User talk:-5-/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, -5-/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 14:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 20:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You continue to not fill in the edit summary. Please begin using it. Thanks, Kukini 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin. Nomination

"{{unblock|''The reason given for my block was "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by ".-.-.-.". The reason given for .-.-.-.'s block is: "user..." I have nothing to do with this user and would like to be unblocked. I noticed that the user has an infinite block and hope that this does not affect me also. Thanks.''}}"

Contents of the block infobox:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Misza13 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by ".-.-.-.". The reason given for .-.-.-.'s block is: "user...". Your IP address is 71.52.216.63.

• An autoblock (aka collateral damage). I've lifted it and all should be well for you now. If not, shout (using the {{unblock}} template again) and someone will come running. Sorry for the inconvenience and happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 09:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Jam "most popular"

I have. The notion that they are supposed to be THE most popular band is just laughable considering that both Metallica and R.E.M. has sold more records then Pearl Jam during the 90s and both Nirvana and RHCP both achived as much if not more success then Pearl Jam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana77 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading the discussion page i have to ask you why it has not been changed yet?. If you actually read it through almost everyone agrees it should be removed or changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana77 (talk --Nirvana77 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding --Nirvana77 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of us continuing with this edit war, lets discuss. Whats your idea of an consensus and how do we reach it? --Nirvana77 (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Jam

I just wanted to say thanks for all of your hard work on Pearl Jam. I think you've done a great job of encompassing the spirit of Wikipedia and enhancing this article. I would also like to make a request to visit the Talk:Pearl Jam page and participate in the Genre discussion. Right now there are two opposing parties, myself included, and I think it would help to have more opinions. Thank you. -MattWatt 17:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I went ahead and found a quote that I think will help defend your side. -5- 04:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper subheaders versus bolded text

Hey there. I notice you are changing subheaders into bolded text on lots of pages. Please see WP:MOSHEAD#Markup which explains that subheaders are preferred over bolded text in Wikipedia. Have a nice day. --PEJL 23:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

-5- responded on PEJL's talk page.

While making the Pearl Jam album pages consistent is good, making them consistently improperly formatted is no good. It is better to make them consistent with the Manual of Style. Therefore I think you should not change proper subheaders into bold text, for the reasons stated in WP:MOSHEAD#Markup. --PEJL 00:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

MySpace links for musicians

Per the wiki policy of avoiding myspace links you've removed some of these external links from musician articles (well, atleast one at Matt Chamberlain). From exploring the many noteworthy musicians pages you may have noted that an unusual number of musicians now use MySpace for their most frequently updated info; some have even forgone their www.sites. The wiki policy when written may not have recognized this. There is always the tension of making wikipedia encyclopedic and making it current. You might reconsider the use of MySpace pages for musicians. Certainly, some www.site links which are consistantly asserted on wiki articles are no less frivolous. - Steve3849 ^talk 07:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just re-read the policy you directed me to at Wikipedia:External_links and it appears there are exceptions to this "should be avoided" suggestion which includes sites which pertain to the subject matter and official sites. Wouldn't official MySpace pages of musicians who are the subject of a wiki article be such exceptions? - Steve3849 ^talk 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Merkinball vs. Merkin Ball move

Please do not move the Merkinball page to Merkin Ball by simply copying and pasting the text. We lose the edit history of the page by doing that. I understand why you want to move the page to Merkin Ball, and that's fine, but go thru the proper channels and put in a request to move the page properly rather than copying and pasting the text. -- berenlazarus

Chamberlain's long discography

Sorry I put you to work there. I think you're doing a great job. Your latest solution regarding organizing the table by years works for me. - Steve3849 ^talk 04:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Jam Articles

