This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Some cursed, some prayed, some prayed then cursed, then prayed and bled some more. No pair of brown eyes waiting for you, you poor auld sod. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 11:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see Cáit from 3.10. I know she lived in Dublin for a bit, but she is soooo. Well, you know what I mean. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 11:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Havn't heard this in years [1]. A classic, but for some reason reminds me of Outriggr! That said, its bit bllodless (early 90s production; very fey snare and kick drum sounds), but one of the first and best isn't anything rip offs. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 12:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh thes e are very very good; and sung in Welsh, which is one of the most beautiful and colorful launguages I've heard, so far.

Iechyd da fy ffrindiau tlws Iechyd da, Iechyd da, Mae'n hwyr mae'n amser cwsg Iechyd da, Iechyd da, Beth sydd tu ol i'r drws Iechyd da Iechyd da, Beth sydd tu ol i'r drws, Iechyd da, Iechyd da, Oh Iechyd ( Ceoil ^sláinte 13:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Cork was one of the first places thoes gentelman took off, and I had a few happy musroom afternoons with Euros, a long time ago. Still, are they not mighty? Oh memories .( Ceoil ^sláinte 15:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Its no secret I like this [2]. Since Glansbury, they are being played on day time radio, and even the tool on thre street knows who whey are. Good bloody news, no? ( Ceoil ^sláinte 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Such a classy guy [3]. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you really like that Cranberries song? The Orish accent is trite and deritive, and the lyrics slightly less naieve than well, pick your least favourite u2 or coldplay b side. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of drama here. Gnight. Ceoil 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This friday is brought to you by this Acid house classic. Ceoil 22:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Man, shakey camera aside, if you close you eyes oh boy. 1.25 on are just about the best I've heard to far. Bty, who is the young blondie guy in the red shirt palying bass ( Ceoil ^sláinte 14:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Something happy or fluffy idealy. Nothing TOO miserable. Any ideas; 4 hours now Ive been listening to talk talk; eh, enought. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 18:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. Had a big argument on saturday night about Paul vs John; along of the lines of Paul has done nothing good since the Beatles broke up. Am, what about the Frog Chorus, Band on the Run? Mull of Kintire? God sake, Paul da man. Anyway. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaaah, but you are some goddamn nerd to know that!! Do you follow any of that era's solo careers? I do, and love this to death. Ceoil 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Futher prrof that you tube is the best thing, ever. This is the talk talk song that took me 4 hours to get through. Maybe my faouite track by anybody. Eva. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 01:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling with this ref; openion? ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What a song. Depressing as fuck, but just such a great song. If you can come up with anything more dispiriting, I'd be interested. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I still have a few areas to expand on for now, namely some of the negative details. I'll get back to you soon. — Realist² ( Come Speak To Me) 08:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have blanked clean User:Realist2/sandbox, any material you remove you can add there. I would rather work with than against. I tell you now though, if you are going to remove tones of info from the article you better bloody support in the end. :-) — Realist² ( Speak) 15:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yo, you wanna help me with this or you gonna sulk about how crap my article is? — Realist² ( Speak) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but please, only take out a piece at a time and number the pieces going down in a list using #. I will reinsert anything I feel damages the readers understand of Jackson or anything that jeopardizes the articles overall neutrality (probably the articles biggest accomplishment). Other than that you are free to go for it. I will see you in an hour-ish then. — Realist² ( Speak) 01:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Watch, that your correcting the links, refs are being broken. — Realist² ( Speak) 03:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Would this come under the Project's purview? The videos here might actually come in handy. indopug ( talk) 20:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering more on the lines of "it'd look nice on our Wall"... I don't have an opinion otherwise. indopug ( talk) 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Random: Genesis, Pink Floyd, Rush, Tool, Opeth (formerly Dream Theater and almost King Crimson)—progressive rock has done quite well on Wikipedia without a formal Wikiproject governing them. I think I'd be happy if prog didn't completely suck. indopug ( talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be moving to another city tomorrow, so I dunno how much I can be online for the next few weeks. That honorific cows article was closed as "No consensus"; we should renominate it sometime with proper rationale, clearly indicating that the direction it is undergoing is not fit for a encyclopedia article. indopug ( talk) 05:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FRENCHCORE!!!! indopug ( talk) 18:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'll have time for Wikipedia any more, sadly, what with work and all ... I don't even have a computer of my own here (yet). indopug ( talk) 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have free access to Factiva at my workplace, so if you need mainstream newspaper articles from upto around 25 years ago... indopug ( talk) 07:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As President of Mt. San Antonio College LAMBDA Student Association, I was lucky enough to receive free tickets to the 2008 GLAAD Media Awards. Our VP, Comic artist Aubrey Miranda was also in attendance. Here's what would have happened had I decided to take the plunge. Hope you find it amusing. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I keep thinking the picture is on your talk page in order to represent human kind in a mocking way. As though it's this really profound thing that should get you thinking, but it's probably just a fucking wombat on a fucking leash. Am I right? NSR77 ^T _C 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So I'm out of the ridiculous Cure phase I was in for oh so many months this year (thankfully Disintegration is just about done, or else I dunno what would have happened to it). Back in a Nirvana one. Wanna do something Nirvana related? I'll definitely take a look at Unplugged soon. NSR77 ^T _C 23:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Bleach was very much so a teething album for Kurt. I know there were (long abandoned) plans to work on In Utero a while back. I'd love to take a stab at that. Nevermind would be great, but there's just too much information out there to really condense into a single article. It would be very difficult. NSR77 ^T _C 23:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"In Bloom" is one of my least favorite tracks on Nevermind. Not sure why. The chorus is fine, I just don't love the chords he used. I may have asked you this before, but what are your top 5 favorite Nirvana songs? NSR77 ^T _C 23:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Drain You" is, in my opinion, the best song on Nevermind. It's incredible. If I had to pick a favorite Nirvana song it'd probably be "Pennyroyal Tea". It's utterly beautiful and the lyrics in the chorus make it impeccable. "Silver" is fucking awesome. I was almost about to title this conversation "Grandma, take me home". "Very Ape" is good, you're right. For filler. I love "Serve the Servants", though. That or "Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle" are my favorite non-singles from In Utero. Now strangely I think one of the best things on With the Lights Out is Grohl's "Marigold" (nothing compared to "Sappy", though). "Oh, the Guilt" is a really hard rocker that I love as well. With Nirvana, I can't really say there's one album they've made that I can listen to from start to finish without wanting to skip a song. There's always one or two tracks that ruin it for me. "Tourette's" on In Utero and "Polly" with Nevermind ("Territorial Pissings" isn't my cup of tea, either). Bleach is sporadic in it's own right. NSR77 ^T _C 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for All Apologies, MV (the albini outtake), and Negative Creep. Serve the Servants is just great also, yes. Don't like much from Bleach, maybe from that period only Love buzz and the sun shines through the window songs are any good. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "Love Buzz" is the best thing that came out of Bleach. NSR77 ^T _C 23:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I usually listen to the albums as a whole. But still, some of the tracks lack. I usually call it the "mid-Nirvana-album-slump". On Nevermind it started with "Polly", until you get to "Drain You". With In Utero it starts with "Dumb" and ends with "Pennyroyal Tea". Oddly, the songs following this slump are the best on the entire album. I think In Utero is an overall stronger album, albeit much less commercial, which is the main reason why I think critics don't like it as much. Some of the stuff on Nevermind is straight up pop ("Stay Away" comes to mind, despite how much I love it). NSR77 ^T _C 23:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats something that bothers me; I never listen to the albums as a whole - its always itunes on shuffle. The thing is the songs that leap out at you at first are usually the most disposable. Against that, how many albums have you listened to in the last 6 months that have more than 3 good songs? Not many, I'd guess. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Shuffel just gave "The Modern Age" - oh happy day. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Every album I buy or get I listen to the whole way through. Especially from my favorite bands. With the Chili Peppers and Frusciante I know I've listened to Blood Sugar Sex Magik and Niandra Lades and Usually Just a T-Shirt each at least 150 times through, not including jumping around. Some albums that I don't know if I will like I get from the library and download them that way. Then I listen. For example, I don't like much of New Order's Brotherhood but I abso-fuckin-lutely love "Bizzare Love Triangle". Some album's like John Cale's Fear and Peter Hammill's Over (and most of Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa's stuff) I can't listen to just one song. It's the entire body of work that I appreciate. NSR77 ^T _C 00:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I used to be like that when I was younger and albums cost more than I had to spend in a month. These days, with the internet and free download, I skim lots and lots, maybe 10-15 albums a week. I notice from that though its more about songs than individual albums or even bands, and I guess that's they way things are going. I'm not saying its right, though. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. But I live in the past. Well, as much as one can live in the past in today's world. I still buy LPs sometimes. I really just wish it were 15 years ago, to tell you the truth. Haha. NSR77 ^T _C 00:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You want to back to 1993? Better off 1989. Stone Roses? ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You have not as yet, provided any reasoning for why you keep removing the genre from the Vampire Weekend article. It seems your removal is based on personal opinion. Please check the sources because it is the sources we use to define information in articles, not personal opinion. Seraphim♥ Whipp 09:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC).

