Jump to content

Talk:John Frusciante/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Addiction: clarification

The article says John "was on the verge of full-scale addiction"

This has no meaning. It's like saying "she was almost pregnant." Any objections to changing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.216.208 (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Other musical projects

Although John is obviously most well known for being the RHCP guitarist, he has also pursued an interest in electronic music, having seen several Squarepusher shows and attending an English rave event called the Bang Face Weekender last year to see Squarepusher, he formed a collaborative venture called Speed Dealer Moms with breakcore artist Venetian Snares, which was to have made its debut performance at this year's Bang Face Weekender event (it didn't happen in the end due to technical difficulties, although they are rescheduling for August).[1][2]

I feel this side project should be of sufficient interest to include in the article, but since it's a Featured Article, I thought I'd better raise it in the talk page first rather than just wading in.--Mashcore (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Was sorry to miss this at Bangface (heard a rumour about Frusciante and Venetian Snares being unable to synchronise their equipment or some such). I think it's significant because it touches upon another side of the guy's musical output, as opposed to influences, that isn't really covered in the article. Mangajunglist (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I propose that the following picture be added to the point in the article where John rejoins the band:

[[3]]

Please someone who has privileges upload the file and link it accordingly (where I have already placed the box). It will help to visually show how John looked when he rejoined the band - which isn't otherwise apparent as the article is now. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmilani (talk • contribs) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


How can you have a picture of someone without seeing their face? Get the old one back where he is rocking out with the short hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.86.26 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I really like the new pictures. If you've seen John Frusciante, those are the best representation of him at his best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.235.102 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rolling stone list

The reference should be removed. It was a laughable list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.34.28 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 February 2007

It most certainly was - Brookman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.155.40 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 March 2007

Then please find other sources for his greatness (instead of fan ramblings, of course).--HJensen, talk 05:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It was indeed a rubbish list, i think they had Kurt Cobain and No.12...lolz Grt05 (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian

Why is there nothing on him being a vegetarian? It should at least be under trivia, and most devinately in the categories at the bottom.

Are you sure that he is an actual vegetarian? I remember in an interview a few months ago he was make steak on his George Foreman grill along with vegetables for the people coming over to interview him. It would not surprise me considering the way he lives now but it looks to be unwarranted unless he did in the last month.

I am 110% positive that he is a vegetarian. Maybe you misread the article, or maybe he was making steak for the interviewers?

I read the interview too and John cooked a steak for him and one for the interviewer. Even the interviewer got shocked by John's manners at the table pointing out that John salivated heavily at the moment of eating his steak, which for me is just adorable as it shows him as a real human being, and not a god as some people say (though sometimes I do too).

Richirare 23:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

John is not a vegetarian. He said it himself in a Classic Rock magazine. "I cook all my own meals. Mostly it´s vegetables but I´m not a vegetarian. There will usually be some grilled salmon or beef for protein. I steam the vegetables or roast them in olive oil. Ever since I started cooking for myself I´m reluctant to eat out,but if I have to,for a social reason,I´ll go to a local macrobiotic restaurant." Frubido 21:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The picture is kind of...whatever. I'm going to look for and add a new one. Comments? NSR77 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

New Mars Volta, with John...

Acording to the Mars Volta article, they are recording a new album with Fruscante. This should be confirmed, and, if proven true, added to this article.

I already posted something on it, but NSR77 thought it would be a better idea to hold off on mentioning it until the album is released. Apparently being mentioned on The Mars Volta's official site isn't good enough. Still, can't wait for that album to come out! Mattlittlej (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article could do with a major rewrite to get rid of the excessive POV of some comments, currently some parts read like a fan writeup. Also a lot of reference to how John feels/felt, which makes it sound like a 3rd person account rather than a factual article. Djbrianuk 00:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case I am missing something, this article currently omits the story of how Frusciante re-entered the Chili Peppers: it says that he left but not how (or that) he rejoined. Wasn't this because of the Village Voice (or something?). Anyway someone should add a few sentences. BScotland


"In July 2005, 13 unreleased songs leaked onto the internet. These songs are taken from the To Record Only Water era of Frusciante's solo career and are different, sometimes unmastered, versions of songs on the album." this is wrong, he released them as a free album "from the sounds inside", and its available on his website

No thats actually not wrong. There are 13 Tracks that were, exactally as he said, leaked from during the To Record Only Water period. "From the Sounds Inside" is the internet album you are referring to, which was all recorded more recently and is not related to the 13 tracks in question.

Possible revision: "In July 2005 13 unreleased songs leaked onto the intenet: six alternate versions of songs from Frusciante's To Record Only Water For Ten Days and seven previously unheard tracks recorded during that period."

I have to say, I agree with the POV statement - this article is filled with far, far too many POV sentences, and no citations. It's especially embarassing when almost every album seems to be "very well received" by fans or critics without any proof, there's hyperbole all over this. For instance, I could believe that "Niandra LaDes" might be his most popular solo album, but a statement like this doesn't belong here without some facts or sources. I'll start cleaning up as much as I can. --SevereTireDamage 09:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. While it is a very informative and well-structured article, it does have way too many POV statements. It could probably be remedied rather easily (but take time, of course)--HJ 09:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article still has a lot of problems in this department. Just a few of the many instances: under Career - Red Hot Chili Peppers ("profound technique", "...not as complex and multifaceted as it is on other works"). Also, additions like "He has been avidly listening to the "voices" in his head since childhood", while interesting, are unencyclopedic. 72.90.174.207 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

About the "voices", it is something he has often mentioned, and it is properly sourced in the article. I find it a relevant piece of information.--HJensen, talk 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Musical Influences

Perhaps the article could have an extra part to list those that JF has credited as being influences on his sound?

I just removed the sentence "He is officially the best guitarist ever." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusty8 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call, a bit of unnecessary POV there. --SevereTireDamage 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the bleep isn't David Bowie or T.Rex listed under influences? They should be right after Hendrix. Here is John in an interview explaining some influences [4] They are also inspirations for segments of Under the Bridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.85.123 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Does anyone know an article or interview source for the "Yertle the Turtle on a mixtape" and "boot marks" quotes at the top of the RHCP section? Any help filling in the "citations needed" points would be appreciated. --SevereTireDamage 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The "boot marks" comment comes straight from the RHCP "VH-1: Behind the Music" episode that I believe aired in conjunction with the release of "Californication".12.162.189.80 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Another interview: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OnMphi-ZXmE&mode=related&search=. VisitorTalk 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting interview. There wasn't a whole lot of relevant info that isn't already mentioned in the article though. Still, very interesting for any Frusciante fan. Grim-Gym 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Frusciante Images

I wondered whether this image was finally considered ready or appropriate for inclusion in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellowship S (talk • contribs) July 23 [5]

I don't mind it being in the article, but it should probably go into the Stadium Arcadium or Future sections, since it's a recent photo. Also, it's tall and looks somewhat awkward at the top of the page with the infobox and the TOC. --SevereTireDamage 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok cheers and I agree with it looking awkward. I will insert it next to the stadium acradium section if thats ok. --Mellowship S

I think the new infobox picture should not be used since it gives you no idea of what John looks like. -MatthewCasey (67.68.18.158) 21:05], 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for this article

This article is too large, and probably includes too much unencyclopedic information. I would very much like to hear input from other editors on some of these changes I would like to make:

  • Condensing 2004 recordings into a single section by moving all of the individual album information onto their respective pages, and just keeping the general information.
  • Excising the Gear section completely. While it just might barely be notable that Frusciante uses a large variety of instruments and equipment, it's unnecessary to have this much detailed information on every guitar and pedal he uses, not to mention almost all of it is completely uncited and unverified.
  • Discography - splitting this off into a separate article, such as John Frusciante discography. The thumbnails add too much to the page as well, I recommend having a Selected discography section with a text table with years and labels noted. Guest appearances, The Sounds Inside, Greatest Hits records and EPs don't necessarily need to be included in the main article, and most are mentioned in the article already, anyway. --SevereTireDamage 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I support all three proposals.--HJ 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Gear and discography sections removed. The article has gone from 43k to 34k, and I haven't even started moving the 2004 sections yet. For future editors wondering what was in the Gear section, here is the diff[6].
I'd also perhaps like to eventually make John Frusciante discography into a more formal article like Queen discography and get it away from the hideous gallery code, but maybe at some point later. --SevereTireDamage 06:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I visited the article only because I wanted some info on his gear, and was quite surprised not to find any, especially about a man who is so thoughtful about what gear he uses as John is. Lars Holm (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I condensed 2004 recordings like you guys said. It could probably do with even more. St. Jimmy 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources for 'Ruffneck Blues'

'Ruffneck Blues by The CMA'; wtf?