Hi. I've run into a lot of your work recently while assessing the monstrous backlog of unassessed albums (33,000+ and counting). I just wanted to let you know that those articles are looking pretty good, head and shoulders above 90% of the stuff I'm running into. Since you're obviously dedicated to them, I thought I'd point you to the Quality Scale guidelines personally so you can see what they're being assessed by. :) A number of them are very close to B, which is the highest grade I'm authorized to give, but need just a bit more—usually the "previous" and "next" information in the infobox (which I've added to a couple) and a text section other than the overview, which should be incorporated into the lead paragraph. As an album article writer, I know how hard that additional text paragraph can be to come up with and sometimes am more than happy to settle for a "start" class on some albums, but just in case you wanted to go the extra mile, I thought I'd let you know. :) You're probably already aware how to get "previous" and "last" info, but since I didn't notice for a long time I'll just point it out just in case. Under the picture at the AMG listing, there's an "album browser" that says "previous" and "next". All you need. Again, you probably already noticed, but my own ability to miss the obvious is awe-inspiring. :) Please drop me a note at my talk page if you decide to expand of these and want them reassessed. You can also list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment if you'd like a second pair of eyes—which I would totally understand—but given that 33,000 backlog I'm not sure how quickly they'll be handled there. :) I'll watch your page for a day or so in case you have any questions about this, but otherwise I'll just wish you luck and congratulate you on contributing to some quality articles. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

dvd on chamberlain discography?

I was going to add the new Critters DVD to the extensive chamberlain discography you've been managing. Do you want dvd's elsewhere, or is the discography ok for this? - Steve3849 ^talk 01:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Jam 2008 U.S. Tour

Thanks for the help in improving the article! Lugnuts (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Soundgarden discography

Bloody good work so far, fantastic! Sadly that Cornell pic is marked for deletion :(. Why not get free pics of the band members (if available on Wiki) and do what Radiohead and The Libertines do? Also I see that a few of the B-sides are listed multiple times; you can avoid that by doing what I did at The Libertines discography. Also, after the lead, once something is linked (album/song), no need to link again for the rest of the discography. So remove the links for the singles in the B-sides and Music videos sections. I look forward to seeing this at WP:FLC :). indopug (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you plan to go to FLC soon? I think its almost ready. One thing that seems cumbersome is the B-sides table; considering how very big it is and AFAIK none of the B-sides are notable (unlike "Yellow Ledbetter"). You might want to remove it from the page and place on the talk page. (Just for reference for anybody interested). That's what an editor has done for Metallica discography.

For the PJ discography, the Studio albums table is rather stuffed; I think you can remove the five Charts from Canada to Italy. I suspect that those aren't really very complete because I find it difficult to believe that Ten could have not charted in any territory, especially if the later releases do chart (Canada looks the most suspect of them all). Again, good work, and I'd like to hear what you think. indopug (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your constant and dilligent work on the broad array of grunge-related articles, particarly those focused on Pearl Jam. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Prindle is not a

reliable source; but I do not believe Piero Scaruffi is either (among other things I believe translations of his writing is user-contributed)--remove the ratings of his you added to the infobox, 'cause there's a limit of ten anyway. Besides, for such mainstream bands as Pearl Jam and Soundgarden, there is absolutely no need for even slightly questionable sources such as these. As for Prindle, just tell Freedom that no other FA has his reviews. indopug (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Jam discography

You should remove all the tracks in the Miscellaneous section not credited to the band. For example, solo Vedder tracks would not belong. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out WP:FLC. Lists don't have to deal with the Good Article process; they can just go straight to Featured List nomination. A couple of us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music have noticed the work you've done on the Pearl Jam discography, and are in the process of helping prepare that article for a Featured List nomination. If you have any questions, leave them on the discography talk pages and we'll do our best to help you out. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure how it worked out with discographies.-5- (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things you should sort out before sending to FLC,

• A really dumb MoS rule says the charts need to sorted alphabetically (after the home country, US). ie, the order of the chart listings in the table should be US, AUS, AUT, BEL...UK. (If you think that the UK is a more important territory than, say, Sweden, list UK next to the US chart(s). Although it goes against the current MoS, I'm arguing for the exception) Just make sure to cross-check with the original sources, because re-odering is painful and may lead to errors (esp. for the singles chart).
• The lead needs a little reworking to concentrate more on numbers and charts, so things like TicketMaster can go. Try to mention American multi-platinum certifications (first 3 albums), notable singles wrt to charting ("Last Kiss")
• How come the Merkin Ball EP doesn't have a section? indopug (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:

I've replied at the article's talk page.