Sandman, I followed all the rules, and nothing has happened to the page I just added some information that makes the page more interesting and better looking than before. Calm down and read the changes. Without a doubt you will like them. Fefogomez ( talk) 04:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandman I am adding an analysis of the chords of the verse. This by no means hurts the page, and on the contrary makes it more interesting to musicians, that are, in the end the people who will query this article the most. Fefogomez ( talk) 04:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and to a certain extent I agree. Maybe the summary was a little far fetched, but take a look at the image. It's glamorous and it shows information a thousand words wouldn't tell. SO why don;t you let it stay. I know it's a feature article and I was very careful not to change the thread of ideas. If you look carefully I inserted a few sentences that validate the scorelet posting. Fefogomez ( talk) 04:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi WesleyDodds, Thank you for your message on the fan subculture section. While the footnotes are not formatted properly, I remind you that contributions to Wikipedia do not have to be fully completed "offline" before they are posted. For example, in a section on the history of a music genre, you can start it off with a few sentences -- you don't have to build it up into 3 paragraphs offline before you posted. What do you mean when you say it is written like an academic essay? Sometimes, an edit is called "essay-like" when it has subjective POV and personal reflections. I don't think the Fan Subculture section has much of those elements............I'll admit right away the obvious flaws: reliance on one source for 99% of the fan subculture section, and excessive uses of quotes. But those flaws can be corrected with subsequent edits, in which other editors add in new sources/books/magazines, and by other editors who paraphrase and reword the quotations. What I have provided, I think, is a verifiable, solid framework upon which the Fan Subculture section can be built. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi WesleyDodds, I would like to discuss your reverting of my free Wikimedia Commons photo additions. When you revert like that, you should provide a rationale. You said the photos are unnecessary. I went to the Wikipedia Images policy section to see if I could get some guidance from the rules................................................................................................ The Images section notes that "Beyond the basics of copyright and markup, editors face choices of image selection and placement." It notes that "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." The section states that "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text." The section says "Poor quality images (too dark, blurry etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used." As well, it says "Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article." As well, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." It says images should be refenced (because of the Verifiability policy). "Images that are not properly identified...are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia."................................................................................. Could you please explain why the pictures are unnecessary? Is it just the pictures I chose, or do you believe that pictures in general are unnecessary? As well, apart from the lack of referencing, I argue that the pictures that were proposed helped to illustrate the topic. As well, my captions helped to explain the significance of the content. Just for discussion, if I were to find a Free Wikipedia Commons photo of a MAJOR metal band (e.g., Metallica), would that also be unneccesary for the lede or "characteristics" section? OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi WesleyDodds, Without naming you, I put the general issue pictures/photos onto the talk page, so that we can get some discussion going on this topic. I look forward to hearing your rationale and arguments on this issue. Thanks. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to put this article up for another peer review, but before I do would you mind checking the third paragraph in the LEAD and the "Artistry" section for the quality of the prose/information? Thanks. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Before you sign off, generally speaking, to you think Janet's article needs as much editing as you're giving to MJ? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Try not to think ill of realist2, but anyway swtiching tracks- I'll open up a peer review later today for Janet Jackson. Its going to be set up as a "mock" FAC so I'm going to invite a lot of FAC editors to give there input. I'll let you know once I have it set up. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The peer review is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Janet Jackson/archive1. Feel free to do the under construction thing on Jant Jackson as well if you see anything you can easily fix yourself. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait until you finish the peer review, then I'll address all of your issues. Let me know when you've completed it, then I start working and let you know when I'm finished. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I'm done. Take a look my rational for the numerous citations. just wanted you to know before I removed some. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It did occur in the same year, but Janet came first; R.E.M. matched her record by the end of the year. I'll find the sources and give you a cut and paste. a few sources specified Janet's contract at $70 million, but so did a few sources for REM. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1. "KIDSDAY / DID YOU KNOW?" Newsday 01-30-1996: Thursday, the first day of February, also marks the first day of Black History Month. See if you can match these questions with the names of the 10 famous African Americans below: 10. Who signed a four-album deal with Virgin Records for $80 million? A. Janet Jackson
2. "Room with a private view" Susan Bickelhaupt and Maureen Dezell, The Boston Globe 01-13-1996: A cool $80m for Janet Whoa, brother. Janet Jackson has struck a deal with Virgin Records for an unprecedented $80 million, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday. The four-album contract apparently surpasses the music industry's record of $60 million -- a pinnacle reached only by such superstars as Jackson's brother Michael and Madonna. This is actually the second time Jackson has negotiated an eye-popping agreement with the label: Their 1991 deal was for three albums and $40 million. Jackson, 29, has been the focus of a bidding war ever since that contract expired last year. She is Virgin's best-selling artist. Her last album, "janet.," has sold nearly 10 million copies since its 1993 release.
3. "Janet Jackson Hits Big; $80 Million Record Deal" ASSOCIATED PRESS: Los Angeles - Take that, Michael! Janet Jackson is reportedly back with Virgin Records for an unprecedented $80 million. The four-album deal would surpass the music industry's record of $60 million, which has been claimed by stars such as Jackson's brother, Michael, and Madonna. The Los Angeles Times report cited unidentified industry sources. It's the second time Jackson and Virgin have come to an eye-popping agreement. Their $40-million, three-album pact in 1991 was considered to be the shrewdest music business deal ever negotiated. Jackson, 29, has been the focus of a bidding war since her contract with Virgin expired last year. She is Virgin's best-selling artist, and her last album, "janet.", has sold nearly 10 million copies since its 1993 release.
4. "BUSINESS: ARE THEY WORTH ALL THAT CASH? JANET JACKSON'S RECORD-BREAKING $80 MILLION CONTRACT COULD SET OFF A NEW WAVE OF POP-MUSIC MEGADEALS" CHRISTOPHER JOHN FARLEY REPORTED BY DAVID E. THIGPEN/NEW YORK AND JEFFREY RESSNER/LOS ANGELES Time 01-29-1996 :AS MICHAEL JACKSON AND HIS WIFE Lisa Marie Presley began divorce proceedings last week, his little sister Janet Jackson was renewing her vows in a very big way. Janet's bond, however, was not to a man, but to a company. Virgin Records had just signed her to a new record contract that could be worth as much as $80 million and is, by some accounts, the most lucrative record deal in history. Questions remain about the pre-nups to this corporate marriage. Did she get what she wanted? Was this megadeal a strategic coup for Virgin? Then there's this expensive issue: What will other superstars be asking for next?