Google just return me to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarm (talk • contribs)

Wow. Turns out that was a one-off vandalism edit from way back in June and no one noticed it. Thanks for catching it. --SevereTireDamage 09:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mention of "By the Way"

As of today the article says:

"The band recorded By the Way in 2002, and it was generally well-received by critics and fans alike. It is generally considered their 2nd softest album to date, after Stadium Arcadium."

Isn't the whole thing speculative, POV and downright empty (not only the last sentence, but also the first)? If there is nothing to mention that sheds light on John's bio, then throw it out. I would favor deleting the section (from the discography one can already see that John played on "By the Way").--HJ 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. For now we can probably do with a brief mention with Californication. I was hoping someone would eventually expand this, since I don't know much about that specific album's release. The Wiki page for By the Way says that John had a much bigger influence on that album, though, to the point where Flea was aggravated (also among other factors) to leave the band. However, in the long run of John's career, BtW didn't have as much impact as Californication or Stadium Arcadium. --SevereTireDamage 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no way that Stadium Arcadium is their softest album. It's By the Way by a long way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.84.14 (talk • contribs) August 15, 2006

I would say this is irrelevant in any case. It constitutes POV and original research, so the deletion is warranted from that perspective as well.--HJ 12:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proper infobox

I added the project infobox which is current;y being adjusted to include more "guitar-technical" information and also a solo/guitar soundbyte. Anyone with any suggestions as to what snippet of music could be added to portray something special/unique about Frusciante's guitar style go ahead and post them here.(More than one can be added to the box) Anger22 10:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Past Recedes

Can someone add or mention The Past Recedes? I don't know from which album it was, but it was one of his more succesful singles. --Soetermans 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Both are from Curtains, and I see no reason for mentioning them.The Chicken 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That part about Anne wasn't by me. --Soetermans 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning because it's one of the few songs that he has done a video for. Im not sure if he has done any besides this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.73.129 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed

Some one vandalized it to say "GODOG" over and over I just reverted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.177.206 (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I removed the trivia section, which was either poorly written or vandalized (you know, the part about buckets being sexy and all that.)-- Geust. (72.84.84.111) 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

100 Greatest Guitarists

I removed the "highly controversial" part of the sentence in the intro. I don't know if it is controversial or not, but I do know that the statement wasn't sourced. Unless it's sourced, it becomes POV. Don't get me wrong; it's quite possible (probable, even, seeing the subject matter) that the list was controversial. It just needs a link to be in the wiki. ColbeagleTheEagle 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Too long.

John Frusciante is as popular as they come, but in reality, this article is too long. This is an encyclopedia, not a biography. Paralleluniverse 23:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's an encyclopedia article and a biography. This article needs major copy editing as it isn't featured or even GA quality but as article size go, 36kb isn't all that long.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 19:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. But still. Too much information. This article would be better off with a general discussion of his personal life, a general discussion of his career and impact, and a general list his solo work, his work with the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and his major collaboration and participation with other artists. The article has an overblown feel to it, unfortunately. Paralleluniverse 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuff

The stuff documentary is available online, so maybe "unreleased" is not such a good word? A google search for 'documentary stuff "john frusciante"' brings up a Tripod site and a YouTube link where you can watch the vids.--162.83.157.24 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Being on YouTube does not count as a release. A lot of pirated stuff are in circulation there. I don't know about Tripod. Possibly same story.--HJensen, talk 17:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Status

This article certainly has the possibility of acquiring GA status. What do some people think we could do to make it possible? NSR77 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"From the Sounds Inside" missing in Discography

Is there a reason why "From the Sounds Inside" is missing in the John Frusciante Discography Box? It is on the Discography page itself, but neither in the box (the one at the bottom of each John Frusciante page) nor in the chronology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Janzomaster (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Equipment

A lot of recent edits are focused on the specific colors, vintage and serial numbers of John's guitars and effects. The edits are all over the place, and all are unsourced. Could someone please provide some sources? If not, the stuff has to go --HJensen, talk 17:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Could people please comment here as to whether the equipment section should stay or not? I'd say it should go, per above.--HJensen, talk 10:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to source something that can't be sourced. I haven't seen anyone anywhere ever talk about his guitars. The only way to find out what he plays is from watching videos of him playing them. You can tell what year the guitars are from usually, too. I'm sure the person who made the equipment section is a good guitar player and knows enough to say what guitars he has. I'm going to put it back... Xihix 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If it cannot be sourced, then it cannot be in an encyclopedia. That is a quite clear policy on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. We cannot put on non-verifiable information just because someone is believed to be a good guitar player. The equipment section must be sourced. I am sure Frusciante has been interviewed about his gear in many professional Guitar magazines, so it is "just" a matter of doing some research into this. So I'll tag the section as lacking sources - not to be annoying, but to make a note of it and to encourage editors to provide sources.--HJensen, talk 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Sometimes, sourcing stuff like this pisses me off. It's common knowledge John uses this stuff! Watch any video of him with a guitar, you'll see him with one in that list. Jesus Christ! Xihix 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's gone now. I'll try to find an interview with at least some talk of what he uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PitchBrick (talk • contribs) 03:56, 27 May 2007

I added it back. My mate says he knows a website that lists some of his guitars, but he hasn't come home yet to tell me. Xihix 18:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! As it is now, nobody can have any confidence in it (hence, the tag). It has been changing over and over for the past couple of years (people has "discussed" vintage ofguitars, name of a color, string gauges etc. by edit reverts). It is therefore the last place I would look if I wanted reliable, detailed information about Frusciante's equipment (and sometimes I will, as I do not have "common knowledge" about the vintages of his Stratocasters; these are hard to discern from videos ;-) ). Having it sourced is a necessary condition for discussing whether it should actually stay (cf. what is also an objective of the talk page and this section of the talk page). My opinion is that it is way too detailed information for an encyclopedia. It would i.m.o. be preferable "just" with a sub-section in the article that described - without a list - which guitars Frusciante usually plays, and why.--HJensen, talk 07:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I sourced whatever I could for the equipment, hope it's good enough for you goody too shoes... Xihix 04:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Why this someone change his effetcs list. That is completely wrong. Whoever did it does not know anything. I have 7 pictures of his board. I will change it back and do not correct it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecoldsweetplums (talk • contribs) June 17


I have now corrected the effects list. Please could someone just source it to from the November Guitar player issue. Nico equipment list is very wrong. And also you can source it to Dave Rats Blog as he sent a couple of photos of his board. Cheers. Please do not change the effects list anymore. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecoldsweetplums (talk • contribs) June 17

It is difficult to take seriously what you say. You just put everybody down with "whoever did this does not know anything". Not very helpful attitude. And how can we know which source is right? The Nico web site, or sources you don't provide? Please be constructive instead of confrontational. --HJensen, talk 21:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source. ^ a b c d Barry Cleveland. "Red Hot Chili Peppers' John Frusciante", Guitar Player, November, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-05-02. But please do not change the infomation as it now stands completely correct. Just could someone source that to every on of his pedals if that is needed. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecoldsweetplums (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 June 2007

