User talk:Rwlesses/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

July 2005

Song lyrics

Welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, copyrighted song lyrics are always disallowed, unless Wikipedia has specific permission to redistribute them in compliance with our license, the GFDL; highly in this case. Even then, just lyrics do not make an encyclopedia article, so would probably be removed by an editor for that reason. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations for details. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

March 2006

Wiki Madness

(1) I have just realized what wiki is - it gives a nice name to obsessive-compulsive list-making - encyclopedic contributions.

(2) I have just experienced my first "where's the edit this page function" for a non-wiki page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Fantailfan 13:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 and the reversion of your edit(s)

Hello, Fantailfan. You may have noticed Tawkerbot2 reverted one or more of your edits and left a message on your talk page. Wikipedia recently experienced a database malfunction, causing Tawkerbot2 to misidentify legitimate edits; hence the reversion of your edit(s) and the message. The bot has been temporarily disabled until the problems are rectified. Thanks. —Wayward ^Talk 16:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A Boy Named Goo

album infoboxes are not supposed to have wikilink months and days of week. <-Fantailfan 19:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)->

Is that right? I would have thought the day and month should be wiki-linked per WP:DATE so as to ensure that a user's date preferences can be put into effect (ie "24 March" can become "March 24" per preferences etc). _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, SmackBot took the date-month link away... lemme check. >-Fantailfan 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)-<

Yep, you're right. Smackbot delinked a month, not a date-month. :-(Fantailfan 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC):-/

Heh, thought so, not to worry. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

April 2006

Mystery Girl

I reverted your edits as they did not conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums (See the section re crediting songwriters - The writers full name is to be written the first time they are credited). The fact that your non-conforming edits have not been reverted in the past is irrelevant. Shadow007 10:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I did not mean to start an edit war or anything like that. I try to be very reasonable when editing. When reverting your edits I did not intend to reintroduce the typo. I simply hadn't realised it was there. However, I was the orginal editor who put the credits in and felt that where I had put in the full names as per convention they should have been left.

In any case, well done for the rest of the work on the article. Shadow007 12:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

May 2006

New Adventures in Hi-Fi

Thank you for the edit. It's just something I've observed on the forums that NAIHF regularly wins best album, but yeah it was little POV as I love NAIHF :).

Regards Elan Morin Tedronai 23:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

June 2006

Quadrophenia

Hi there. I noticed you redirected a lot of individual Quadrophenia tracks to the album page. While I certainly don't object to this, I also notice that there's no discussion of these songs to be found on the page. Are you planning to give any of them any content on the page? As of right now, I'm not sure anyone searching for the individual songs redirected would find themselves any less in the dark. GassyGuy 15:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The song pages information was copied directly from www.thewho.net and not attibuted. I left only the singles which were actually released. The significance of the songs apart from the album (aside from singles) is disputable. --Fantailfan 17:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I can assure you that the page I worked on ("Sea and Sand") was not copied from anywhere, although it certainly needed some work as to fleshing it out. Again, I'm not arguing that perhaps the tracks would be better described within the album article (though I disagree that they are insignificant in their own rights), but there's still little to no information about them there, either. GassyGuy 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree there - not copied from www.thewho.net. "Here by the sea and sand/Nothing ever goes as planned..." BUT - a description of the song - musical structure - soft followed by harsh, like two songs knit together; lyrical structure - wistful memories/aggressive self-doubting Mod, defiant fadeout "I'm the Face if you want it..." would be better.--Fantailfan 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

speaking of, i noticed that you totally destroyed The Real Me (edit- as well as all of the other Quadrophenia track pages), leaving an unusable by itself section on a cover version. if this was some kind of copyright infringement or stylistic faux pas, you could have just rewritten the thing, or at least brought something up on its' talk page. please don't edit like this in the future. Joeyramoney 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not destroyed, that's why there is the history tab. Still, understood. I did create a Single infobox for it and verified its information. As it was there hadn't been much on it, I dropped what was there, the other information which, to be honest, was of little value. I had also found other Who Quadrophenia songs (not singles) had been copied from thewho.net. While acting in haste, I believe I was justified in deleting that which could easily be recovered, if it was of value.