1. R.E.M. Signs $80M Deal; LOS ANGELES TIMES 08-26-1996: Anaheim, Calif. - R.E.M., the hottest free agent in the music business, signed a five-album contract with Warner Bros. Records worth an estimated $80 million - the largest recording contract ever awarded, sources said. The Grammy-winning band's deal surpassed the $70-million mark achieved seven months ago by pop diva Janet Jackson as well as other mega-deals by such superstars as Michael Jackson and Madonna.
2. NEWS & NOTES/MONITOR: MONITOR; CHRIS NASHAWATY; ANNA HOLMES WITH ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY TRICIA LAINE, DAVID POLAND, AND TOM SINCLAIR) Entertainment Weekly 09-06-1996: DEALS It's enough to make an accountant lose his religion. In what's being called the largest recording contract in history, R.E.M. signed a five-album deal, valued at a reported $80 million, with Warner Bros. Records on Aug. 24. The band's previous deal with Warner expired when it finished recording its latest album, New Adventures in Hi-Fi, due in stores Sept. 10. The band, which has sold more than 30 million records since forming in 1980, has been at the center of a fierce bidding war, which included such Warner rivals as DreamWorks, Sony, and Capitol.

What do you mean via footnotes? meaning it that would only show up in the citations? I'm not sure how to do that. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its ok now. I just specified "then-highest paid recording artist". It seems silly to have over five reliable sources at the time of publication in January 1996 and then throw in sources that came 7 months after with a different total. Janet signed January, while REM signed in August 1996. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The fan in me won't let REM steal Janet's thunder. I added info and a source placing the prose in chronological order. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Chains you to the JJ article ^_^ The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Janet's Ask for More is a freaking awesome song! LISTEN! ... And look at the video! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind overhauling the themes and genres section of "Musical style and performance" in the JJ article? I feel like I just rambled on about it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind including the superbowl image if I could include Image:Janet jackson janet album double disc.jpg. Its pretty significant to the janet. album and is discussed in the prose concerning the Rolling Stone cover. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to get one more screen shot? I think its important to show something from Rhythm Nation, considering the military iconography. I can't believe there are no public domain images of this woman! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I always though it existed specifically for google books since you can preview it. Just an assumption though- I always find it useful when I have to retrace my steps. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine. I'm planning on asking at least two more FA reviews to give comments before I close the peer review. I'd prefer to see 0 oppose. I'm sick of having my work torn to shreds by editors who enjoy having a holier-than-thou attitude, which is common place considering I work on pop music and comic books articles. I may not be the world's greatest literary author but English has always been my strong suit and contributing to this project should be enjoyable. A lot of editors forget to be civil even when giving constructive criticism because they hate the subject matter. But I'm ranting, anywho...are you a Janet fan? or in any way a casual listener? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. How odd. People always ask me why I'm so enthralled with Janet. I think her original video for Just A Little While sums it up. This video - in my humble opinion - is a quintessential understanding of Janet- its as innocent and carefree as anything from Rhtyhm Nation (ok RN is the Uber quintessential Janet) and All for You and as seductive as janet. and The Velvet Rope. She's always represented everything I aspire to be. Not that I plan on becoming a recording artist, but simply a master of my craft without having to sacrifice my own vision or personality in order to please other people -and of course to look like a supermodel while doing it. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the LEAD? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't own any Jackson biographies. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

found one...I need money! I'll probably buy it at some point. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclind to trust anything written by J Randy Taraborrelli. Biographies seem to be his strong suit. J. Randy Taraborrelli

How close do you think Janet Jackson is to FA at the moment? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing the LEAD tonight? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind taking a shot at rewriting the LEAD? I can't seem to come up with anything I like. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why have you got rid of it? There are more than enough reasons to keep it in my opinion.

• Rate Your Music is an acceptable site, if its not then why have I seen it referenced in other articles? (off the top of my head Holland, 1945, The Universal, Stay Together)
• Not only that but it is the 2nd highest rated Blur song out of all of them on the site. A rating of 4.24 certainly warrants a good song.
• Blur fans also rate it, on Blur's official forum it was voted the 3rd best song on the album [4]. The album was subsequently voted the joint best by the band.
• The album appears highly in the best albums ever list and this is a popular song, why not quote it? I can also cite the Best 50 British albums ever by Q magazine from this year, where Parklife came 25th.
• It is a track on Blur's Best Of. Surely, that alone warrants an article. It is the only album track on the album. Let us not forget it is on the official greatest hits album of one of the biggest bands ever. Surely that counts for something. It makes the Best Of article look a bit silly with all the songs linked to bar this one.
• Links in nicely with the shipping forecast theme, and the song is already referenced to in the Shipping Forecast article.
• I quote Alex James...

"It went on to become Blur's most popular song"