Sources are very much needed for pedals as well. Indeed, the discussion here is case in point for the need of reliable sources. If we don't have sources, things are not thrustworthy. If Wiki policy were adhedered to, the section should have been gone a long time ago. I will look into the source (which is already in the article, so I don't really get the point), but you need to inform us why the Nico source is not reliable (the way it is used, is not correct, as every instrument is sourced by the main page; this can be improved in ny case). Well, the section in general is a mess (as noted further down on this page). It is just an indiscriminate list. I think it should be turned into prose with focus on John's preference for vintage guitars. It would read much, much better and make the article shorter.--HJensen, talk 05:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at Gretsch White Falcon guitars and I have noticed that John's guitar is listed as being from 1955. This is 100% wrong. You can tell by looking at the pictures of him with it. The 1955-1957 version only has one selector switch and four control knobs. John Frusciante's has three knobs and two selector switches and hence it is from the period between 1958 and 1964 but I am unable to find out the exact year. There is a source from Nico that links (later on in the equipment section) to frusciante.net which is wrong. It calls the White Falcon 1955 and it also calls his 1962 strat a 1950's strat. This is an ureliable source. Can anyone help? Gibsoninside 17:43, 20 June 2007

Honestly, I think the whole equipment section is fine, except for the unsourced comment on that charity guitar. Everything else seems to be sourced well. Xihix 22:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Any reliable sourse for the vintage of his Gretsch White Falcon? The year 1955 was disputed recently, as has most guitars' vintage and color been over the past couple of years. That is why it is so hard to believe this stuff, unless it is sourced thorughly. And that is why we should continue working on this and not just be satisfied with a half-job done. The section has improved immensely over the past few months, but we should not be happy with it yet.--HJensen, talk 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, isn't frusciante.net good enough? In Scar Tissue (the book), it doesn't say the year, but it says that it cost 30 grand, and how excited John was to get it, calling it "Californication". Anyway, I'm sure if John was going to spend that much on a White Falcon, he'd get the earliest make it (1955)... Xihix 04:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Look a few paragraphs above. All I am saying is that 1955 has been disputed (and with some convincing arguments I should think). Also, the Nico source is questioned concerning a Stratocaster vintage. That is all I am saying. What I conclude from it, is that the equipment section still has a long way to go. It it not fine yet.--HJensen, talk 06:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a separate citation for the white falcon. I think we should consider removing the Gibson SG 1961 that was used for the Joy Division tribute concert. We can't cite it, and there's already a SG 1961 listed above it, so it needs to go. Also, the reliability of the citation on the newly added Epiphone Joe Pass Emperor II is quite dubious. We should consider removing that item as well. Aside from these things, the only thing that I can see that needs doing, is we need to clean up the effects section, removing every item that isn't directly mentioned in the cited article. Grim-Gym 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced by the White Falcon year even from his website. I no there is at least one mistake on that website anyway when they talk about Hillel Slovak asking him about what he would think of the chili peppers if they got really big but he said in an interview that it was a girl he was with. It even says it in the book Fornafication - which is one of their biography books. And I think that people should look at the points I made abve regarding how to spot a 1955 white falcon and they would see it's not from '55. The SG from the joy division one is dubious alright. If someone knew the year for it then they should be able to cite it. I think the citation for the Epiphone is fine Gibsoninside 24 June 2007

I removed every piece of equipment that wasn't cited. The equipment section is now totally accurate, although the formatting of it could probably be improved somewhat. Now that every piece is cited just let me stress this point once more: Please do not add an item to the equipment section unless you have a citation for it! Grim-Gym 05:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

John does not own the Epiphone guitar. He used it as a one off. It is not his and there is no point for it to be there. I will remove it. Also i will neaten the pedal list. And also his maple neck strat which says it is a 57 is in fact a 55, and his Gretch. It is a 57. Not 55. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.43.142 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 June 2007

1957 for the Gretsch is not what it says in the reference (John's webpage). So I changed it back. Given the doubts that has been cast about the vintage, we could consider losing the year?--HJensen, talk 16:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In the citation Guitar Player 2006, John states "But I found a way to approximate many of the sounds using an array of Moogerfooger pedals controlled with a couple of CP-51 Control Processors." Well, I could not find any such number. Instead, it is named CP-251;see here. Anybody has an opinion on this? Should we just leave it without a number? Moreover, this about writing "2x" or "x2" as to how many units he has of a given pedal, isn't that a bit over the top? At least it should be consistent. Also, about naming these products: Previously it was stated "Moog MF-101" - now it is "Moogerfooger MF-101". Isn't the previous correct? It is Moog that makes the pedals, and I thought that MF was shorthand for Moogerfooger. Finally, I could not find the "Moogerfooger Expression Pedals" in the Guitar Player citation. They were out in this revision - but back now. --HJensen, talk 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We have citations for the '55 White Falcon and the '55 Strat. Those years are correct. I propose that we remove this section entirely, because the information listed is overkill and it's making the article look very bad. I bet 95% of everyone who reads this article couldn't care less what kind of equipment he uses--I can only conceive a guitarist caring about this section--and those who do care have other ways of finding out. I propose that we remove the equipment section completely, and we only list 4-5 of his most notable guitars (listed specifically, by year) up top in the info box where random "notable guitars" are already listed. The equipment section is beyond repair at this point, and honestly has no place in this article. We all need to take a step back and realize that as I have.
P.S. Please take a look at the peer-review for suggestions on this and other issues. Grim-Gym 16:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree as I have all the way. It is a useless list of colors and vintages that people change all the time without citing. I have no faith in it. I LOVE John and is a passionate amateur guitarist myself, but I would never take this section for anything of value if I should seek reliable info about John. It has proven to be way too unstable. I have tried to help out, but I realize that it is too difficult to cite things properly, and therefore it cannot be in an encyclopedic article. John's affinity for vintage guitars could be mentioned in the article, though. --HJensen, talk 16:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The equipment section is honestly perfect and correct. It is now a very reliable source. Please do not remove it as it is fully correct and reliable and anyone can now see exactly what he uses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.43.142 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 June 2007

Ok mister unsigned comment, duly noted. You need to realize however, that nobody really cares "exactly what he uses". Sure, I care, and you care. Jensen cares. I'm a guitarist as well, and I'm quite interested in his equipment; but I didn't and wouldn't look to this article for info on what he uses. I'd go to his official site, or read his interviews with guitar magazine or something. As I said, nobody really cares, and this section is making the article as a whole look bad. It's sits like wretched mess of semi-accurate but irrelevant information at the bottom of a good article. In fact, it's inconsistent with high-quality Wikipedia pages about musicians, because you rarely if ever see an equipment section like this, and you'd never see an equipment section on a "good" or "featured" article. The section has to go. I wish we could figure out a way to keep it, but it has to go. Grim-Gym 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also, it is borderline absurd to say that the section is "fully correct". There is not even any distinction as to whether the equipment is what John has right now or something he has used, or whatever. It is, as I have stated before, an indiscriminate list. --HJensen, talk 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let the following record show the former and now defunct equipment section. This section has to be removed as per HJensen's above-mentioned Wiki article. Hopefully now this article can now move forward and continue progressing. Grim-Gym 23:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Equipment

Electric guitars

Acoustic guitars

  • Martin 1950's 0-15
  • Martin 1940's 0-15

Amplifiers and cabinets

  • Marshall Major 200W Head with KT88 Tubes
  • Marshall Silver Jubilee 2550 Heads
  • Marshall 4x12 cabinets with stock Celestions

Strings

  • D'Addario EXL110 .10 .13 .17 .26 .36 .46 gauges

Effects Stadium Arcadium Tour

  • Boss CE-1 Chorus Ensemble
  • Boss DS-2 DS-1 Distortion
  • Boss DS-2 Turbo Distortion
  • Delta Labs Effectron II digital delay
  • DOD 680 Analog Delay
  • Dunlop DB-02 Dime Custom CryBaby
  • Electro-Harmonix Holy Grail Reverb
  • Electro-Harmonix Electric Mistress Flanger
  • Electro-Harmonix Big Muff Pi or Electro-Harmonix English Muff’n
  • Electro-Harmonix Polyphonic Octave Generator
  • EMT 250 digital reverb
  • Ibanez WH-10 Wah
  • Moog MF-105 MuRF
  • Moog MF-105b Bass MuRF
  • Moog MF-101 Low-Pass Filter
  • Moog MF-103 12-Stage Phaser
  • Moog MF-102 Ring Modulator
  • Moog CP-51 Control Processor


Ok. But the effects list is a bit wrong. Please trust me on this because i know every pedal on his board, because i have 7 pictures of it. Some of those he has used on the album, but are not on his live pedalboard. Here is what is.