PJ discography looks good to go, I've copy-edited the lead and fixed anything I could find. Go ahead and nominate it for FLC. The only doubtful thing is whether the tribute albums should be there, because they are not by PJ are they? Anyway, we'll wait for comments regarding that at FLC. indopug (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Jam members

Hi -5- (good joke eh?) I've rearranged the sections in the articles on Stone Gossard, Jeff Ament and Mike McCready. I think they are better organized and spread now. The main thing with each was making the musical career and the other projects sections separate in their own right. Let me know what you think. Kristmace (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this article. I've just got one concern at the moment, and thats the Recognition section. Since it's only really one line, and I can't find any other appropriate information, do you think it could be incorporated into another section? Kristmace (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad Radio

According to Anthony Kiedis, the band started as a Red Hot Chili Peppers cover band, and from there ascended into writing original funk rock songs.

Any particular reason this was deleted? Attribution is always preferable to blanket statements, and the statement seems to be supported in multiple sources, such as here. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I can tell you, only from personal experience (and knowing Eddie only as an acquaintance) that they were, along with many other bands at the time, influenced by the Peppers. And I must also add, the Radio were loud. I think I lost some of my hearing at one of their shows. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And, I'll see if I can get a hold of Kiedis' book for you. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.-5- (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to sound really weird, but one time I saw the The Flaming Lips in SF, and their light show and stage presence reminded me of a Bad Radio gig. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? I've seen some of the Bad Radio footage on Youtube. Flashes of Vedder's future stage persona are present, but it seems a lot more raw.-5- (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of it. Do you know what year it was recorded? Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's labeled 2/11/90. The videos can be viewed here.-5- (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cool. There's earlier stuff there, too. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat confirmed. On page 290 of Scar Tissue Kiedis refers to Eddie's band as "a Red Hot Chili Peppers cover band" but doesn't actually refer to them by name. More later. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They were definately inspired by them, but I wouldn't call them a cover band. They performed their own material and I'm not even sure if they ever peformed any Chili Peppers songs live. It seems to just be Kiedis' interpretation. There's no conclusive evidence for this besides the reference in this book, and then again, it may be a reference to one of the bands Vedder was in before Bad Radio. Thanks for checking this out.-5- (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Jam discography

Go ahead and nominate it for FLC, I see no remaining issues. One thing though, are the number of live albums in the infobox supposed to be 245? If you are going to list the official bootlegs too, are you sure of the exact number? indopug (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting this passed as a Featured List. You put a lot of hard work into it. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD/WP:LOTM

Congratulations on getting what appears to be your first successful WP:FL during the last month. You may want to get involved in our List of the Day/List of the Month experiment. Feel free to help us select next months lists at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200808 or nominate your list for consideration to be a LOTD in September at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200809.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding the Canadian chart positions and congratulations on the Soundgarden discography becoming a FL. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations for the Soundgarden discography FL. You know most of the Soundgarden/PJ albums are definitely GA-worthy; once you remove the copy-vio links (to the reprints on fan-sites), and expand the leads (especially for SG albums); consider nominating them. GA review is hardly strict at all. indopug (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave A Page

I have forwarded information to the person who contacted me regarding this matter. It may serve as proof of her existence, and will be posted along with the amended entry. I find it humorous that I am being contacted now about this, and am astounded that there are so many that presume to know more about people's lives than those that are actually involved in them! Thank you for being so dilligent in pursuing the truth on these pages. Bablablog (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirror Ball (Neil Young album)

But in the article it clarly states that Mirror Ball is a collaborate effort and not just Neil Young. Please give me a clear answear to this cause its no reason why it should say Studio Album by Neil Young and Pearl Jam if not Pearl Jam didn't record the album. Please help me with this one. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason why its only one genre on the Pearl Jam and Nirvana articles is that grunge is a subgenre to alternative rock but with Ultramega OK - Badmotorfinger you are dealing with to different music styles which are not subgenres. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Your probably right and you really should nominate those album articles. They are much better then the Kylie which is a GA. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Chamberlain Monkeypot

Can you please replace Monkeypot Merganzer. It is a released full album on which Chamberlain contributes to every track. I'll not press for Taxi as it is an EP even though he plays on it, co-mixed the tracks and co-produced it. - Steve3849 ^talk 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Steve3849 ^talk 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this

You gotta be kidding?! Where has this been "determined"? Pierced lip (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

years on Xmen films in infoboxes.