Blur's own bassist there stating its magnificence and popularity. Does that not matter? "..Blur's most popular song"

Don't want to appear pushy but mate there are plenty of reasons why this warrants an article. Certainly it is notable, for all of the above reasons. Yours, Dsims209 ( talk) 20:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again. I have reinstated the article here. This is because I truly am uncertain as to why it should be removed. I have added more detail and facts supporting it in the ways you suggested. If you still don't like it, please may I propose that instead of simply redirecting it to Parklife, you nominate it for articles for deletion, as I would like wider input regarding this article, as I honestly don't see what is wrong with it. And it would be silly to nominate my own article for deletion. I want to learn from any errors I am making and redirecting doesnt help this! Many thanks Dsims209 ( talk) 20:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Never seen such good evidence and references cast aside. I can add a) its high ranking on Blur's last.fm page, again the highest ranking album track on there, higher than some singles. b) It is selected as a stand out track on All Music Guide. c) It was selected on Glastonbury Anthems: The Best of Glastonbury 1994-2004 compilation album. So yes it has received tons of critical acclaim.

Why do some Oasis b-sides have articles? Because they were on the best of compilations. So why can't this? Am I missing something??? Why should Oasis b-sides have articles and Blur's most popular album track, and best-of track not?

It is quite obviously famous song in its own right, and thus by your logic, deserves a page. Dsims209 ( talk) 19:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you reverted my edit to the Radio Free Europe article. I just undid your revert, on the grounds that the song does not end on the tonic chord, as the line you reinstated said it does. If you revert my undo, I will go on undoing it, but in order to avoid a pointless edit war on a fairly trivial subject, I would just like you to tell me why you think the song ends on the tonic. The song is in E, we agree about that; the final chord is A, we agree about that - so how can it end on the tonic, which would be E? Any thoughts you have would be welcome. Lexo ( talk) 22:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Find a reliable reference that it isn't in the key of E, my friend, because whatever book you are citing right now is entirely wrong. I have been playing the song for twenty years and if I have to go out and check an REM songbook, I will. Lexo ( talk) 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been checking websites that carry chords and tablature to REM songs. Every one I've been to confirms that the song is in E, but unfortunately they all derive from a transcription made by a University of Arkansas student, the original of which - thought it appears to be accurate - is now missing from the uark website. I can demonstrate that the song is in E by videoing myself playing along with the original recording on a correctly tuned guitar and posting it on YouTube, but since as you point out there seems to be no official sheet music there is no official source for the fact that E is the tonic chord of the song, which is something I know in the same way I know that I am left-handed but play guitar right-handed - it's beyond all possibility of doubt. All I can say is that either Justin Niimi's book on 'Murmur' is inaccurate, or else whoever was using it as a source misinterpreted it. I would not be standing up and making an ass of myself like this if I didn't know that I am right, which is not a statement I make lightly. All I urge you to do is leave out the offending part of the sentence, and truth is satisfied. Lexo ( talk) 23:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dept. of Flogging a Dead Horse: I emailed Justin Niimi to ask him whether the musical analysis in his book had simply been misunderstood. (Am aware that this is in contravention of [[WP: ORIGINAL RESEARCH but I did it anyway.) He wrote back defending his analysis of the song as being in A, but owned up to being 'not a theory whiz'; I think I see where he went wrong, and I emailed him back about it, with a frankly exhaustive and probably exhausting harmonic analysis of the song, in which I demonstrate (at least to my own satisfaction) that the fundamental tonality moves between E Mixolydian, E major and F sharp major. Have not had a reply yet. None of this is any use to the article as it presumably constitutes original research, but I mention it to show how far I will go to correct an error. That Hey Jude article kills, btw. Lexo ( talk) 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry if there are broken refs at the end of your rewrite, give me a heads up when your done and I'll fix them automagically. -- AdultSwim ( talk) 03:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, just wondering... who is your favorite band? :-) -- Eric (mailbox) 05:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn Wesley, you got good taste in music, if I say so myself. Those bands are pretty awesome. Not a lot of people today remember that kind of music. I can't get enough of the Beatles now. :-) -- Eric (mailbox) 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the chart positions to Disintegration in table format due to the number of charts. Hope that's okay -- JD554 ( talk) 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep definitely #10: I've changed the source for you. -- JD554 ( talk) 09:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it a go, but I don't have really have much info on The Smiths - I managed to get the discography done mainly by luck with what I found on the internet. copyediting etc I should be able to help with though. -- JD554 ( talk) 05:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No I hadn't come across that yet. Thanks for the tip, should be very useful! -- JD554 ( talk) 07:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about Joy Division being outside the scope of the project, sorry. I still remember it all meaning pretty much the same thing at the time: the lines between post-punk, indie and alternative were very blurred back then. I must try to remember the revisionist history ;-) -- JD554 ( talk) 09:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