  • Boss CE-1 Chorus Ensemble
  • Boss DS-2 Distortion
  • Boss FV-50 Volume Pedal
  • Electro-Harmonix Holy Grail Reverb
  • Electro-Harmonix Big Muff Pi or Electro-Harmonix English Muff’n
  • Electro-Harmonix Deluxe Electric Mistress
  • Ibanez WH10 Wah
  • Moog MF-105 MuRF
  • Moog MF-105b Bass MuRF
  • Moog MF-101 Low-Pass Filter
  • Moog MF-103 12-Stage Phaser
  • Moog MF-102 Ring Modulator
  • Moog CP-251 Control Processor
  • Line 6 DL4 Delay Modeler
  • Line 6 FM4 Filter Moldeler
  • Digitech PDS 1002
  • Digitech Whammy IV
  • Guyatone VTX Vintage Tremolo
  • Mostrite Fuzzrite
  • Mxr Micro Amp

There we go. Now it's neater to. How shall i say who i am when i don't have an account?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.43.142 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 June 2007

Try creating an account. Moreover, Wikipedia is, fortunately or unfortunately, not about trust, but about providing reliable citations for facts (and there is no such thing as a "Moog CP-51 Control Processor"; see above).--HJensen, talk 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. It's a CP-251. http://www.moogmusic.com/detail.php?main_product_id=12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.43.142 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 June 2007

Does it matter if the above list is wrong or correct?...eh, I'm not going to bother--it doesn't matter to me at least. But yeah, you should create an account. This article needs some serious help in some other areas and we'd be overjoyed if you'd like to take a crack at a few things. Grim-Gym 17:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it does matter if its wrong, because then your giving wrong information to people who want to know his equipment. And if its correct like it is now, then theres nothing to worry about. I'm only doing this so that people can see the correct list of equipment, because in the past there have been some very big mistakes. I'll go and make an account now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.43.142 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 27 June 2007

Great, but making a lot of unsourced changes to a list does not help anything. What you add is not remotely verifiable, and even on talk pages, such things should be deleted per policy on biographies on living people. So don't waste your time anymore. You have said so many times that everything is correct now and so on, and still you make changes upon changes. The credibility of all this is completely non-existant.--HJensen, talk 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No need to get upset Jensen--I agree with you though. However, it's not worth talking about anymore because the equipment section is no longer a part of the article. I just posted it here so there'd be a record of it. As far as I'm concerned, this dude can make as many changes as he likes to the record of it--it doesn't matter. If we can all please move on and start giving other sections of this article some much-needed attention. Grim-Gym 23:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but don't worry; I'm not actually upset. Fortunately, it takes more than a couple of Moog pedals to raise my blood pressure! :-) --HJensen, talk 07:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's for the best that the equipment section has been taken out. It would've just resulted in many more dissagreements between Frusciante fans. Gibsoninside 29 June 2007

I removed the equipment section again. Xihix put it in with the argument that it is well sourced. The above discussion shows clearly that it is not. Xihix has frequently stated that it is well sourced (or "just fine"), and one day later a major edit is made on a vintage or a pedal. This is beyond opinions. The section is therefore highly unstable, unreliable and an indiscriminate list (please look up that wiki-link). Can we now move on please?--HJensen, talk 09:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate Jensen's point here to close this topic once and for all: The following article contains Wikipedia policy justifying the removal of the equipment section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#INFO Not only is the section too subjective, as it would be nearly impossible for everyone to be content with the section--valid citations or not, but the section is an indiscriminate collection of seemingly random information, irrelevant to the average user. If we don't remove this section, there's no reason why it couldn't turn into a monstrous list of every piece of equipment he's ever used. Best case scenario, this section could eventually become a random collection of valid and properly sourced information; even then, it's inclusion would be drastically harmful to the whole of the article. Grim-Gym 18:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You need an Equipment section in this artical! 18:10, 21 July 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.81.185 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 July 2007

i have a link and reliable source for frusciante's gear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frusciante i also have a magazine which says the colours of the instruments which isnt part of this link but in this one http://invisible-movement.net/v/magazines/2006/07guitarworld/GWpage06.jpg.html which shows his other 2 strats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.221.228 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 August 2007

i know the whole thing about his epuipment is over but his White Falcon is called a '55 in so many places (not just on wikipedia) i think that someone will find the following link interesting. He says himself that his Gretsch White Falcon is not a '55, it's actually from 1957 (as someone said above i think) and also Vincent Gallo used to own it. Gibsoninside 19:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 

http://www.invisible-movement.net/articles/2003/06-guitarist/4/

every other remotely recognizable guitarist has their gear on their page, so im going to put down the gear john used for the recording of Stadium Arcadium, and i have a reliable source. if anyone disagrees, thats fine, but all other guitarists have their gear, and i think john should too. this is the link http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/red-hot-chili/Sep-06/23160 as well as the 2006 july guitar world Chunky Monk 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that list should be there. The article is great as of now (no coincidence it has reached FA class), and no need to put in a list of his gear from the recent RHCP album/tour.--HJensen, talk 11:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Would someone be able to change the references to the White Falcon being called a '55 using the link a few lines above to the invisible-movement website please? It comes straight from John Frusciante's own mouth that it's a '57 but I'm not that good add adding sources to the main article. I can't do it up to the standard of the other sources so could someone else do it for me please? I think there's only 1 reference at the moment and that's near the end of the 1st paragraph of the "musical styles" section. Thanks (in advance for whoever does it). Gibsoninside 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen more sources stating that it's a '55 than '57. A few of which aren't just from fansites. I asked Iva at invisible movement where that interview originated so I could verify it, but I never got a response. If you can find another source for it being a '57 model, then I'll be glad to reference that. Grim 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the link to my website keeps on getting deleted from this article? That's childish....this should be a Wikipedia article, not a competition and not a SEO feeding source for other websites. The neutrality is disputed, indeed...it is from my point of view as well. I do understand that you'd delete a D-class fansite with only screencaptures and material taken from other websites or something that does not contain of any important information, but I run a decent site and I don't understand why it gets deleted while the other two major non-official sites always remain linked. As this should be an encyclopedia for everyone, I am considering reporting this; as it's unethical and unfair. This is biased. If something has "fansite" in its name, that doesn't mean it's not relevant enough. ---Hardtana 06:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand--you're disputing the neutrality of the entire article because we wouldn't let you link your own fansite in the links section?
I'd dispute the neutrality of an article if it allows users to link their own fansites. This is hardly a reason to dispute the neutrality of the whole article, so if you can't clarify your case, we'll have to remove the notice. Grim-Gym 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently it was anonymous user who flagged the article for tone and neutrality. I don't know if it was you without signing in, or if it was someone else. If I can't get a response of any sort to this discussion by--let's say, half a day or so--I'll just go ahead and remove the neutrality dispute. The tonal dispute might be slightly more legitimate so perhaps we can engage in that discussion a bit further. Grim-Gym 03:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do go ahead. The anon IP tagging the article did mention in this page why (see above under POV section). One of the examples, was not legitimate imo (the "voices in the head" thing, which I sourced som time ago). I don't think the article is that bad in terms of POV as of now. At least not enought to warrant the tags. --HJensen, talk 11:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I must agree, I'm not seeing a neutrality problem here. Hardtana, I would suggest that if you feel the site you run would be relevant as a link then the burden is on you to explain what is relevant about it and cite wikipedia policy that supports your claim. Col.Kiwi 19:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
HJensen, I am sorry if I overreacted, please do accept my most sincere apology; I connected some things to some other things and I apparently was wrong! My site is invisible-movement.net and I think it does have all the qualities needed to be displayed with the other two you linked, as it's more than a fansite, it's an archive. A fansite would probably be a lame collection of stolen photos and a couple of illegally used mp3s, I think I serve the fans' community with much much more. And just to clear up, it wasn't me who flagged the article, I never do anything anonymously, that would be a thing a coward would do and I think that IP originates from another part of the world, anyway. I don't think I even know how to flag it. I am just kindly asking for my link and offering help with everything else I could help with. I wrote the Serbian version of the article on John and I respected this one so much that I didn't copy it, while the most of other regional editions of Wikipedia did. I hope I made more sense now? I don't want to be an enemy or to appear as someone who holds grudges, I want to be a contributor.
Invisible.Movement.net is a really good source. Its as up to date and as worthy as any other JF site out there. BTW Hardtana, is that you Iva? if so this is dylan from the boards. Cdylan13 21:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry this is the first link http://www.guitarplayer.com/story.asp?storycode=15789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.221.228 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 August 2007

Editing and cleaning up article due to tonality/neutrality dispute.

