User talk:Teflon Peter Christ/Archive 2015

Black Messiah

Hello Dan! I don't know if you are overseeing the page for D'Angelo's new album Black Messiah, but I ran across something. On The Roots' website Okayplayer, member Questlove (who goes by the handle "15" on the website), reveals a lot of information and background on his involvement on the album- some of which hasn't been touched on in recent interviews.

I don't know if would help, being that he revealed all the details on a messageboard, but here's the link to it:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2912892&mesg_id=2912892&page=

Shallowharold (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Complicated sockpuppet case

This sockpuppet case has some ramifications for your work; this person has reverted you at Between the Buttons and probably elsewhere. Perhaps you will be interested in offering your thoughts in the section for comments. Best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for improving Wikipedia by contributing so many high quality music articles. Your work does not go unnoticed, and your time is appreciated. Keep up the great work, and happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles Invite

	Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet! Todo list:

Body Count (album)

Hey Dan! Wanted to ask you to take a look at the critical reception of this album, and eventually expand it. It's a shame for a featured article to have so tiny section when plenty of reviews are available. Thanks in advance and happy holidays.--Retrohead (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Weeknd

Backing up a claim with citations of the assertions made is not OR. Its a cited fact that the RIAA counts individual discs towards its certification. Meaning each disc of a triple-disc album counts towards the total shipment number. If you want to bring mods involved to mediate, I'm perfectly happy with that as well. DA1 (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to bring mediation to end this dispute? Instead of making the O.R. claim? DA1 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to mediate the dispute, to avoid an edit war, on your very Talk Page (see above). You neither addressed my effort, but proceeded to revert my edits again. May I remind you, you reverted me first and reverted me last. The idea that I'm closing to an edit war is quite a stretch on your part. DA1 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment

We have a Yeezus-like "rave reviews" situation here. Can you please weight-in your opinion? Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dan, do you have some free time? Can you please do a raw copy-edit to "FourFiveSeconds" [especially the sections Music video, LP and Covers]? Some user placed a tag that has a lot of non-free material. Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

wish I could, @Tomica:, but I have so much work outside of WP on my plate right now. Good luck though! Dan56 (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I perfectly understand. No worries. All the best! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Colour Me Free!.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Colour Me Free!.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discography help?

Hello. Drmies once pointed me toward you for some help with an album article, and I was wondering if you know much about discographies? The Discog Wikiproject isn't seeing a lot of action, and I really have no idea who to ask about this issue. I'm working on some Korean music discographies as a newbie, and there are some unique situations that have come up. There is only one Korean discog that's made FL so I don't have much to refer to. If I could pick your brain - or if you know someone else whose brain I could pick - I'd be thankful. It's nothing urgent. Thanks so much! Shinyang-i (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about writing those kind of articles, but you could refer to this list of FL discography articles and their talk pages for editors who were involved in their writing and reviews. Good luck! Dan56 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! There's only one Korean FL, so...maybe I'll try to rouse someone at WP Disocgs again. I appreciate your time! Shinyang-i (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Car Wheels on a Gravel Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Recordings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

FAC

I have made a review of xx (album) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive3, which you had opened. May I ask you to make in return a review of Graduados at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Graduados/archive1? Cambalachero (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm not really qualified to assess television/drama articles, and I have no knowledge of that article's topic. Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

New Amerykah Part One

I reordered it because both Erykah Badu and Mike "Chav" Chavaria were the albums executive producers and James Posyner was the co-exec and I thought that those all go first Degrati (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There should be an order, i.e. something consistent and objective, like alphabetical order. Dan56 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Aren't executive producers that? Degrati (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Arent they what? "9th Wonder" starts with a number; numbers precede letters, right? Dan56 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unless we're talking on iTunes Degrati (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

the Aaliyah self titled album genres

you keep stating that the album is a neo soul album without sources that album is not a neo soul album your putting false information without a valid source your basically putting what you want to put on their without valid proof Mulaj (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Mulaj

April 2015

Hi Dan, I've been using Wiki for a good while now, but I'm still not yet a total master so don't know how some things work. What happens with the re-adding of Metacritics score on BWET? I saw someone swing the vote in my favor so I just re-added it. Should I have not? How do we come to consensus? Thanks, --Azealia911 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911:, Consensus is not the result of a vote. Decision-making requires a discussion that takes into account all editors' legitimate concerns balanced with Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding offers better advice on the process: "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting 'votes' is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely." So far, only us two have discussed the matter thoughtfully and thoroughly while considering WP's guidelines (like WP:UNDUE). In any case, however, the discussion is on-going as the RfC is still open. RfCs are open for 30 days at most, but those with more discussion and input and feeling of consensus get closed much sooner. Dan56 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

FAC input

Hi, are you still in need of people to reviewing your FAC for the article xx (album)? @JosephSpiral: (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Others responded and reviewed, but it couldn't hurt. If you notice something you believe needs fixing, it'd be appreciated, or if you don't and feel like supporting the nomination. Dan56 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:

Hey Dan, how's it going? Thanks for the message. I've actually never worked on an article going through nomination for GA ... what exactly do I need to do? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Like this. Now we wait for someone to pick up the nomination, review, and ask us to make corrections if needed. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks much. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sputnik review

Hey Dan, since you're more savvy with reviews and stuff, can you check whether Sputnikmusic has staff review for Kill 'Em All? Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't :( Dan56 (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah...