History!? This is my youth we're talking about here you young whipper-snapper. (Suddenly feeling old) -- JD554 ( talk) 09:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

←Yeah, at the time we weren't too fussed. I used to go to Rock City in Nottingham in the mid-to-late-80s on Thursday nights (student night) and Friday nights (alternative night). The two nights pretty much amounted to the same thing, but the music played was pretty varied, with The Sweet being played along with The Cult (who were more rock by this time), and The Sisters of Mercy. Run DMC and the like were also pretty popular. -- JD554 ( talk) 09:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure if you have Live Forever or the GA page on your watchlist, but I've completed the GA review. There is very, very little to do, and it'll be passed. Peanut4 ( talk) 23:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would add more of a description but YOU insist on trimming everything! The picture is staying the review said it was fine, so take a hike on that one, and I mean that with the best of intentions. — Realist² ( Speak) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A note to both of you, I would say the screen shot on Janet's Bio is much more visually engaging than the current image. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a periodical through my college web library that has a great article on the production of scream. Do you have an empty workspace? I can cut and paste the info with that the documentation to cite it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I just went ahead and pasted it into my own sandbox. It's listed under SCREAM. User:Bookkeeperoftheoccult/Sandbox. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could work with me on that it would be great Bookkeeper, I like the picture you spotted more so hopefully we can swop it :-) We are keeping a picture from scream, huge video, perfectly acceptacle as seen in the FA review and I will not have the article whitewashed by 80's nolstalga. — Realist² ( Speak) 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the info you and I trimmed on Jackson's appearance and health will have to be brought back if this deletion goes ahead. Apparently it is to "controversial" to have it's own article. I would rather not see it all brought back but I will if this article goes up in flames. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson. — Realist² ( Speak) 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Originally I thought not but I have been doing loads of reading and there are some major issues that need writing about that might have to go into the Jackson article now, thus I set up a new article and will hopefully add more to it (so long as it aint deleted lol). I'm really stressed out at the moment, I might pull the plug on this FA review. — Realist² ( Speak) 01:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured it was lacking since the only detail was that its currently the most expensive video, feel free to trim. I thought there should logically be at least some production detail. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have just joined Wikipedia, but don't understand that when I am trying to add a correction to the Hey Jude piece, within minutes it is deleted without any question. I was there at the filming. I have the contract. I can be seen on the film very clearly. Yet someone has set themselves up as more knowledgable, when they obviously were not there. I thought the whole idea of Wikipedia was to be able to correct mistakes and get things right. Am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainclegg ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wesley isn't here at the moment. Wikipedia is not about the truth at all. Wikipedia is about what can be verified by sources. Unless you have a source, even if you are correct, it doesn't matter one bit here. Also your edit summaries are very in-civil and you are edit warring it would seem. You have made a wise decision to discuss it on the talk page. If you reinsert it again you might find yourself in deep water. — Realist² ( Speak) 03:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for that, but Im afraid I don't understand. I don't know what 'edit warring' is. I am trying to understand how someone can set themselves as the arbitor of what is correct or not. I was there. I have the contract for the day, signed on behalf of Apple. I can be seen on the film. Mark Lewishon used all my knowledge of the event for his book. I have no ideas how I can prove it more than suggesting you watch the film, now freely available on YouTube. This does seem an odd system of blocking. Captainclegg ( talk) 03:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars can be a number of things, continually reinserting info when you don't have the community consensus to do so is one of them; especially when you are not providing a source. We, the community have no way of knowing your are telling the truth, although I'm certainly not saying your lying. Under your argument, Michael Jackson would be allowed to edit his own article, no questions asked, since he knows his own life? It is all about sources I am afraid. — Realist² ( Speak) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! I actually like quite a few of the bands on that list, though some are definitely a bit old for me. But at a glance; Green Day, Foo Fighters, Oasis, U2... I know I should like Nine Inch Nails but I just can't manage to...

The most recent album I've listened to is the new Coldplay one; NSR told me a while back he hates them and Naerii said I'm not cool for liking them. But that's OK, I was already uncool for liking Powderfinger.

Oh, and recently (as well as working with a few others on some random Muse songs) I've been helping slowly nudge Bloc Party for FAC - not sure if either of those are your sort of thing. So yeah. — Giggy 09:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

American Idiot sounds good; plenty of content out there for FA, I think. A Weekend in the City can definitely be described as interesting - the music quality from what I've heard wasn't as good as Silent Alarm, but the lyrics have something to them, I agree. "Hunting for Witches" is good - "I Don't Remember" is weirdly appealing.