In light of this tonality flag and the questionable neutrality dispute (which I cleared up), I have begun reworking (rewriting in a few instances), editing, and neutralizing the article, starting at the top. If anyone wants to dispute or question any of these changes, please do so in this thread. Grim-Gym 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've finished my complete overhaul of this article. I believe that it's pretty solid now, but let me know if you find any errors or would like to dispute any of the changes I made. Grim-Gym 07:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I've nominated this article for a peer-review. I would like to eventually nominate this article for featured-status, but first I think we need some outside opinions on this article so we can further improve and strengthen it. Grim-Gym 05:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A very helpful response has been posted to this peer-review (check the link at the top of this page), everyone should check it out and see what sort of changes could be made to the suggested areas. I can't do all this myself, so any help would be awesome. Grim-Gym 17:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Equipment again

This page has been tampered with! This article used to have the list of John Frusciante's instruments and equipment. They have been removed! The Jimi Hendrix article has the instruments, amps, etc, he used. This needs to be reposted and whoever removed it should be blocked from editing this page. It is awful that a wikipedia contributor wants to get credit for editing an article by removing information.

Thephysio 18:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. --PEJL 19:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
And please remember to assume good faith and not throw around threats like this. A lot of people has put a lot of serious efforts into this! --HJensen, talk 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The defunct equipment section was an indiscriminate list of information often hotly-disputed information unbefitting of an encyclopedia. It's my opinion that the Jimi Hendrix article is inferior to this one, and it's equipment section is hardly evidence to support the inclusion of an equipment section. However, with that said, I do think it would favor the whole of the article to create a "Musical style and influence" section, where perhaps some of his equipment could be mentioned within prose. If you or--anyone else for that matter--would like to focus your zeal toward creating this new section, that would be great. Grim-Gym 23:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Did John play the harmonica on "The Past Recedes?" The video for that shows a momentary glimpse of what looks like an analog modular synthesizer, and towards the end of the song is what sounds like a mandolin. VisitorTalk 16:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think John plays harmonica—at least not that I know of. Grim-Gym 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We need more images within the prose.

I just noticed that we need many more images integrated within the article. Adding images is not my area of expertise, so if someone could assist us in this area that would be great. I'm not sure, but I think a lack of images within the article could hold us back when I nominate this article for GA status. The sooner we can get this done the better; but remember to consider copyright and fair-use rationales. Grim-Gym 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, album covers should not be included for fair use reasons. --PEJL 00:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This article used to have many more images but they have been removed by someone. I wonder if that person or anyone else can explain why the pictures were removed and not replaced with new ones. Gibsoninside 21:30, 17 July 2007

The images were probably copyrighted. We could get some fair-use or public-domain pictures, but I need a bunch of help with this. Unfortunately, at the moment nobody seems care about working on this article but me. Grim-Gym 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Solo career section (2004 recordings and album sections)

The 2004 recordings section is a mess and I am going to give it a complete overhaul. The peer-reviewer said that portions of it seem more like trivia and I agree. The little factual tidbits on each album are quite unencyclopedic, and need redoing. Sans objections from anyone, I should have this section revamped within a few days. Grim-Gym 04:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

When I recently edited the Smile and Niandra Lades pages, I noticed that this page has a ton-and I mean a ton-of information that isn't appropriate for his biography. Most of the information, including the information I recently added to these pages, is more far more appropriate for their respective album pages. This article has become quite bloated as well and we need to trim the fat. Grim-Gym 12:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to begin heavily editing and altering the format of this article. Information not pertinently related to the subject of John Frusciante-such as most if not all of the Mother's Milk section, should and will be removed and heavily edited. Grim-Gym 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

John and Vintage Guitars

Even though the equipment section is gone, I think we should have some mention about John's preference to have vintage guitars, all pre-1970. Or, would this not be encyclopedic enough? Xihix 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning on adding a "Musical style and influences" section where some of his equipment could be mentioned. If you feel like going to work on this then please do. I'm pretty much doing everything myself here and I'd love some help... Grim-Gym 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh, if you make the section, I'll write something up. What kind of source would do? The source from frusciante.net, that show the age of his guitars and all his guitars, would that do? Or would you want some article type source? Xihix 03:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That would do for the equipment citations. We should forgo the Nico page though, because it's somewhat controversial. I don't have content for this section in order yet, and I can't create a blank section for obvious reasons. I'm going to focus on cleaning up the "solo career" section before I go to work on a new section. You can go ahead and start writing something up though, by all means. If you don't want to create the section and post your changes yourself, you could post your content here and I'll work through it when I get enough content together. But go ahead and write something up because it would feel great to know that someone other than me is working on this. Grim-Gym 04:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Do not use information from frusciante.net because it is not a reliable source as much of the information is wrong and outdated. And if you are going to add about his choice of vintage guitars, John has said in the making of the By The Way making of video about this and in many interviews he will say that he doesn't play guitars after 1970. moogerman 17:57, 26 July 1007

Alternative Music Project of the Week.

Before I get into this, I must thank everyone who selected this article for collaboration of the week—I thought I was being ignored. That said, I've been sort of flying solo on this, and been putting a bunch of effort into everything from the "early life to the "return" sections, and I think the aforementioned portion is pretty tight. The solo career section desperately needs to be overhauled. Copyediting, condensing, then perhaps a slight addition of content to supplement the changes. Aside from this, the lead section could be expanded a bit, but I'm not sure if that's totally necessary. The only final thing that needs doing is the creation of a "musical style and influences" section, which, if we can actually address the other points I mentioned, could be dealt with a bit later on.

Oh, and the one very important thing that I don't have the wherewithal (as yet) to address, is adding pictures and soundclips into the article. If we manage to address this and the solo career points I made, then I'll be a very happy man. Thanks! Grim-Gym 05:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What I think needs to be done is that the separate sections for his time with the Chili Peppers and his solo career should be merged together and reworked so everything flows chronologically. WesleyDodds 07:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The sections actually were somewhat merged together at one point but I reconstructed that aspect of it a bit. In my defense however, it was much more of a mess before. I don't think this point will be that difficult to accomplish, so perhaps it can be done quickly so we can work on other things. As a matter of fact, I think I'll go ahead and reorder it real quick just so things will be on the right track. Grim-Gym 13:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've restructured the article. Now if we can just copyedit the hell out of it—mainly the return section—then this aspect of the article will be in good shape. Grim-Gym 13:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll do a proofreading of this article later today. I think it might be ready for Good Article Candidates nomination soon. WesleyDodds 21:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't nominated it for GA yet is because I wanted to get my "style and influences" section up first. But it really doesn't matter at this point. I wanted my new additions to be reviewed during GA because I have a hard time getting attention for this article. The tail-end of the article is starting to look better, I should add. Grim-Gym 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A separate styles and influences section can come later; as long as you're covering those topics to some extent in the biography, it would be suitable for GA class. WesleyDodds 01:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll plan on submitting it for GA at the end of this collaboration. Grim-Gym 02:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
If someone could go through the article and add "citation needed" tags where necessary, that could be helpful. I've put them everywhere I've deemed necessary, but I think I'm working too closely with the article to notice everything. Also, if someone wants to give me a few tips on how to incorporate songclips into the article, I could try doing that. Grim-Gym 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article's started to stagnate again, so I think maybe I'll nominate it for GA now. Grim-Gym 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote number 6 (linking to something called Slovakopedia.com) doesn't seem like an appropriate source. Can you find something better? WesleyDodds 06:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm yeah, I guess that source isn't the best. The only site on which I can find the same quote is here, which is not really a great source either. If you think I should remove the quote, I will. Grim-Gym 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the quote. It was a bad citation; good eye. Grim-Gym 22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been a good week. Thanks for everything. Grim-Gym 05:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GA On hold because...