Do you have a policy source for these edits, multiple editors have reverted them, yet you're doing them multiple times without any edit summaries or explanation. Please stop. ThuranX (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you head over to WP:FILM, and find a MOS guideline on this, or ask, before spreading it. it's entirely possible that those other articles are wrong, and you're spreading a mistake. ThuranX (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Two points: If there's no rule about it, you can ask about it if you think it's necessary, however, I do notice that they tend to fill up the infoboxes and make them bulkier; people who want to know more about those linked films can click them.

Two: I'm not being arrogant, it's just distracting to repeatedly get hit with the orange bar while trying to edit. Read through your posts again before posting them, see that they say what you mean. Not sure? Sit back, get a drink, come back, read again, send. Very few problems on wikipedia are so dire that such immediacy is needed. (we've had some bomb threats and suicide notes, those usually need urgency over typographic accuracy.)

Anyways, good luck on future edits. There are plenty of film article sthat need real, substantive boosts, try picking a couple and working on them. ThuranX (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Like i said, it's not a big deal, it's just distracting. thanks for following up so quickly, and correcting things. have a good one. ThuranX (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I'm not the easiest editor to work with, but your behavior and responses were really cool, and cooperative, which I probably needed to see a little of again. ThuranX (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Why not just add pictures of Chris Cornell when he is not a member of Soundgarden or the other members, they done that on the Faith No More discography as i know of and probably many others. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just upload a picture from Flickr, most of those pictures are in public domain, the only thing you need is the permission from the user which uploaded the picture.

Or you can upload this low resulution image, [1] --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But from Flickr you can if you ask permission from the guy that uploaded it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay that really suck, can't you just do something about the rational use for the image for the discography, award or other soundgarden pages.

Now something else good work on that award page and i'm wondering if its a good idea by removing Miscellaneous awards and honors cause the Nine Inch Nails one has it. But if you don't want to its okay, its not that importent anyway. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. As i said before its not importent, but what is importent is that you should continoue you good job on the Soundgarden releted articles. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It already is see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Soundgarden awards. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the rock wikiproject redundant? cause i don't get it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Question is it needed a page List of songs by Soundgarden cause Nirvana (band), Pink Floyd and many other artist have this? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is just plain stupid, trust me i know. See this is the problem about the these two project they scope the same pages. Why can't both the project be on the talk page like they do on the Stone Temple Pilot talk page and many others? and sorry if im a pain in the ass. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit war yesterday, sorry. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Question, why isn't the cover for the SOMMS EP added on the Badmotorfinger page, heres a link if you ever need it. http://lyricwiki.org/Image:Soundgarden_-_SATANOSCILLATEMYMETALLICSONATAS.jpg --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the List of Soundgarden band members which i created. Needs some improvment. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See

See this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Chart data a discussion about how many charts should be in a discography. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

City, State

Hi, 5. I noticed your edits to List of Soundgarden awards which reversed my changing of [[Seattle, Washington|Seattle]], [[Washington]] to [[Seattle, Washington]]. May I direct your attention to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 101#Linking City, State where this exact issue was discussed. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiro Yamamoto

Have you got Hiro Yamamoto on your watch list? Have noticed some dubious edits on there lately, and I know you're a proper ninja on grunge-related articles. Cheers. Beve (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Go, Cubs, Go

I have enjoyed working with you on All the Way (Eddie Vedder song). Do you have any interest in proofing Go, Cubs, Go?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:All the Way (Eddie Vedder song)/GA1