So... expand American Idiot reception and go from there? — Giggy 09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uggh; "With or Without You" never appealed to me. Achtung Baby seems pretty good looking at the tracklist... I might pitch in if you ever get around to that one. — Giggy 09:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So I've thrown together some basic reception - it can definitely be fleshed out. Do you have any more content you want to add? I dunno if there would be much legacy yet. There's almost certainly more info out there on the music, and maybe the background/recording... see what some searching brings up. — Giggy 10:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Re. your latest sub-heading edit on Depeche Mode. Well, OK, I guess it's acceptable! best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - just a note that I'm not going to be able to deliver wikiproject newsletters as of... well, as of now. You can ask at WP:BOTREQ for another bot to pick up Giggabot's slack. Cheers, — Giggy 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can run a newsletter bot for you, WesleyDodds. Whatcha need me to deliver? Soxπed93 ^(blag) 03:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a sad day if "Scentless Apprentice" is no longer considered notable along Wikipedia guidelines. Why did you remove the link and redirect the page? Tezkag72 ( talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on Strawberry Fields Forever. I spent a lot of time improving the article, and I hope it passes GA. Your contributions were very helpful, and I just wanted to thank you for them. There were a few things that I didn't pick up, and it's good to know that someone else (you) did before it went to GA review. Thanks again. All the best, Kodster ^{( heLLo) ( Me did that)} 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Semi-hard question to answer. I believe you and I are about the same age (I'm turning 24 next month), and I'm sure you're aware back in the old days people tended to by music based entire on the artist whereas nowadays people tend to listen to whatever sounds good at the moment. Up until 2001 I've never really considered myself a fan of any one recording artist. When Janet's All for You came out I decided to buy the album (had my first job around that time, I could actually afford to buy music for myself). All for You made me realize just how much I had always enjoyed hearing Janet's music on the radio (Rhythm Nation 1814 is one of the greatest albums of all time in my opinion and " Love Will Never Do (Without You)" left a Permanent and somewhat unconscious impact on me; The first and only concert I've ever been to was the Rhythm Nation 1814 tour but I was 4 years old at the time).

At that point I began to list artists I listen to casually to those I listen to on a regular basis. To date, I officially consider myself a "fan" of Janet Jackson, Gwen Stefani (based on her solo career, but I still think No Doubt is awesome), Darren Hayes (based on his work with Savage Garden). I had a crush on both Hayes and Lance Bass growing up so when they came out at their respective times I was like YES!!! Lol. Umm, there is a lot of music I listen to casually even though I may not be enthralled with the artist enough to consider myself a fan. I like some of Madonna's work, but I appreciate her more on a cultural level and esp on a business level (I'm getting a minor in business management). Same goes for Michael Jackson. I like Evanescence (band), Kelly Clarkson, Whitney Houston (I was like 9 when I say the Bodyguard but " I Will Always Love You" still brought me to literal tears), Bon Jovi, Kerli (new artist but damn, is she ever intriguing), Goo Goo Dolls, Rob Thomas/Match Box 20, Cher (really only because of the Believe album, but hey - she's The Great and Powerful Gay Icon Cher, so gotta love her), Alicia Keys, Bryan Adams, Enya, LeAnn Rimes and a variety of other artists I'm blanking on at the moment. I also love the soundtrack to Chicago and RENT. I'm sure there is more, but Janet is my Queen, Gwen is my Princess. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes! "Precious" is one of my favorite songs from them. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot Imogen Heap and Annie Lennox. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice poetic claim from the article "The following month, "Someday We'll Be Together" hit number one on the American pop charts, becoming not only the Supremes' twelfth and final number-one hit, but also the final number-one hit of the 1960s." I can't find any thing to back it up; can you take a look if you can find anything; if its true I'd hate to loose it. Ceoil 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

God, I wish we could upload videos to wikipedia! Batgirl promotional short. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. I'm poor. But I have a free movie pass, so I should be able to use it soon. I'm excited. Tell me nothing!!! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Joker has had enough appearances in other media to warrant its own article. esp if we can get academic source to expand on major roles. It's been a while since I've worked hard on any comic article and I still have Batgirl Batwoman and Babs to try and get featured. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just discovered...how to get full screan on U-Tube. Joy. Oh and you didn't tell me what you are listening to. Interestingly both Spitiualizred and M rev are playing €30 gigs in a pub back room in Cork in november. how the mighty have fallen. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 11:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wild Wild West, eh? You didn't link it but you said it. YOU told me you were cool, and more fool me I believed you. Pah. Ceoil 11:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cant get Spin here; but I know what you mean - there were 3 pages in Q on MBV back in May and I guess most of it was gleamed from the trivia section of their wiki page. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 11:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pearl Jam Just because they have few good songs / covers doesnt mean they are not; well the way they are. Ceoil 11:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice cover of this. Ceoil 15:21 29 May 2003 (UTC)