In any case, thank you for contributing content to a song with which, in my youth, I identified. Perhaps Keith's drum bridge into the Quadrophenia song could be recognized, too! --Fantailfan 23:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the issue of the redirected songs: do you have any plans to put any information about them on the Quadrophenia article, since they now all redirect there? This was my question from the start, but days later there is still no content there that anyone who was searching for one of the redirected songs would be able to use specific to what they sought. GassyGuy 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I added in edited copy from "The Rock," which may be flagged as 'original research' anyway as I have discovered elsewhere. The text in "Sea and Sand" and "Doctor Jimmy" are, I'm afraid, OR and POV.--Fantailfan 10:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Dirty Jobs," "I'm One," "The Punk and the Godfather," "Cut My Hair," and "Quadrophenia (song)" were all copied from www.thewho.net.--Fantailfan 11:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Straw poll on infobox modifications.

Hi,

Progress is being made with the modifications to the Album infobox template. To find out more, please check out the talk page for Wikiproject Albums. Particularly, there is a straw poll about the proposed infobox changes going on at the moment. Feel free to chime in at your earliest convenience.

You may also peruse the work being done at ReyBrujo's Sandbox. Cheers. --Folajimi 14:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

July 2006

Your AWB settings

I see you caught all of my signatures on the WikiProject Music talk. I suppose I'll stop using ndashes now. (I was typing them out by hand! I'm not sure when I started thinking that was a good idea!) –Unint 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize! (I was typing ndashes by hand too) My first use of AWB and I'm desperately trying not to hit user pages, talk pages, images, and so on. --Fantailfan 02:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

List of albums

Hey there, I notice you're changing the List of albums pages away from the ndash code to the actual symbol. After spending a fair while there constantly rearranging copy/pasted lists that are in the wrong order (can people not see that it's ordered alphabetically, not by year?) I personally feel that this will just encourage more mistakes - in the edit box, both styles of dashes look the same, and it's going to be near impossible to get people to use ndashes in the list unless they see the ndash code in the page, I feel. Just a thought, I don't know if I'm just being overly picky or not. Satan's Rubber Duck 03:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, SRD.. ndashes are verboten on album pages and I hit a couple of Album pages by mistake... feel free to revert if you want to... --Fantailfan 03:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries, mistakes happen. Although, I thought ndashes were supposed to be used in the tracklistings on album pages? ... Eh, I'm tired, I'm probably remembering something wrong somewhere :) Satan's Rubber Duck 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it changed cuz ndash is harder to read when editing then "ndashes" from the insert bar below. --Fantailfan 03:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

August 2006

Bowie album rereleases

Hi there. Just a few points on your recent Bowie album updates. First off I think most of your updates to albums by this and other artists have been very useful and well-executed, however... I don't really see the point of the Ryko chronology. First of all the albums were rereleased in essentially the same order as RCA originally released them on vinyl. Secondly, why stop there, we may as well do a chronology for the subsequent EMI rereleases, and then do rerelease chronologies for all other artists as well. This is starting to look obsessive, not to mention cluttered! I really think we should remove those rerelease chronologies. Also on The Man Who Sold the World, you've modified the Rerelease section in such a way as to throw it out of kilter with Aladdin Sane, Pin Ups and Diamond Dogs. I think the way the Rerelease section appears on those other articles works better so intend to modify the Man Who Sold the World article accordingly. However I won't touch the Ryko chronologies until we've discussed. Cheers, Ian Rose 06:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the Ryko chronology is simple: The Wikialbum Bowie chronology does not include comps or live albums, or a standardized discography template at the bottom. The Elvis Costello chronology (on which I did a lot of technical rather than critical work) was not differentiated by the Ryko release schedule simply because compilations and live album (the one) were included in the standard chronology.

I am in favor of both and willing to do the donkeywork (based mainly on the three large Bowie discographies already on the 'net (algonet, illustrated disco, and teenage wildlife) as well as my complete (!) collection of Ryko re-releases).

On the rerelease text shift, go ahead and switch THWSTW back. I intended to add the US 1970 and UK 1972 album covers to that page, as well as charts, certs, and (possibly) musician credits for the Ryko bonus tracks.

On that point, I would like to standardize the (a) track listing, (b) bonus track listing (c) personnel and (d) additional personnel sections to the prevailing usage (um, the one I use), which is closer to WikiAlbum standards.

Plus, just for laughs, I'm going to do Sound + Vision. --Fantailfan 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well at least we won't have a serious demarcation dispute over who does what on the Bowie albums! As you would have gathered from the article histories I spend most of my time on the summary of the albums rather than tables of charts, certs, etc, but it all adds to their value. I'm also keen on standardisation of track listing, personnel, etc, as well and have at least made all the Bowie ones I've worked on look similar though I know there are a couple of WikiAlbum standards that need to be incorporated in all of them which either of us could do as we work on them. As for the chronologies, I'm still not quite convinced of the need but being a bit of an inclusionist by nature I'll see how it develops before I worry any more about it.