Have you seen Talk:All the Way (Eddie Vedder song)/GA1. Half his points suggest us taking stuff out of the article. The reviewer is not a proponent of WP:PRESERVE. By the time we take everything out we won't have a GAC anymore. Any thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I might not a proponent of WP:PRESERVE but there are some exceptions before you consider this. --Efe (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Age a subject is irrelevant to the WP:WIAGA process. What matters is whether the coverage of the article is broad enough to be viewed as complete given the public information and whether there are content disputes. Believe me, as the leading producer of GAs on WP, I know this well. I have produced GAs for buildings still under construction. What my concerns with the review are basically content disputes with the reviewer requesting removal of things I consider important to adding flavor to the article. All I am asking for is support on things that should not be removed from the article. If you just want to leave me out there naked to try to defend the article by myself that is fine. If, in large part, we defend the content it will pass. That is my point. You don't need to find any more content for it to pass. It is as good as my other song GA (My Kind of Town). It meets all the criteria. It is just a matter of whether you sit on your hands while the article gets stripped of content. I hope you will voice your opinions. If you care about the content of the page comment at Talk:All the Way (Eddie Vedder song)/GA1. If you don't I will attempt to defend the content without your input.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The reviewer is saying a lot of the stuff you added should be removed. It will take a second opinion in support if you want your stuff to stay in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that stuff about the Cubs being in attendance yours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you feel he is nitpicking on your stuff. I wish you felt the same about mine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have responded there. Thanks 5 for the input. --Efe (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The article would not have gotten so good so fast without you. You deserve one of these too. Thanks for your help.

This user helped promote All the Way (Eddie Vedder song) to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is something better:

		The Cubs Barnstar
		For your assistance in raising All the Way (Eddie Vedder song) to WP:GA very quickly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi 5, thanks for informing me. I'll be checking on it now. --Efe (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Soundgarden

As i know you have done much of the work on the Soundgarden related articles which is good but one thing, if those songs are ever to be GAs or become a B-class you can't have sections with one or two sentences, you should merge some of the sections. Oh and you really should nominate the Black Hole Sun article to GA, if my Run to You (song) and Summer of '69 made it, your one wont have any problems at the GA review. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Your right, to many are like that including me, just thought those articles are so good written and its a shame they aren't GA or FA status. But you wrote them so you do what you want with them. :) --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Latvian Airplay Chart is an official chart so why did you remove it? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Oh congrats about that barnstar thingi. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

no problem. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey see A Perfect Circle discography which is a FL uses a copyrighted image on the discography. My point is that you can use the Sg91promo.jpg on the Soundgarden discography and all the related pages.. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

31 hour block

We got a 31 hour block on that IP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Temple Of The Dog (album)

Hi there 5, VASCO from PORTUGAL here

Just wanted to improve on this article's grammar, display and other stuff (also important info, like the fact that CHRIS does not play guitar on the record, at least he is not credited), but i see you have reverted most of it more than one time, dunno why.

Since i have alreay had my share of edit wars, i take this time to say to you: rest assured, that article (better "ARTICLES", TODG the album and TODG the band) will NEVER be edited by me AGAIN.

Rock on, from PORTUGAL, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Temple of The Dog (part 2)

Thanks for your reply 5, sorry for any misunderstandings my message created, and you are right in saying some of my edits were also kept, i pointed it out, saying you did not remove everything.

Cheers and nice wiki-work...By the way, is this a great album or what? Can't get enough of it the last few days. Check, if you have not yet, MAD SEASON's "Above", from 1995.

Bye 4 now, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

References on Rearviewmirror

Hello. Regarding reverts, please do not remove edits without first consulting with the editor who made them or, if you experience difficulty in reaching a compromise, other editors on the concerned article's talk page. The template not only serves as a notice to you, but to other editors who may also improve the article, as well as help track these articles using Special:Whatlinkshere. As can be found in the description for Template:refimprove, it differs from Template:unreferenced in that it may be used in articles which already contain references but still need additional work to meet Wikipedia's standards. You can find proper usage for templates concerning citations on any one of the templates' pages.

The issue with Rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991-2003 is mostly with the notes within the track listing. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted by the first message, there are issues with the factoids in the tracklisting. I'll have to ask you again not to remove edits without first reaching a consensus. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather you'd not use my talk page for your work, as it clutters the history, spams me with "new messages" notices, and is more appropriate for a subpage of your own. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Article help

Are there any articles you currently need help with? Also, given your hard work on Pearl Jam and Soundgarden articles over the years, I'd like to ask if you want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. By doing so you can join larger discussions that cover artices like this, ask for help more easily on the talk page, and receive a monthly newsletter which informs you of what other people in the project are up to. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you need sources, a few of us have access to rocksbackpages.com, which has a number of old articles. I also can peruse some back issues of Spin, Mojo, and Alternative Press in my library. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You know that 1993 Time issue with Eddie Vedder screaming on the cover? Well, Time finally got around to putting it online. However, they dated it wrong. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Badmotorfinger (Personnel)