• What's wrong with this getting at least a mention? JuJube ( talk) 12:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. I think it stands out in people's minds mainly because the song was made for Batman and Robin and people are wondering how they got the rights. JuJube ( talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why are you guarding this page so stubbornly, it deserves a mention. Other pages like Just Like You Imagined and For What Its Worth include mentions that the songs were used in the trailers of 300 and Tropic Thunder respectively...are you just pissed off because the song's from Batman and Robin? Anarchonihilist ( talk) 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to be blunt. Your edits on Two-face are really pissing me off. I don't think it's totally intentional, but today alone you've repeatedly deleted good info and sources because IPs who don't know or care are altering the information attributed to the sources into obvious bullshit. Instead of looking into the edit history to what's going on, you're deleting them, and in doing so, treating my edits like part and parcel of the same vandalism you claim to be undoing. I specifically cleaned up the Eckhart citation, and the ambiguity citation, repeatedly in the last few days, and yet I've seen you blank them both. Instead of just gutting over and over, please take the time to compare what's occurred from your last edit forward, including stopping at other editors whose names you recognize. I often, when reviewing similar situations, stop at AlienTraveller, Bignole, Doczilla, Erik, and your edits to see who's doing what, because I know that that group of editors can (usually) be trusted as waypoints among the weeds, to see what's going on, the direction of the page, and so on. However, this weekend, I'm watching you knock down my edits over and over. I don't know if you're rushed, or have made some decision about the quality of my edits, or what the deal is, but when I repeatedly see my work being ripped out along with lots of lousy IP edits, it gets insulting to see and repetitive to fix. Anyways, let me know what's going on, cause I'd like to think i'm right that this is you overzealously cleaning the article, not finding a problem with my edits. ThuranX ( talk) 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I said, I figured it wasn't personal. As for Eckhart, my thinking is that until we can bring more into that section about the differences and approaches to the character, his enthusiasm gives us a bit more OOU info, and since it's more about him as the character than the movie, I put it there. It's not 'bad', info, just not deep stuff, lol. I figure as the page cools off, we'll be able to expand with critical reviews of the performance and the character, and ease off the simpler stuff. ThuranX ( talk) 04:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I clarified it in the article, but that's a citation for the producer stating it was an ambiguous situation as to whether or not he died. ThuranX ( talk) 06:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the mess of edits about his fate on the main article? Since I added teh cited ambiguity, I've noticed a clear drop in the rate of 'he died'/'he lives' edits at the two-face page. the TDK article still gets hammered, and removing those cites here would only expand the spread of that mess. frankly, i'm beginning to think we've got to run an inline citation in the plot for that ambiguity, and then again every time we mention two-face on that article. for now, at least, leave that up. If you really oppose the eckhart line, drop it to the talk page for later use if needed. (like if there are substantive reports of recasting or reusing the character.). ThuranX ( talk) 06:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Uggh, chart data for every single is a bit much. You're welcome to revert, as always. I haven't forgotten to look for sales stuff, if it's not already there, but otherwise the content seems pretty well done... copyediting time (actually, recption could do with expansion, and refs need formatting too). — Giggy 10:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wesley. American Idiot is actually one of my future projects but I see you improving this. BTW, I have a couple of links which might be helpful: Road To The Grammys: The Making Of Green Day's American Idiot and Green Day: Anatomy Of A Punk Opera. Thank you. -- Efe ( talk) 11:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 16 - July 2008

"We are the best band in the world....modestly the best band in the world." - Darren Middleton Project news List of Nine Inch Nails live-band members, List of The Killers awards, and the discographies of Kaiser Chiefs, Soundgarden, Garbage, and Mark Lanegan reached featured list status during the past month. Well done to Underneath-it-All, Drewcifer3000, -5-, WilliamH, and Be Black Hole Sun. R.E.M. was featured on the Main Page on July 10. We collaborated on With Teeth, American Idiot, Weezer, and "Creep" (Radiohead song) during the past month. During the month of July, The Black Parade, Arcade Fire, and " Live Forever" were promoted to good article status. We are currently discussing various alternative rock albums as possible candidates for a project-wide Featured Topic collaboration. Please join the discussion here. This month's "Recommended Alternative Album" is Stone Temple Pilots - Tiny Music... Songs from the Vatican Gift Shop (1996).