While I think that the article is very interesting, I am holding the GA nomination for these reasons:

  • It uses quotes too much (although a few quotes are fine or even necessary)
  • The Discography section is empty and it should be filled. It shouldn't be a fifty line explanation, something like John has realeased such and such number of albums since such and such. Such and such album was the best selling."

I look forward to seeing the changes and making it a good article soon. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed three of the five quote blocks. I feel that the two remaining quote blocks are crucial to the article, but if you still have a problem with them, I'll definitely work with it. Do I need to cut down on the inline quotations as well, or were you just referring to the blocks? Thanks for your consideration. Grim-Gym 18:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I added a table to the discography; it's complete as well as succinct. I chose not to add prose to this section because I feel that's better suited for the discography page. My work here is done pending an objection. Grim-Gym 01:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I just passed it into GA. In the process, I changed the lead (to remove the phrase well known for ...). I now feel that the issues I have brough up have been handled. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ataxia Shows

I believe the Ataxia performances were at Hollywood's Knitting Factory, not NY. 67.88.146.162 01:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) JD

You're absolutely right. Good eye. Grim-Gym 04:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Current projects

We have to remove everything in the article concerning his upcoming albums. None of this info is citeable and it's not presented in a context consistent with an encyclopedia either. I'm going to start a "styles and influences" section very soon, and there are going to be some major changes. So if anyone wants to dispute or question a change, please address it here on this talk page. Grim-Gym 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Musical style section(s)

I've added a raw section to the article of just quotes from a few sources. We need to work on converting the rough quotes into prose. I've done the article down to the first few sentences—you should be able to tell what's been converted and what hasn't. Anyone who wants to help doing this is more than welcome. The additions are certainly not in great shape as of right now. Grim-Gym 23:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice start. It should ultimately include discussion of his singing style and songwriting style, not just guitar playing. VisitorTalk 16:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a real good idea, it'll take some work though. Grim-Gym 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the Kiedis book

Just for the record: By Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations it follows that a book should have a full citation, but subsequent cites can use a short-hand form. So we should provide the full monty for Scar Tissue first time, and then the short-hand form (which I, BTW think should be "Kiedis, with Sloman, Scar Tissue, p. xxx". I.e., emphasis is on no full co-authorship, and emphasis is on title (more recognizable) rather than year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJensen (talk • contribs) 06:35, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

It's a very loose co-authorship, mind you. Sloman's job was to gather information and relay quotes and certain accounts of situations Kiedis could not completely remember. NSR77 TC 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You are probably right. In any case, we need to stick with the information on the book. There, it is Anthony Kiedis with Larry Sloman, where the "with" instead of "and" indeed indicates a subordinate role for Sloman, than a regular co-author.--HJensen, talk 21:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not that big of a deal, either way; Sloman should be included, though. NSR77 TC 22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

John tours

I suggest a new article with John tours information & dates of past shows, just like Tool tours, this could be cool :)--César 20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think John tours enough to justify an article like that. Grim-Gym 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Also, just having an article listing a bunch of dates is not encyclopedic. That is, e.g., for a fan-site to provide (which then could be quoted in a wiki article if necessary).--HJensen, talk 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I feel it is unencyclopedic and rather detaching from the seriousness of the article. NSR77 TC 21:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

For those of us who consider IPA pronunciation a foreign language, would someone mind spelling his name phonetically so I can understand how to pronounce it? Many thanks, 84.66.151.250 00:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Froo-shawn-tee Grim 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Or Froo-shawn-tay depending on one's own pronunciation. NSR77 TC 21:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Brown Bunny

