User talk:RichV

Attempted something

I think i saw something somewhere that said it was SP's "finest recording", these specific words I believe, but cant find it. Can you? Suede67 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched all the reviews on TTB, metacritic and on the UTN page, but couldn't find a thing. Maybe we'll find it with the help of Lady Luck sometime? RichV 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope so! Do you find it okay? Any changes you might want to suggest? Suede67 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes:

The distinction between the original version and the 2009 version isn't clear. For instance, the title says "An Olive Grove Facing the Sea" while it's "An Olive Grove Facing the Sea (2009)" that's included on Up to Now.

yes, I thought that too, what do you suggest i do? I did write it that way when i started, but it was too long-ish and repititive in a way. But i realize its being plain unclear. You make an edit relating to this?Suede67 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way is to make the infobox about the 2009 version and this version als the main article. We can use the original version as a background. Maybe we can use other articles of songs that got reinterpretated aswell as template?

Sorry didnt get you. The infobox currently does mention the 2009 version. Can you be more elaborate? Suede67 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the title still mentions the album version, but I'll change that.

Sure, go ahead. Suede67 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're subjecting the original version, note that it wasn't released as a single so you'll need a song infobox.

I am referring the single, i did think about 2 infoboxes but its too much space and it doesnt look right. The article basically is about the SONG, part of it concerns the single and part of it concerns the song itself (original release). Initially i wanted two separate sections relating to the 2 versions, but I later realized there just isnt enough info about them separately, so decided to combine them, trying to be as clear as possible.

You're right, two infoboxes generate too much white space.

Maybe you can make two parts, one about the original and one about the 2009 version, though I understand that's going to be hard when there isn't much information to wrote about (but you always find info, you're great with that!).

Explained, but thanks for the compliment.

I'd think the 2009 version is acoustic rock. Agree?

I'm not sure, it doesnt sound like an acoustic guitar to me, i think its electric. If you listen the album version, you can clearly hear the acoustic guitar a little low in the mix at the START. Can you listen again to confirm, both versions?

In my opinion, there is only an electric guitar used in the song, but in a way that resembles acoustic rock. Nelly Furtado's Try is also placed in the acoustic rock genre. The original version uses one acoustic guitar and two electric guitars in the verse and just before the chrorus starts, the electric guitar is very sharp.

Yes, but if you go to Acoustic Rock, it redirects to "acoustic music": "Acoustic music comprises music that solely or primarily uses instruments which produce sound through entirely acoustic means, as opposed to electric or electronic means." Whats correct then? Suede67 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, acoustic music mostly uses non-amplified equipment primary, but the fact that it's just one electric guitar makes it questionable for me. But it's deff alt-rock.

Yes, I also did a search on "acoustic rock", but didnt find anything that'd explain this. For now lets keep alt rock? What do you say? Suede67 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll leave it as it is now.RichV 12:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to read it more later, when I translate your article for the Dutch version. RichV 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Suede67 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view

As I said, i've tried to make the diff versions clear. Like:

The infobox contains info about the single, (apart from the title) as its the single infobox/cover etc. I figured the album details (recording etc) can be integrated in the text. Initially I had double: "XXX (original ver)
YYY (2009 version)" but then it became weird, because theres supposed to be info about only the single.

But if you're referring to the 2009 version in the infobox while the title refers the original title, it's inconsistant.

Yes, changing now. Is it better, i only put a caption, not too keen of putting "(2009 version)" in the "name" and "this single" fields, but will do it if you dont agree to this. Suede67 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the "background" section, i've right now made a little edit to separate info about the 2 versions. i hope its clearer now.

The background section is very clear now.

The "R & R" section, theres nothing really to say about the 2001 version. Just remembered in 2006 WIAOWSHTCU was re-released, so added that, otherwise nothing. The second sentence till the paragraph end speaks of the 2009 version, and that it was a single etc
The second para of the R & R section is the reception, and i could find ONLY praise/no-praise of the 2001 version, EXCEPT for the last part: "in later years..." that was the only instance i could find the song was mentioned recently, and even there (read the review from where i've sourced it) it appears the reveiwer is talking abt the original version, and not the re-recording! Suede67 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad there isn't a lot info about the 2009 version. I fear it isn't coming the next weeks/months. And I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh! RichV 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being harsh. And this is certainly better than logging in to find your edits have been mercilessly edited without explanation. Suede67 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just hate it when someone does that! RichV 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its heartbreaking at times! Suede67 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff

I made some edits, but if we keep subjecting the 2009 version, we have to change the title of the page aswell. RichV 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dont change the article's title! Let it be AOGFTS. Its more of a hassle really. The song is AOGFTS, and theres a new version of it, simple. The article mentions both versions, about equally. If there was enough info on the song as it is, I would have made an article about it a long time before (its one of my fav SP songs). And right now, i'd have simply made a subsection called "2009 version". I suggest lets keep things simpler.