New members Arbocalaviv, Samushi101, Carbonrodney, Red157, and dmodlin71 joined the alternative music fold during July. Editors User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot II ( talk) 03:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And the quote is totally correct! :-) Nice work as always. — Giggy 03:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really alt rock, but Guns Babes Lemonade would have to be the worst album I've ever been unlucky enough to hear 2 songs off. Thank you, Triple J Hottest 100, 2007. Maybe April Fools next year? — Giggy 10:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wesley, I was wondering why you placed Alternative Rock above Grunge on the Nirvana article. To me, it seems that Grunge belongs on top since this is Nirvana's dominant genre and, more importantly, the genre that people often associate with the band. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² ( _talk\ ^contribs) 05:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is your reasoning, why not place Rock above Alternative Rock, since Alternative Rock is a subgenre of Rock. It seems to me that Grunge is a more accurate description of the bands music and, as such, should be placed first. Alternative Rock, though more broad than Grunge, does a good job of describing some of Nirvana's less "grungy" music and because of this belongs in the article, but only as a secondary genre. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² ( _talk\ ^contribs) 05:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to know if there was a reason for the change. Thanks for the reply. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² ( _talk\ ^contribs) 06:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Another month without any new FAs. NSR77 ^T _C 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit daunting! I only own four R.E.M. albums. I gave away most of the others that I had gotten as gifts or promotional reasons because I'm no longer interested in what R.E.M., for one reason or another. Disintegration is indeed close. I was thinking of adding a Tour section because there's quite a lot of information in Never Enough. Thoughts? NSR77 ^T _C 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and D'arcy emerges from the bat cave. NSR77 ^T _C 22:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It gets tedious, trust me. Hahah. NSR77 ^T _C 15:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You know what I just thought of? Skipping the GA process altogether with Disintegration and jumping right to FAC. NSR77 ^T _C 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. I still need to add the tour section after I'm back in LA. What do you make of this recent debate at WT:ALM? NSR77 ^T _C 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this guy. His logic is very...offbeat. NSR77 ^T _C 23:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find a good live version, so went with this shitty static studio excuse. Anyway; anything strange. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I am writing an article, and what I've done so far is here: Book of Love (album). Unfortunately, since it's an old album, I am having a real hard time finding good sources. There's no 'limited preview' books listed in Google Books which mention the album or its singles, nothing substantial comes up when searching on Thomson Gale's databases, and dozens of web searches have not yielded much either. Searches on Rolling Stone and NME did not bring up anything. Do you know of where I can look to find some sources for this? I'd be most grateful if you have any ideas. Thanks, — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 06:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions, I have contacted NME. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 10:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that Be Black Hole Sun is changing a load of article talk pages to include that WPRock template, plus he's altering the FA status to include FL (which I'm sure we decided not to do a while back). By the way, I may be back, or I may not. Who knows? CloudNine ( talk) 23:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I might take you up on that Spin Kim Deal offer; I reckon it's time to resume work on the eventual Pixies FT. It might motivate me to regularly contribute to Wikipedi again. I'd also like to bring DNOTD to featured status, but I've reached writer's block on the Music section; I know there's a lot to write there however. CloudNine ( talk) 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I love the "buy the sky/sell the sky" line. Have you ever read Noam Chomsky's Failed States or Niall Ferguson's Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire? I forget which one of the two talk about it, but one discusses how obsessed American is with expansion that during the Clinton administration that we basically tried to own Space. Its true we never talk about real problems...at least not to whom it matters. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'll try to start editing regularly again. And sorry about completely disappearing off the face of Wikipedia without any warning. Also I come with good news: my old guitar tutor gave me a ton of scans of songbooks around two or three years ago, all of which were lost when my old computer broke about a year ago. Turns out I had backed them up on a flash drive that I just found again; included are Siamese Dream, Nevermind, In Utero, Oasis's first two albums, Pinkerton, and American Idiot. -- Brandt Luke Zorn ( talk) 05:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First why was i blocked and you said "It's not accurate to list articles not promoted or maintained by the Rock WikiProject that people at these particular WikiProjects worked very hard on." I worked my ass of on the Queens of the Stone Age discography and Mark Lanegan discography and page. This is why i've gone nuts on the other alternative FL articles cause you do it to my articles which are maintained by the rock music project and not the alternative one. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 10:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a member. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 10:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i was, but my main priority has always been the same, get more FL to the rock music project. I like to work for projects that needs help, the alternative one don't. Hope you got what i meant. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 10:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Those FL and FA i added on the rock music project i got from Category:FL-Class Rock music articles. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 10:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on the alternative/Featured Content. Those list i worked my ass of for the rock music project. If you have a right to add my work the rock music list should be aloed to add all your Featured content on the rock music/Featured Content. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 11:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen the Queens of the Stone Age related articles should be under the rock music project. Why, the band is Neo-psychedelia, Hard rock, Desert rock and stoner rock and the band is known for being a hard rock band not an alternative rock band which has nothing do with alternative music while the rock music project would cover all those genres and as CloudNine said Yes, but the alternative wikiproject is the more specific of the two" but its not more specific. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 07:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't answear do you agree. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 10:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please change the hash mark used for a number in John Frusciante, John Mayer, AC/DC, Nine Inch Nails, Audioslave, Bob Dylan and Radiohead. I would do it but I am not confident, since they are FA status. — Mattisse ( Talk) 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. When I get time, I'll add more, as it seems to be a big problem in FA music articles. — Mattisse ( Talk) 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could offer a better model for Frank Zappa than previously given on the FAC page, as those cannot be made to apply without removing most of the material in the Zappa article. Perhaps the best one I have been able to find is Bob Dylan, hash marks and all! Do you have any better suggestions? — Mattisse ( Talk) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It turns out there is no consistent answer in MoS whether to use #1 nor number one. I asked User talk:Epbr123, the MoS guru, and he is said there was not. He susggest asking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) so I did: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Question on #1 vs number one. SandyGeorgia has already weighed in that the inconsistency is a mess and needs to be resolved. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on the Batman page? There are sources to back it up. -- Soapergem ( talk) 03:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the newer story arc, but I disagree completely when you say it's "not worth including." I see it as a defining characteristic and serves to show the real spirit of Bruce Wayne, someone who in many aspects always wants to do the noblest, purest thing, but never takes credit for doing so by putting on a facade that suggests quite the opposite. I say put it back in, modified if you like. -- Soapergem ( talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the tag you put on the article. If it was due to me, I actually just finished. Sorry about that. I was asked by one of the main authors to do a copy-edit, and didn't think to put a major edit tag. If you placed it there for some other reason, please disregard my ramblings. :) Silverwolf85 ( talk) 09:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. In any case, I should have added the tag a while ago when I started my edit... Sorry about that. Good luck with your edit, and I'll see ya around! Silverwolf85 ( talk) 09:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any audio editing software? I wanted to use Nasty (song) as an audio sample for the main article for its use of triplet swing and for it autobiographical nature, but it needs to be reduced by 5 seconds to comply with policy. The first 5 second to be exact. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Any chance FAC would just...ignore the fact its a tad long? >_> The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I could nominate it today? It seems as if any remaining details would be small enough to take care of during FAC. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a former Acquaintance of Sarah Hudson (singer) and I absolutely love her new band Ultra Violet Sound. Listen to Brainwashed...its one of the greatest songs ever!

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

- explains that we do not capitalise non-pronouns after the first word in the genre box. I thought you would've known this? "alternative rock" isn't a pronoun, mate. And Cobain is, I think we'd all agree, more well known for grunge than AR. What's your rationale behind the changes? I also recommend that you start using edit summaries so users know what you're doing. It's a common courtesy :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 09:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply please. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 10:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

am i wrong? Top it. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 10:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh nice. Do you have a favoutire version of born to tun bty. I'm inclining toward the frankie version, but you know me; easily swayed. Long time no talk by the way. Su'p with dat? (The Irish equv. is "starry bird"...ie "Whats the story, bud". ( Ceoil ^sláinte 11:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Electro so, since you ask [5], [6], and the heric [7]. I'm going trough a bigh 65daysofstatic phase at the moment - like mogwai but with out all the boring dirgy bits. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 11:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you are such a 90s guy Hear this]. (Have a listen to 2 many djs version also). ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably [8]. Oh and here is a grand Irish ballad. [9]. And great lost band Toasted Heretic. I recommend everything Heretic ever did. Ceoil ^sláinte 06:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, long time no speak. We can't be entirely sure Reeves wasn't also really interested in the role either. Alientraveller ( talk) 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)