By the way, I'm expanding the MWSTW text as we speak and was planning to add the other album covers as well, similar to what I did on Space Oddity, so I might save you the trouble on that one. Oh, and well done volunteering for Sound + Vision - I look forward to it. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How does putting the live and comps into the chronology sit with you? --Fantailfan 16:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A toughie. The issue with non-studio albums - particularly compilations - is that they often appear in only one country and can really clutter up an artist's discography. For what it's worth, I tend to think that chronologies should be that of the artist's country of origin, i.e. that the Bowie chronology we should use in his album articles is his British releases, same for The Beatles and The Stones, whereas for Dylan and The Doors, say, it would be the American discographies/chronologies - similar to the argument about British vs. American spelling. Also I don't think we should clutter up the chronologies in album articles with rereleases (by all means put all that in the artist's discography articles, but not in the album articles). If these two rules were adhered to then I think putting live and compilation albums into the chronologies could be manageable and useful. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you run into problems with his early stuff (not the Deram catalog). The Man Who Saved the World was released in the US prior to the UK - but unlike the Stones, Beatles or even Elvis Costello everything afterwards was released simultaneously. Since the chronology is currently broken, I propose to concentrate on the 1969-80 period because they were, after all, his golden years. I consider the live and comps (of this period) to be important in the chronology for a variety of reasons I can articulate, should you want me to.

Remove my Rykodisc chronology; put the re-releases as you have it and then work this like I did the Costello catalogue. This is the chronology:

Deram

1. David Bowie

Philips/Mercury

1. David Bowie aka Space Oddity, 1969. Use the UK original cover as the canonical release and add the others.
2. The Man Who Sold the World, 1970/1971. Use the US original cover as the canonical release and add the others.

RCA

1. Hunky Dory, 1971.
2. The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, 1972.
3. Aladdin Sane, 1973.
4. Pin Ups, 1973.
5. Diamond Dogs, 1974.
6. David Live, 1974.
7. Young Americans, 1975. Fix the "30th anniversary" info as it is incorrect.
8. Station to Station, 1976. Add the colo(u)r cover as it is the current version.
9. Changesonebowie, 1976.
10. Low, 1977.
11. "Heroes", 1977.
12. Stage, 1978.
13. Lodger, 1979.
14. Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps), 1980.
15. Changestwobowie, 1981.
16. Christiane F. (album), 1981.
17. Ziggy Stardust - The Motion Picture, 1983.

EMI

1. Let's Dance, 1983.
2. Tonight, 1984.
3. Labyrinth, 1986.
4. Never Let Me Down, 1987.

Rykodisc/EMI

1. Sound + Vision, 1989.
2. Changesbowie, 1990.
3. The Singles Collection/Bowie: The Singles 1969-1993, 1993.

BMG

1. Black Tie White Noise, 1993.

Golden Years/Griffin

1. Santa Monica '72, 1994.

everything after--Fantailfan 16:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Mate, I think you've got it - that chronology is pretty much just what I had in mind, no need to convince me. The only issue I have is what you've said about TMWSTW's cover. While the US cartoon cover came first I think the original UK cover is 'canonical' for the reason I've used earlier, that we're talking about a UK artist; I think most critics and fans (and Bowie himself from what I've read) would consider that to be the one in any case, much as Ryko did when they rereleased it; they rightly included the others but used the 'dress' cover on the front, as did EMI with their rerelease. Just about finished expanding TMWSTW, including the alternate covers, so see what you think when it's done soon. Planning to expand Station To Station when I get the chance and add the colo{u}r cover. BTW Sound + Vision looks excellent. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The cartoon cover is loopy at best - all of Bowie's albums have a picture of the Artist, while this one doesn't, so keep it. I will add ChangesTwoBowie, despite its overwhelming lameness. --Fantailfan 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Laurie Anderson

Thanks for putting the Album project tag onto Home of the Brave. I don't think all the Laurie Anderson album articles have the tag yet. 23skidoo 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

September 2006

Infobox Album update

I was just wondering, why don't you remove the obsolete "background" parameter from album infoboxes while changing "Album" to "Studio album" with AWB? I guess it could be easily automatized. Jogers (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) I don't know how to do it in AWB, (2) I'm waiting for the colors to be settled. I like deepsteelblue, myself. Fantailfan 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Something like this:

<FindAndReplace find="(\|)? *Background(.*)" replacewith="" casesensitive="True" regex="True" multi="False" single="False" enabled="True" maxnumber="-1" />

should do the trick. The point is that when all infoboxes are updated with proper types and without the background parameter the colors can be changed in all articles at once so we don't confuse anybody with different color on every page. I like deepsteelblue too. Jogers (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try it out. Fantailfan 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please vote on the infobox color changes at the WP Albums discussion page at your earliest convenience? Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Shake Rattle and Roll

I made some changes to your edits of Shake, Rattle and Roll. The Elvis singles chronology should never go at the top of an article. (I haven't checked to see if you have done this with other song articles -- such things should always go at the bottom). This is particularly important with this song as it was not a notable Presley recording, but is more associated with Haley and Turner. Also, I removed the second "YEAR SONG" category you had added as those categories should only be used for the year a song was written, which was 1954 in the case of Shake Rattle and Roll. Cheers. 23skidoo 18:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was blasting through the Presley singles, so apologies are in order. Fantailfan 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving WikiProject Albums talk

I don't think we're supposed to pick things out of the middle of the page when archiving. Just off the top of the page, and in much larger blocks at once. –Unint 00:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. It was a closed topic so I figured it was fine. Guess not! Fantailfan 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Andy Pratt

Dear Fantailfan, Thank you so much for the excellent job you've done on the Andy Pratt (singer-songwriter) entry. Please correct the spelling of "sojurn" (subheading)yourself as I can't seem to get through. In retrospect, "Fall" was a bit melodramatic, but remember I was there at the Paradiso gig... Also, please review the "toured released" phrase and explain why the information on Pratt's memoirs was deleted - he put it there himself, after all. Hope you appreciated my initial effort to put Andy Pratt on the Wiki-map, I also wrote a Dutch entry which I will update with your permission. Cheers for now, Frank Landsman 07:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As we found out, artists cannot update their own entries. I will fix the memoirs paragraph - it didn't make sense when I read it. Interesting that I was trying to write something on Pratt - whom I do not know except from his work - and he posted that "Avenging Annie" was written in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I grew up in Cambridge - kid of two Harvard graduates - and was twelve when I bought the single in 1973. Fantailfan 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fantailfan, I've just added some factual info to the "Avenging Annie" page, as you can see. Since Andy Pratt was unaware of the so-called Vanity Policy, he was absolutely livid about his extensive contribution having been deleted. He's taken a lot of time and effort to check the accuracy of the original "Andy Pratt" entry I wrote (User name: Frankly speaking)and forwarded an original photograph to me, which was downloaded by my good friend Cott12. Not many artists go to such lengths, and I think we ought to appreciate what he's done. So this may be a kind of compromise - after all, Wikipedia doesn't want us to write entries on artists to make them hit the ceiling now, does it? One question about NPOV: isn't changing Daltrey's solo album to "effort" a matter of expressing a personal point of view? And what happened to the passage on "Shiver in the Night" (album)? Could you please add a little on the Perfect Therapy album, for I haven't had a listen, and it seems to stand out from what I've read. Incidentally, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.Frank Landsman 10:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Fantailfan, I left you a message on the talk page of Avenging Annie. Thanks for your reply on my talk page, I'll find the Van Cliburn reference and will send you a translation of the Dutch Pop Encyclopedia entry on Pratt, if you like, as my mother tongue is only spoken/understood in Michigan and parts of NYC these days. Cheers 4 now, Frank Landsman 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Recording locations removals

It got too wordy, especially for an album infobox (New Adventures in Hi-Fi being a strong case in point). I think mentioning that in the body text is fine, but not an infobox.

BGC 18:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your complete and thorough job of adding a song infobox to "Radio Radio." Very much appreciated. - Rocket000 03:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

LSB vs. Orange tally

For several months now, there has been a significant push to upgrade the templates used by the WP:ALBUMS project. As you are well aware, the effort was a rather worthwhile one; the templates used are now much easier to maintain.

Thank you very much for your input during the effort; it surely made a difference in the long run.

By the way, the studio album poll is now closed, and the consensus indicates strong support for switching from orange to lightsteelblue.

