so I don't feel there shouldn't be more good faith afforded to me this time around. Dan56 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan: I'm going to grant you the "Honorable Mention with stars" ratings. I really don't get them. Not that the explanation helps a lot. "Dud" is a common enough English word that I really don't know why that needs to be defined. Rather than defining his grades, the better articles quote what he means about the particular album. I hope we're not going to fight over the explanation of the letter grades. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Caldwell CSL, please remember that the letter grades in Christgau's 90s to present Consumer Guide are different than those before in the '80s and '70s (90s, before). A "B+" from publications such as Entertainment Weekly are far more favorable than Christgau's 90s - present reviews, and a "B" from EW would be a "C+" from Christgau. Occasionally noting and putting this in context doesn't hurt the quality of the prose. In this case, a "B" would not be a "B" had this particular album been released three years later. However, since the '90s, his fuller letter grade reviews are reserved for "B+" and above, so explanations of those positive letter grades should be removed, as there is much more from reviews to include in prose. Dan56 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, - not wanting to start an edit war over the Fela discography, but...

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, The discography section of the musician's primary article should "provide a summary of the musician's major works - In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article

As I work through the albums I'll simply consider adding them to the Fela Kuti discography, which does need some major work, and (where relevant) the Tony Allen article and then developing a template but this does put them at risk of orphan status before the task is completed DISEman (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for messaging me, DISEman. Most cases (i.e. recording artists) do not put out so many studio albums (often, they rarely pass 10 albums), so Kuti is an exceptional case. A good threshold for notability for inclusion is the notability of the album as determined by how much third-party coverage (how much has been written about it) it received (WP:SIGCOV). Albums like Confusion (album), Gentleman (album), and Expensive Shit seem to merit inclusion as "major works", which isnt always exclusive to studio albums (like Frampton Comes Alive! was a major work for Peter Frampton, or Alive! (Kiss album) for Kiss, both great critical and commercial successes, which gives them greater notability). With 20 or 30+ studio albums for Kuti especially, some discretion needs to be shown, especially since most of the articles that even exist for them are of stub-quality that I doubt can be expanded because there isn't enough third-party coverage, beyond an AllMusic review and list of tracks and credits. Dan56 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New York Dolls (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 Tomica -- Tomica (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously what is your problem with people editing on here? You pick fights with anyone and everyone; I just can't understand and you're going around saying I'm using multiple accounts; blood that's shady to be honest. 17:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulisa.M (talk • contribs)

The article New York Dolls (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New York Dolls (album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomica -- Tomica (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw it was promoted to FA, congrats! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, XXSNUGGUMSXX! Now I'm on to the next one, my FA nomination for New York Dolls (album). You're welcome to comment or offer your vote if you'd like. Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It could be, but I personally don't see a problem with "lukewarm". I don't think it's colloquial. The OED doesn't categorise it as such. —JennKR | ☎ 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get Adabow's thoughts since it was his change originally. If it is a colloquialism, then "average" might be more appropriate, even though I'd prefer "lukewarm" since it sticks to the source cited. Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "lukewarm" by itself isn't a colloquialism, but using it in this context is. It's similar to saying an album received "hot" reviews. I'm not a huge fan of using "average" either; it is slightly ambiguous. "Mediocre" or "mildly positive" would be my pick. I could compromise with "lukewarm" in quotation marks, and attributed to the DM. Adabow (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But to JennKR's point about negative connotations ([12]), "mediocre" means "not very good", which isn't positive at all. Dan56 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reference for it being pop music? I've removed pop music. Where is the reference for it being nu-folk or folk rock? It is folk and even English folk. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in weighing in on this dicussion. — Status (talk · contribs) 06:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, MOS:ALBUM#Lead says it's alright to number the albums chronologically; it says nothing about connoting studio albums. There were no live Led Zeppelin albums prior to The Song Remains the Same, so common sense would be to not differentiate between a live album and a studio album.Radiopathy •talk• 16:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? MOS:ALBUM#Lead says "chronologically number studio albums in discographies where this would be applicable", with an example being "Bob Dylan's fourth studio album". From this, I'm assuming it should be OK to write "the fourth studio album by..." Also, the ordinary reader wont be familiar with Led Zeppelin's discography, which along with live albums, also has compilations, box sets, and video albums. Dan56 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heyy Moxy! I was wondering what the purpose of this template is, i.e. what guideline explains its need? Is it just to decrease the font size for aesthetic purposes or it is an issue of accessibility for readers? I was wondering if it might be needed at my other FA articles too that have similarly long reference lists, like Marquee Moon and Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album). Dan56 (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its just for font size ..so they match (uniformity) the references that use the Template:Reflist. It can also be used to set columns see Template:Refbegin. --Moxy (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm seeing if there's an interest in doing A-class reviews for rock related articles to help bridge the gap between Good and Featured status. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music#A class reviews and I'd be grateful if you had any comments. Thankyou. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know the first thing about A-class--I assumed it was some defunct thing from the past lol. Although looking at the A-class info page, it does seem interesting. Dan56 (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dan, this is Shallowharold again. I was flipping through my copy of Raphael Saadiq's album and noticed that there are a lot of songwriting and production credits that were left off the album's Wikipedia page. For example, songs that were credited to him solely as a writer he had help on and the production credits only attribute him to doing half the songs. I did the editing on the page to correctly reflect what was printed in the liner notes of Ray Ray. I hope this isn't an issue. Shallowharold (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am currently in the nomination process of getting Nicki Minaj videography up to featured list status. I see you have been involved in the promotion of many articles up to featured list status and was wondering whether you could take a look and possibly leave your thoughts/opposition/support for the nomination and leave any suggestions you may have to improve it. Thanks :) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nicki Minaj videography/archive1 KaneZolanski (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really been involved in any list articles, let alone FA list articles. I usually stick to album articles. Good luck tho. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 21, 2014. 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 present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 21, 2014. 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:

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the eighth studio album by the English rock band the Beatles (pictured). Released on 1 June 1967, it was an immediate commercial and critical success. After the group retired from touring, Paul McCartney had an idea for a song involving an Edwardian era military band, and this developed into a plan to release an entire album as a performance by the fictional Sgt. Pepper band. Knowing they would not have to perform the tracks live, the Beatles adopted an experimental approach to composition, writing songs such as "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life". The producer George Martin's innovative recording of the album included the liberal application of signal processing. The cover, depicting the band in front of a collage of celebrities and historical figures, was designed by the English pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth. One of the best-selling albums of all time, Sgt. Pepper is regarded as an important work of British psychedelia and an early concept album. One music scholar has described it as "the most important and influential rock and roll album ever recorded". (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Neo soul you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Neo soul for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Albums Barnstar
		Congratulations on your 49th good article and well done in improving numerous albums from the neo soul genre. The Wikipedia community is grateful for your contributions to the music field. Retrohead (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, "your" music on the Main page Marquee Moon, following the lonely hearts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that Song of Innocence, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 7 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. I have not scheduled an image; the lead image is copyright, the Blake image might misinform as to the nature of the article, and the other image within the article is tangential. Please let me know if you have other suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to squeeze the text down to about 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't too concerned about it to begin with lol. I trust your judgment. Dan56 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]