NSR77: The album requires a source? Please explain how to source this information correctly.Tparameter (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you could find something Frusciante said regarding his involvement, something Gallow said about the soundtrack or maybe a magazine published an article on this event. Anything like that would suffice. NSR77 TC 18:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Read song credits on the album. Tparameter (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, what event? Tparameter (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've cleaned the info up a bit and added the source. Thanks for identifying it! NSR77 TC 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not sold on the fact that every sentence needs a source listed. For example, the entire first paragraph is unsourced, is contains much more substantial information than my contribution. Why? Tparameter (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Lead sections do not need to be sourced, as the information is simply a summary that will be rehashed (sourced) later on in the article. Furthermore, I'm sorry to say but whether or not you are "sold" on the fact that everything needs a source is irrelevant. On the chronology: one can't say something was released in May 2004 and then jump back in time to February 2004. Compromise with me here by putting it at the end of the paragraph. NSR77 TC 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
On the collaboration, however, one can say that a collaboration existed for a movie that was released in 2003 - and that collaboration happened prior to the release of that movie - though, the soundtrack wasn't released until May 2004. It is inaccurate to say that the collaboration happened after the Fugazi project. Please don't change it again. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding sourcing, I understand that facts simply have to be verifiable, and that is the standard. It seems ridiculous to source every little minute detail, especially when the details are published elsewhere in an easily verifiable way. If I'm editing this article, it would help if I were sold on an idea that I don't understand, that's all I'm saying. Remember, this is a community effort. Tparameter (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't turn this article into a mess. Grim (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've brought the new addition up to the article's standards. Thanks for the addition. Grim (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you're making it a mess. The Brown Bunny movie was released in 2003. JF and VG collaborated prior to the release of that movie. Therefore, because THE ALBUM was EVENTUALLY released in May 2004, does not mean that the actual collaboration occurred after the Fugazi project started. The chronology is screwed up and inaccurate. I'll fix it one more time. Tparameter (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, let's be friendly here. The section sounds better with Grim's copyedit. As long as it states "2004" and follows with "February 2004" instead of "March 2004" to "February 2004" it's fine. NSR77 TC 22:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's appropriate for the chronology to follow the album's release dates. The rest of the article does that and this addition will do that as well. If you disagree then we'll take a vote and the majority will rule. Grim (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Do what you want, but know that your words, "Later that year, Frusciante helped his friend Vincent Gallo, by providing five songs for Gallo's film The Brown Bunny", are false. It wasn't later that year, 2004. In fact, it was at the very earliest, in late 2002 or early 2003. Gallo specific talks about listening to John's songs during the filming of the movie, using his songs as inspiration. This is said in the booklet for the album. So, when you say that he provided the songs after February of 2004, it is absolutely wrong and false. No need to vote, however. I'll drop it, for now - but, please understand that this is the type of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. You should at least rewrite it, though. Tparameter (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing, what you say about the chronology of the release dates is a good point. Note that Ataxia: Automatic Writing was released AFTER The Brown Bunny soundtrack. So, my chronology stands in either case. Automatic Writing (August 2004), The Brown Bunny Soundtrack (May 2004). Of course, that makes sense. The order is, (1)Gallo/JF collaboration, (2)Fru/Fugazi, (3)Brown Bunny ST released, (4)Ataxia AA released. You have it as 2,1,3. Tparameter (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
We need a verifiable reference for when he specifically wrote the songs for the film. Otherwise, the article should say "Frusciante helped his friend Vincent Gallo, by providing five songs for Gallo's film The Brown Bunny, which was released in 2004". There's no disputing the release date of the film, so go with that if you can't determine exactly when Frusciante worked on the songs. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the film was released in 2003, which is the point. It makes it obvious that the collaboration was prior to February 2004 - though, the album wasn't released until May 2004. In either case, the current chronology is wrong. I gave up trying to correct it; but, maybe you are more persuasive.Tparameter (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The film was shown at Cannes in May of 2003. Given that the film was produced in 2002, at the latest, then John gave Gallo the music in 2002, at the latest. Tparameter (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is unless you are absolutely sure when they collaborated, go with the film's release date or the soundtrack's release date. Right now you are largely using educated guess to determine when it occured, which violates Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not an educated guess to say that the current article statement is wrong that Gallo/Fru collaborated after February 2004. Gallo says that he listened to the music during production, and the film was released in 2003. It's clear. Tparameter (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok let's settle this once and for all. If you read the article, you hopefully noticed that the chronology of the Ataxia information (first paragraph of the "2002–present" section) is oriented to the time the band spent recording the album (February 2004), not when the album was released. The following information pertaining to The Brown Bunny is geared towards the soundtrack and not the film. This is due to the fact that Frusciante contributed to the soundtrack and not the film. As with all the albums mentioned in the article (save for the Ataxia information which is unusually cut-and-dry), the chronology follows the release date and not the time spent creating the music. This is due to the fact that it's far more solid and reliable to set chronology to follow actual, substantial release dates. Given this setup, the Brown Bunny soundtrack was released in May 2004; chronologically following the Ataxia information. I thank you for your contribution—I'm glad The Brown Bunny information is now mentioned in the article. Addressing this issue further would be an exercise in redundancy. Grim (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then don't mention WHEN he contributed the music if you're not going to say accurately when it was. That's the problem, what you said is inaccurate. Just change the wording. Tparameter (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You'd do well to work on being less abrasive. Grim (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
True enough. But, you didn't exactly start this very well either. Tparameter (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Two events are discussed: 1) JF giving Gallo songs, and 2) The release of the soundtrack. Don't mention that they both happened in 2004, because it's not accurate. Furthermore, don't say that the soundtrack to the movie "coincided" with the movie. The soundtrack was subsequent to the movie. Tparameter (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude. Read my revision. If you have trouble reading, get an adult to help you. The only event discussed is the release of the soundtrack. Frusciante officially provides the songs to the soundtrack when it's released. You're on crack if you think you can dispute that. I orchestrated it that way, and it's been seamlessly integrated into the article. Now, since you're being belligerent, let's break down why your version is unacceptable:
Ok. The first issue here is that Gallo is the subject of the sentence, rather than Frusciante. This not only contributes to the confusion of the paragraph, but runs contrary to the rest of the article. Second issue, the film The Brown Bunny is irrelevant to the article because Frusciante did not contribute to it. If that isn't bad enough, the paragraph falls apart from there. It's not relevant to the scope of this article that the songs were on the soundtrack but not the movie—that can go on the soundtrack page. The fact that Gallo used the tracks for "inspiration" is not only irrelevant and has no place in this article (it belongs in the film's page), but it's presented in an overblown, sanctimonious and POV manner. Let's just stick to the one event—the soundtrack's release date. Everything else is irrelevant to this particular article, and belongs elsewhere. As I said, your initial contribution has been felt, and will hopefully stand as long as the article does; but you've got to learn when to stop. Please don't edit this section of the article without reaching a consensus on this talk page. If I've offended you, you deserved it. Grim (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Tparameter, I highly suggest you read the following guidelines to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia: WP:NOTE, WP:OR and especially WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. NSR77 TC 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I read them. Now, how am I being uncivil? Read above - it looks like I'm being attacked.Tparameter (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Note, from WP:CIVIL, the following infractions were directed at me:
  • Rudeness
  • Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap")
  • Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice (cite as WP:SKILL)
  • Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)
  • Personal attacks (a serious infraction)
True, or not? I'm not whining - and I didn't bring up WP:CIVIL. I'm simply wondering why I'm the focus of the accusation, particularly after the belligerent rant above (pun intended). Tparameter (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I could probably stand to re-read the civility article. Lol. Grim (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Grim, I'm not going to play your ad hominem game, except to say, thanks for the irony (regarding belligerence). On topic, I am JF's #1 fan (or, thereabouts);]. I'm bringing surprisingly absent information to the article, and you're fighting me the whole way. John's work on BB ST is amazing, and worthy of mention - but, it has to be accurate. Gallo says that he listened to the music John gave him DURING PRODUCTION OF THE MOVIE. This means that your words "Later that year" (2004), are inaccurate. I'm just asking that you change the wording so that it's not inaccurate - but, you refuse. I've tried several different versions, all of which you criticized rabidly. I don't know why - but, why don't you at least try to repair my objection, since you don't like my attempts. Lastly, it's important that the soundtrack is SUBSEQUENT to the movie. You said they coincided; which, again, is inaccurate. By the way, your work on the article is wonderful - but, please remember that Wikipedia is a community effort. EDIT: I say "Later that year" is inaccurate, only in that John actually "provided" the songs prior to 2004.Tparameter (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
All of John's work is incredible, not just the soundtrack stuff. Regardless, please provide a source where Gallo specifically says he listened to Frusciante's music for inspiration during the filming, or else this is all unverifiable and could be seen as something you pulled out your ass (which I'm sure isn't true, but you see the necessity for sources). Although Wikipedia is a community effort, I disagree with you. The information should be in here, but not the way you describe it. The current revision (Grim's if it is no longer standing) is what I believe to be most accurate. NSR77 TC 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the booklet in the album, The Brown Bunny. Gallo explains about listening to the music during production, "every day". Furthermore, he notes how he chose not to use the music in the film, which proves furthermore that he had the music before the film was officially released in 2003. My point is, again, that a compromise would be not to mention WHEN John provided the music. Tparameter (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"... I started the production of The Brown Bunny from the excitement I had hearing the music John was making... Every day I listened to John's music... Along with us (in the van during filming) was a CD of the music John had made for the film. Every day I would listen to John's music as I filmed... I would listen to his music again and again and think about the film...", Gallo, Booklet from TBB soundtrack. Undeniable proof that John "PROVIDED" the music prior to 2004, contrary to the claims of otherwise. Tparameter (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Either way, John did "provide" the music because Gallo stated he listened to a CD. The only other option would be if John was actually there playing. NSR77 TC 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup. But, not in 2004, which is the entire point. The chronology is wrong. Of course he provided the music - that was my entire contribution to the article in the first place - John's music for the soundtrack. Again, the chronology is wrong. Tparameter (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The statement in question is, "Later that year, Frusciante helped his friend Vincent Gallo by providing five songs...", referring to 2004. This is wrong, by the evidence mentioned above, and by every conceivable bit of logic. I tried changing it several times to make it accurate, in several different ways, to no avail. Anyone? All songs were acquired/provided for the movie by the time the movie was released in 2003. That is a fact. Tparameter (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
When were the songs provided? Yes, it was by 2003. But when exactly? Saying "by 2003' just gives us a window by which to guess, not a proper date. If we can't determine that, then we should just go by the soundtrack release date. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Then say when the soundtrack was released without saying John provided the songs "Later that year (2004)" - which, again, is the point. That's the part that is inaccurate. I'll do the edit. Tparameter (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm just going to keep hammering the same point across until it makes sense. That's going to be my strategy here. Now, the keywords here are Frusciante contributed the songs to the soundtrack. You see, the subject of the sentence is the soundtrack, not the songs. The soundtrack is the only important thing here. That's what makes this notable. It doesn't matter when he gave the songs to Gallo. It doesn't matter if Gallo heard the songs prior to the release of the soundtrack. That's between Gallo and Frusciante and doesn't concern the scope of an encyclopedia. What's notable is that the songs were released. That is an event between Frusciante and the public. A dumbed-down version of the sentence as it stands could be: Frusciante's contribution in mid-2004, allowed Gallo's soundtrack 10 tracks, as opposed to the 5 that it would have featured otherwise. It's for this reason that the contribution follows the release of the soundtrack. The soundtrack's release is the only thing relevant to the scope of the article. Not whether or not Gallo had the tracks before hand. True or not, it's irrelevant to the article, and therefore irrelevant to its chronology. Grim (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you guys just went ahead and resolved this issue—which sucks because I was having fun. Well, best of luck to you in all your future endeavors, and happy holidays! Grim (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me summarize using your logic: Later on December 11th, the debate started and ended. (Since the end "is the only important thing", we'll pretend both things coincided).Tparameter (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it takes an advanced cerebrum to understand such an angle. You probably shouldn't respond to that... Grim (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok it's been real, but now we can put an end to this blessed thread. Maybe it can stand as a wiki-guideline on how not to handle a triviality. I like blazing trails... Grim (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Democracy and logic prevailed, which is not a new phenomenon. However, at least there is hope in the Wikipedia process, as evidenced by the successful addition of this important information - in an accurate way. We can all walk away feeling especially warm and fuzzy, with the holiday spirit, if you will. Tparameter (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse but this information is almost immaterial and borderline trivial. But that's not a conversation I wish to start. NSR77 TC 21:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you're beating the horse, I wonder if you think DC EP is immaterial and trivial - since it was only 4 songs. Either way, I'd say an album by an artist is material and non-trivial in an encyclopedia entry about that artist. Tparameter (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could contribute substantially to cheerleading? Just an idea. Tparameter (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Tparameter, I am very close to consulting an administrator as per your behavior. Please do not continue to instigate fights. NSR77 TC 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what your beef is - but, I replied directly to you beating the dead horse. Remember - the conversation you started, but said you didn't want to start? If you think that The Brown Bunny soundtrack is immaterial and trivial to this article, just say why. If you explain it, we can talk about it. But, don't beat a dead horse, a known method of starting a conflict, and then complain that I started a fight. Tparameter (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