About your edit, i'm okay with it because I think both ways can do. What I think is that we should mention the "song" in the lead first, insead of the 2009 Ver. Also, the "single release" was never announced as such, we just know its a single. I dont think the band had any big plans for it or anything. I think the more important version is the original, and the 2009 is a small footnote, and ONLY because its a single now. Plus, its digital only, its not going to chart or anything, nor going to become any more famous/get media coverage, unless a band member talks about it, which I doubt.

I think lets keep it the way you have changed it. I am going to make little tweaks in the lead, because on reading it sounds a bit confusing, but I am not going to alter your edit. Any more ideas, tell me. Suede67 (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really love this discussion xD. If it weren't for a single release, there would be no information about the original version at all, but I'm at peace with your way. ^^ You really love this song, don't you. I'll make the Dutch version tonight, need to finish a paper now. RichV 14:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing. Yes i love it a lot, and this was the song that eventually "got" me into the first two albums. I was not too fond of them earlier, and thought they were weird, since i had got into the band after listening to Run, CC and SF. Looking forward to your translation. I see theres half of it already done on your dutch sandbox. Suede67 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

Was hoping to convert the section on Gary's article in an independent one. Found out there was enough info. Any suggestions, again! Also for Listen... Tanks. Suede67 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

If not country, which genre? I think only that is applicable, even though Gary said its country-tinged. I think the music is still supposed to be country. And i found that "january 2010" change funny. read the last 2 sentences of the lead again, isnt "january 2010" repeating? Suede67 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #1: "also stated that the album won't be country as was being reported,[2][6][7][8] but would be "country-tinged".[4]" So we don't know which genre it will be. When the album releases, we can change the genre.

Edit #2: You're right, I oversaw that. RichV 00:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thats right, "tinged", bt its still country-ish. I dont know what genre could it otherwise be. On reading Gary's blog, i get the feeling that he made that statement only because it was widely published that he was working on a country album, whereas, although loves country music didnt exactly set out to create a full-on country album, but something similar. I'm not making sense by now, but I agree, lets leave it until some music is released. Also, we will have to change the category, which currently is: "Irsh country music groups". Which one should we change it to? Suede67 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the fact that it's influenced by country but at the moment, we have to watch WP:Chrystal Ball. I've changed the cat. RichV 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. That category sounds okay. Suede67 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about reading band members' articles...

...have you read this? Suede67 (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had, and now I have read the revamped version. There are some somewhat trivial things, but they aren't really disturbing so they can be left there. The SP-disco is missing though. And I made some edits aswell! RichV 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, most personal stuff can be considered trivial, but thats all i could find. Do you have any sources? Btw, how's that pic? I love it. Just got permission to use it today from the photographer. Suede67 (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Dude, that's an amazing pic. Really a rocker! RichV 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on Pablo, to expand the article more maybe. Glad you love the pic! Suede67 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the discography, yes... I did the same when I expanded Jonny's article (listed previous bands). Both Pablo and Jonny had a smaller amount of releases before being an SP member. So I'm confused. Jonny has played in all 5 albums, and 20 something singles as well. Paul, 2 albums + quite a few singles. What to list, and how? If you have any ideas, go ahead! Also, consider this option: Robert Trujillo - Lists all albums he has played on in the different bands he's been in. So maybe, for SP members, we could assume that if they played on the album, they played on all singles off that album too, and others in that time, say "Signal Fire"? If yes, should we list UTN, because it contained 3 new songs? Suede67 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

with Snow Patrol

Song	Album	Year	Format	Label
All	Eyes Open	2006	CD/LP	Fiction
All	A Hundred Million Suns	2008	CD/LP
"Just Say Yes"	Up to Now	2009	CD/LP
"The Planets Bend Between Us (2009 Version)"
"Give Me Strength"
"Signal Fire"
"Dark Roman Wine"

Dont mind, but i'm not sure. I dont think this format works so well, maybe we should change the existing format for Jonny and pablo's article to something else? I dont think writing "all" there looks good. Maybe should go with this itself:

Pablo:

2006 - Eyes Open
2008 - A Hundred Million Suns
2009 - Up to Now

Becuase the problem, as I see it is this. For Jonny, and also Nathan, there have been substantial releases under their membership. And what about Gary, the Polarbear EP would add, as would the shrug EP and demos. It will stretch too long and the article wont look balanced, know what i mean? Suede67 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand you. I know that the table is maybe too much, because it contains some songs that aren't composed with Paul, but I wanted to add the note "unless otherwise stated". For Gary, we can add the important releases and add the "main article" template to the sp disco. RichV 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about a note, I think we better be direct and compact. For Gary, good idea, but dont forget one album each with LT and TP, maybe the two from the Section as well (+ 1 single) and the mix albums. For Tom - LTN. So we must think this through. Also lets keep in mind that the band is still going on, and the list will increase, maybe by a lot. They havent really had off-album singles (apart from SF), but they could in the future, who knows? Should try to maintain some balance in the article. Suede67 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For Gary's page, we'll add the albums of SP (along with the main page temp), LT, TP and the Section. We have to be complete with this. We cannot omit important releases. RichV 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Suede67 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fresh approach