Thanks again for taking the time to participate; it is indeed most appreciated. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your recent "test" in Template:Album

AzaToth did a modification to the {{Infobox Album/color}}. Now it receives two arguments, the type and the background color. If the type is not recognized, the background color is returned. That was done to minimize the amount of "misses" (infoboxes with wrong colors). I will implement the non standard category now to see how many albums have a wrong type. -- ReyBrujo 13:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know that we had done some modifications to the templates, and now the colours are being applied to around 85% of the album articles. There are 4,400 articles that are under Category:Non-standard album infoboxes. -- ReyBrujo 18:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunedin Double EP

Please do not change this from Double EP to EP. It is in an unusual format of two 12" discs and - at nearly 50 minutes length - is longer than many albums. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed another record linking to the redlinked double Ep, so I've made a small stub for things to point to at Double EP. I'd forgotten about Magical Mystery Tour's original release... that could link there, too. Grutness...wha? 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

October 2006

reply

I'm commenting here because our discussion on the albums page has already taken up a lot of space - probably more space than it deserves. Yes, I'm aware that there is no formal process to follow, so it's not like I'm going to take this to The Board for review. :-) But there was a process that was used - I would just have preferred a little visibility. And also, I do understand the need for boldness. So I don't think anybody really screwed it up, or anything. I'm not upset. Take care -Freekee 02:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your "This album" edits

I noticed you've been cleaning up the "This album" field on various album Infoboxes, but I'm not sure if it's having the intended effect. As I understand it, the "This album" field should be bolded and italicized, but your edits have removed the italics. Is there an imminent change to the infobox coming, or were the italics removals accidental? -- Fru1tbat 12:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. -- Fantailfan 13:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct about which? (note I pasted your comment from my talk page here. Let's keep this dialogue in one place) -- Fru1tbat 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Italics should be used throughout the Last-Next-This Album. I changed them to bold in error.--Fantailfan 13:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Insane Terror edit

Your AWB-assisted edit has broken the article layout (note the missing -->). It is no big deal, I fixed it, but it looks like a bug in AWB, so you might want to pass it on... GregorB 20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

the Cars tracklist

yeah it looks better that way, thanks. could you also please edit Just What I Needed: The Cars Anthology and The Cars: Deluxe Edition track listings ...thanks a lot :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamara4006 (talk • contribs) 12:20 (UTC) 15 October 2006

November 2006

XTC Chronology

Hi,

I have been trying to improve the XTC chronology recently and noticed the recent revisions.
I should point out the split I made between the XTC studio albums and other XTC albums is in line with the advice in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums: 'The chronology section should link to the previous album on the left and the next album on the right. (Only studio albums, usually excluding lives, compilations, singles and EPs.)'

Also why restore a non-existent Rolling Stone review in Skylarking?

Memphisto 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider XTC's compilation albums (not singles) to be notable because their released output was but a fraction of their actual recordings. --Fantailfan 23:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the skylarking review. --Fantailfan 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the existing XTC chronology is that it was too confused. Some compilations and live albums were included and some not - so who decided which albums were significant?

This is why I spilt the chronology in two. After all the albums are split in the Discography into (Studio albums) and (Compilations, instrumentals, demos and live albums).

Also, do you think the Fuzzy Warbles set should be included in the XTC demos?

Memphisto 23:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Then let's make the XTC discography consistent. I have worked on Bowie and Costello and included the lives and comps, so there's no reason not to do with XTC.

Fuzzy warbles - Not necessarily - isn't that Partridge only? Fantailfan 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

After consideration I have to agree with you. However, before the discographies are combined, I think it would be wise to first ensure that nothing is missing from the (Compilations, instrumentals, demos and live albums) category.

Regarding the Fuzzy Warbles set, I don't see much difference between them and some of the Andy Partridge contributions to the Homespun/Homegrown albums. Memphisto 23:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Since I am only an XTC fan from 1986-1992 (which qualifies me as barely a fan) perhaps you can provide more material. Fantailfan 18:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

March 2007

Talk: Talk Talk Talk

Much coolness! Ftalkfanatico 21:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Image:Have a nice day smiley.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Have a nice day smiley.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- kenb215 talk 01:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

U2 WikiProject Invite

You have been invited to join WikiProject U2, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the U2-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in U2 and/or your many edits to U2 articles. If you would like to join, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. Thank you, Joelster

December 2007

User talk:Fantailfan/Andy Pratt

Hey there. I stumbled across User talk:Fantailfan/Andy Pratt just now and wondered if you still need the page. It's coming up on Google and if it's a copyvio as the page says it should really be removed. You've not edited it in over a year now - do you want me to delete it? Cheers, violet/riga (t) 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. You could have placed a speedy tag on it but I've gone ahead and deleted it anyway. If you do want it back at any time I'll restore it for you no problems. Regards, violet/riga (t) 09:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

March 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Talk:The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars‎ . Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Suffragette City. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Image:The story of the clash cover.jpg. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Brothers in Arms (album). Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Brothers in Arms (album). Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Son of Schmilsson. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)