His favorite time

Currently, the article reads, "Frusciante has frequently stated that his work on Californication is his favorite." Since he's made at least 8 albums since then, at the very least it should be changed from "is" to "was", and add the date he said it. A better idea would be to get rid of the outdated factoid altogether, since it's meaningless at this point. Tparameter (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source suggesting that another work is his favorite. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Californication isn't his favorite work. Provide some valid evidence and we'll likely change the sentence. Grim (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if you misunderstood - but, I never suggested any such thing, which is why I didn't provide a ref in the first place. Instead, I'm simply pointing out a sub-standard element in the article. This type of comment that he made in a guitar-mag interview, is a current event, a current feeling at the time of the interview. It's hardly reliable 8 albums and 6 years later. See what I mean? Tparameter (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you are offering an opinion—yes. Pragmatically however, there really is no reason to change this portion of the article. It's a relevant and insightful statement supported by a valid reference. Removing or editing such a thing would lower the quality of the article. However, as I said, if you have a problem with it, please provide a more recent reference that contradicts it. Valid references don't decay over time. The only thing that can invalidate a valid reference is contradictory evidence; if a reference is truly invalid, then contradictory evidence shouldn't be hard to find. Grim (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
How the sentence stands right now implies that that statement is still true and that it's verifiable. However, we can't verify that the statement is still true today, but we can't very that is it untrue either. The fact is still important to the article, but it should be included in a way that indicates that we don't know his current opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darky65 (talk • contribs)
It's not an encyclopedia's job to "guess" or "estimate" one's current opinion. All we can do is cite hard and verifiable sources that reflected absolute truth when they were said. I don't know if John still tries to meditate daily, but it's significant and verifiable. As an encyclopedia, we have to believe that it's true until contradictory evidence surfaces. Grim (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
First, when you wrap quotes around the words "guess" and "estimate", who are you quoting? Anyway, this isn't about guessing or estimating his current opinion, it's about knowing his opinion THEN, and NOT ASSUMING it's true now. These type of simple logical fallacies are part of why wikipedia will never be a reliable source. Tparameter (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
[Comment removed by the author]
If you guys "quit" misusing "quotes" - a "pet" peeve "of" mine - I'll think about it. That's "all" I can promise for now. BTW, have you and your crony ever read WP:OWN? Tparameter (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(Arbitrary page break) Tparameter you just continue to bring up extremely minor details. Unless there are any new sources that can disprove the current one, it stands. Articles don't just "expire". If Frusciante states something then it can not be disproved until he does such. NSR77 TC 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is fair as it is - so, only minor changes are needed. If he said he had so-and-so as a girlfriend in 1999, and there was no related news since, it could hardly be reported as fact. Instead, it should be labeled as having been true **at the time**. If you don't understand that logic, no big deal to me. Nevertheless, there is such a thing as timely information. Also, you wrap quote around "expire" - who are you quoting? Tparameter (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[Comment removed by the author]
Four people commented, and the opinion is split 50-50. So, if by "everyone" you are referring to yourself, then by all means quit participating if you think that it's a waste of time. Tparameter (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[Comment removed by the author]

(Outdent) Please keep the conversation civil here, gentlemen. There is no need to throw accusations of trolling around. No one is trolling - this is a content dispute. Telling people to go away or stop editing is plain uncalled for. No one here owns this article. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. There's a history of sensitivity with cases of WP:OWN. This particular case is better than the profanity-laced tirade I got on my talk page last time from this guy. Hey, I'm a fan of JF too, so I won't take it personally. Either way, this article is bloated and full of trivia - in some cases, potentially inaccurate trivia. That's why I'm here. Tparameter (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not okay. If you have a content dispute, discuss it here civilly. Grim, if you have a problem with Tparameter's conduct, discuss it with him civilly. If you can't talk it out, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is down the hall to the left. The next personal attack or uncivil remark I see will get you a block for your trouble. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well said Spike. I have been watching this from the sides, and think things are on the verge of getting out of hand over quite a minor detail. My input to the subject at hand is the following: The statement in question is: "Frusciante has frequently stated that his work on Californication is his favorite". First of all, the citation has an access date tagged to it, which is a bit irrelevant as it is not a web reference. Secondly, the word "frequently" suggests that he have said it more than once; hence one citation does not suffice. Thirdly, the statement is from 2002 and therefore it is representing his view at that time. Even if he never speaks of his favorite time ever again, it would be a service for the reader to provide the information that it was in 2002 he said it. It is additional and helpful information that in no way detract from the fine status that the article derservedly has obtained (due partly to Grim's hard work, which he/she should be proud of and not disgrace by harsh remarks concerning relatively minor details). To be clear: One does not need new references to improve a sourced sentence! --HJensen, talk 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
You have some good points. I'm curious - the sentence, "In 2001, Frusciante began recording his fourth album with the Chili Peppers, By the Way; a time that he considers to be among the happiest of his life." - do you think that a source from 2002 warrants the present tense term, "considers", which implies 12/26/2007? These sorts of things stick out to me, but I'm known to be picky. This would be considered a "major error" by some instructors in English that I know. A well-developed article may need fine-tuning. I think this one needs to be picked over from start to finish. Tparameter (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the sentence is good enough the way you reworded it. However, all information that has been written here has been taken from various sources. This talk page isn't really the appropriate place to discuss the "shelf life" of a source, though; perhaps WP:CITE would be better. NSR77 TC 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the shelf life of a source. The source was never in question. I'm talking about the proper use of these sources, and using the proper tense in writing - two very basic writing standards. Tparameter (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A few comments: Tparameter is just pointing out some (minor) improvements in the use of grammar for the article (past tense or not). I simply cannot see anywhere that he is questioning the sources at all. So why are you, NSR77 (and also Grim-Grym), the editors who took this great effort to bring this article to FA status, being so negative when it comes to suggestions about changes that others would routinely appreciate without any debate on a talk page? Your work per se is not decaying over time (to paraphrase Grim-Grym) even though the article gets improved a little bit. Think about it the other way round: The article is currently at a quality level where only minor changes can be improvements. That is not so bad. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 09:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(Page break) Oh, I'm not at all being negative. I hope that my comments don't assert such a nature. NSR77 TC 16:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Frusciante/Archive_1&oldid=1045945574"