Right now, as i have made the tables, they include: Release, year, Format, Label. MAYBE, we could keep off the label and format from there. And in year, mention only the year, not the date. Just like Trujillo's article? That might simplify things, but then I think, that since Pablo/Jonny had so little releases in their previous band, why not list the details. But I suppose we should leave them out and maybe mention them specifically in prose? So for example, for Pablo:

with Terra Diablo

2001 - "The Way Things Are..."
2002 - "The Smoke"
2004 - "Satellites"
2004 - Swings & Roundabouts"
2004 - Terra Diablo

with Snow Patrol

2006 - Eyes Open
2008 - A Hundred Million Suns
2009 - Up to Now

...AND not mention the off album single "SF". because if Pablo played on EO and AHMS, he presumably played on the one single the band released between that time. ALSO, when a band has existed for such time, you will know them by their albums, and not singles they might have had in the time, unless it was a worldwide hit. Albums are more important, right?

Do you know John Frusciante? He first joined the RHCP in 1988, and played on the 1989 album Mother's Milk. Between this and the next 1991 album, the band released a non-album single "Show Me Your Soul". After the next album, the band again released such a single. However, if you see John's discography article, a FL, it only lists the albums, not the singles.

This style will take far less space required for every member's article. What do you say? Any alternative ideas or anything? Suede67 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the removal of the label and format rows, and years would be better than accurate release dates. We offer links to the albums so it's one click away for the readers to see the specific release date. You're idea for Pablo is good, but I'm not very happy with Up to Now, because he doesn't play on all songs. It should be listed, but with a note or something like that. What do you think? Everybody knows John! Too bad he left. But his disco looks good, so we can use that aswell. RichV 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay good. Just had a thought, to not list UTN altogether. If we follow John's discography, it also doesnt list compilations. So for Pablo, EO and AHMS. okay? I'll make the change then. If you still think UTN should be added with a note to specify, i'm fine with it. Suede67 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I mean, what if Paul had a great deal in the new songs, then it isn't right to not credit him. RichV 18:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yes. So ok, add the note. Suede67 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt understand what your note means, mind explaining? Suede67 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty vague indeed. Is it better now? RichV 21:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John

As for John leaving, its sad, yes, but if you think about it, you could see it coming. I dont think he has problems with any band member, i'm sure they're as good friends as ever, but you could see that John loves to do his own thing more than anything, and is not too fond of things he has to do being in a world famous band. And after his "dark period", you can see how "saintly" he appears, i dont know if i make any sense, but look at it like this: Consider RHCP and SP, both are "famous", when these bands release albums, they have to work really hard, promoting, world tours, and all. They cant just sit and relax after making an album. When John left the band after BSSM, i think he did say that his idea about playing music was something else, after he became member, the band almost instantly became famous, and he didnt really like what he was doing. The "fun" attitude about the band was in a way, lost, because now that they had become famous, they had to work harder, and not goof around, play and have fun, like they used to. Even at that time, John was writing his own songs, though he didnt release them until 1994 (Niandra Lades) but if you think about that, you'll know that it was bound to happen. I dont think Josh will prove to be as good a replacement, as John was for Hillel, but he is the best, because he has been with the band for years, and knows them well. Also played with them live on the SA Tour. But John's writing brought a different edge to the band, and I dont think Josh can bring that. Not saying hes inferior or anything, but he's not John. Think of OHM, Dave Navarro's style was different, that album isnt close to funk, what the RHCP are essentially. I think John worked because he was a huge fan of Hillel and tried to copy his style a lot. Anyway, sorry, went too far! Suede67 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really a lot of knowledge of RHCP (though I like their music) but I do know the main things. I can see that you follow the band. The big rock star dream doesn't attract everyone, so yeah, I guess John is more the kind of guy to be left alone in a room with his guitar and he's happy. You got to enjoy the touring, otherwise you won't make it. You gave me more information about their history, thanks for that. RichV 18:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Suede67 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kings and Queens (song)

It's only semi-protected, so you should be able to make any such changes yourself. If you see anonymous Italian IPs editing "30 Seconds to Mars" articles (usually badly), it's the banned editor ItHysteria. The IPs you've been having trouble with are all him, and I've blocked them both.—Kww(talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to confirm with me

Of course it's ok. No need to confirm with me whether or not it is or isn't. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everyone can freely edit, as long as they do so within reason of course. So be bold! Edit freely. The reason I reverted their edits was because it was blatantly advertising and promotion which goes against the Wikipedia policies WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. Just want to be clear that I'm not trying to own the article. Saying that a music video has been filmed, who it was filmed by, and when it premiers is entirely different than saying, "Such and such music video is scheduled to premier at such and such time on such and such network". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 14:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]