Hi there 5, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

Guess we had ourselves another little "run-in" mate, this time on this great Soundgarden album. On PERSONNEL, i am (was?) perfectly sure that was the way "it went"; after having endlessly listened to this and the one by TOTD, i recognized instruments by ear and admitted them to its track upon writing WP credits (if you check TOTD's edit history, you will see some edits by me, anonymously, now i am registered).

Obviously, i also recognize your hard work in this area and knowledge in this kind of music, so i apologize, and will not revert it again. This said, i tell you man: Upon seeing your edits, i rushed to the room and listened to "FACE POLLUTION" with headpiece, and heard no trumpet, or saxophone, just mean guitar work and Cornell screaming his lungs out. But you could be right, don't worry, i will not input "my version" again.

On a related note, finished my SG collection, and heard this week the two EP and Ultramega OK. Both got some great tracks, but still have to grow accustomed to it. Did not have that feeling with Louder Than Love, it was love at first sight...

Anyways, sorry for any incovenience, keep it up,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries

Please use edit summaries. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Only one of your edits today was accompanied by an edit summary. The lack of edit summaries from you is noticeable when reviewing the history of any page you contribute to, and I notice you were asked before to use edit summaries. Regarding "needed," it's a guideline to use edit summaries no matter how small, even for minor edits like corrections of typos, although I'm not really sure what you mean since in today's edits alone, there are non-trivial contributions on your part that also lack summaries. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's news to me that this exchange in anyway approaches qualification for harassment. I really don't understand why you've so quickly assumed such a hostile stance.

As I already said, today alone some edits of yours consist of non-trivial contributions. There are a number of other things I could point out, but to be concise: it's a guideline, and I'm simply asking that you follow it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "addition to <section>" would be an example of a bad summary, and redundant since MediaWiki automatically prepends that information in the edit summary field when section editing.

• Nothing as It Seems revision 266998434
• Ten (Pearl Jam album) revision 267001884
• Vs. (album) revision 267011381
• Animal (Pearl Jam song) revision 267013121
• No Code revision 267015522
• No Code revision 267017926
• No Code revision 267064628
• Who You Are (song) revision 267065933
• Binaural (album) revision 267071554
• Love Boat Captain revision 267079469
• Riot Act (album) revision 267083346
• Pearl Jam revision 267086561

For edits like these, you should summarize them as something like "add Vedder quote from Spin with ref" or if you can add something about the significance of the quote, "add Vedder quote from Spin about album title."

For changes like No Code revision 267017842 you should explain why you're removing the text. Even for Talk:Superunknown revision 266996684 you should summarize that you're changing the template parameter.

It's not about suspicions of vandalism, because truly malicious vandals will make all kinds of subtly subversive changes with seemingly innocuous summaries so that the changes will last as long as possible. It's really about the courtesy to other editors who can benefit from explanations when presented with a long list of revisions, be it from Special:Contributions/C. A. Russell or an article history, even if you find that it doesn't really help in your own workflow. For example, if you check out my contributions, you can easily identify blocks of related edits like when an article gets renamed and I change all inbound links to reference the new name. There are a lot of other ways it can help, one of the biggest is when you want to figure out when some information was first added to the article without resorting to a binary search, i.e., phone book searching, through the revision history.

I'm not singling you out. As I said, your lack of edit summaries is apparent whenever looking at the revision history of any article you regularly edit; I noticed, so I asked. If you come across anyone else not using summaries, please ask them to.

Also, don't be fooled by the first appearance of a username. It has only been a little over a year that Wikipedia has began increasing restrictions on anonymous users, and I know I'm not alone as a person who only recently began using a username for some edits. Even now, I don't log in for every edit that I make; I generally only do so whenever I feel like it, it's required due to restrictions on anonymous accounts, I feel like some of my changes have the potential to make others want to discuss them, or when I deliberately want to make sure a series of edits are associated with this username. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5