...no email enabled. Too bad. @Drmies: (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

wha? Dan56 (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, you don't have email enabled so I can't email you. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What is it you want to email me? Is it something you cant message to me here? Dan56 (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, obviously yes--but no matter, I don't like pulling teeth. Thanks, @Drmies: (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I enabled it. Dan56 (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Modern Vampires of the City

What is the harm of the edit I made. It is neither useless nor destructive. It is beneficial considering many do not read the article itself but rather scan the professional ratings chart. Are you going to continue to revert this edit and why? Oxfordwhites (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Oxfordwhites: I believe my edit summary concisely made my point, but since you want something more elaborate... It is not neutral to repeat a score that is discussed in detail in the second sentence of the Critical reception section. No other score that is in the ratings template is given undue weight and repeated twice for readers. The ratings template is meant to be an optional supplement to the text, not a quick-glance summary for looky-loos who aren't actually readers. There's no encyclopedic purpose of reiterating one score in particular for actual readers IMO. The ratings template has several other optional parameters other than for aggregate scores such as Metacritic that do not need to be used but still have value for a particular circumstance, such as when the section's prose is in development and the scores/reviews have yet to be summarized. The current state of this article's section on reviews does not seem to warrant using the "MC" parameter anymore than it does the "subtitle", "width", or "no prose" parameters. MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template says to keep a neutral point of view when editing the ratings template, but it seems like undue weight (depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, take your pick) if the article regurgitates a score in an illustrative box when the score's meaning and context is detailed already in prose as it currently reads: "At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, it received an average score of 84, based on 26 reviews." Dan56 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dan56:, your reasoning is flawed in many respects but is clearly personal. Thus, I can see that you will not give up in your somewhat odd persistence to keep an element you deem unnecessary out of the Professional Ratings panel. The incessant undo and redo actions will come to an end as I have given up any chance of convincing you to change your mind. Oxfordwhites (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well your response is verbose and melodramatic. Dan56 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing On Apatite for Destruction By Guns N' Roses

I added the glam metal thing because welcome to the jungle is a glam metal song and guns n roses is a glam metal band they are not heavy metal heavy metal is judas priest, black Sabbath, or metalica bands like Guns N' Roses , Poison, Bon Jovi And Motley Crue Are Glam Metal, Hard rock bands on occasion with those bands a couple of the songs are heavy metal crossovers like in guns and roses case its so easy, poison would be I want action, Bon jovi would be runaway as a hard rock glam metal heavy metal song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetofjelly (talk • contribs) 15:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

FAC

Sorry, I just now saw your request for input. I see that the article is now featured! Congrats! Sorry I didn't help out in time. @Reece Leonard: (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I do have another FAC still open though, for xx (album), if you'd be interested in looking over that? Dan56 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Broke with Expensive Taste

Hey, I was thinking of submitting Broke with Expensive Taste for GA status, I've never really done it before though so I'm just making sure everything's perfect before doing so! I've been through the article and made some tweaks/improvements and I think it's pretty bang on for GA status. I see you've edited the article quite a bit, so could you possible have a check through it for me just for second opinion? I'd really appreciate it. If you see nothing wrong, right off the bat, I'll submit it for review, thanks Azealia911 _talk 14:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would get rid of the tour schedule since listing all the dates is discouraged by MOS:ALBUM#Touring; a date range (like "from September to August of..." so and so), and I would also get rid of the inquire.co.uk review, since the site isn't very notable, at least relative to other reviewers available. Apart from that, a good-article reviewer will likely ask you to make some minor changes and fixes, so I think it looks good enough to be nominated. Dan56 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Will make the changes you've suggested, thanks for taking a look at it for me! Azealia911 _talk 16:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Angel Haze discography/archive1

Mind leaving some comments? Thanks Azealia911 _talk 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Online access

Hi Dan -- I was thinking it would be nice for the reader to have access to the online source.[1] And you're right that, for purposes of what we're citing, the book and website duplicate each other. Both are of course just as valid, but the website is more accessible. Better just to cite it instead, then? Cheers! --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 02:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't consider both equally valid. Technically, Christgau's website is self-published, albeit an archive from a reputed critic. The issue of accessibility is discussed in WP:OFFLINE, which suggests that shouldn't be the basis for distinction between online or offline sources. Accessibility shouldn't be a concern for readers, only editors. I've been told in the past the original source of material or quoted text (Christgau is quoted in London Calling from the book) is preferred over archives or reprints, like the review snippets you see at CD product pages (CD Universe for instance). And IMO, I see the original source being cited as more encyclopedic and academic, so I would still prefer to see the book being cited over a robertchristgau.com page with no date/context to prove it was a "retrospective" rather than "contemporary" review. A reason for much of the Christgau hate among wikinerds is that they are not aware his website is an archive of works previously published in magazines, newspapers, and books, giving the impression it's not legitimate or professional, like Piero Scaruffi. Lastly, WP:RS#Quotations says, "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." Dan56 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Christgau is completely reliable as a source for his own views (and an established author in his field), so SPS is barely relevant here, if at all. And accessibility is good (for both readers and editors; common sense applies here). And if we really want to cite the original, we'd have to go back to the Village Voice (or whichever magazine first published these short reviews). You know what? The book is good. The website is too. Two citations, each of value to the reader in different and complementary ways, is not citation overkill -- and at any rate WP:OVERCITE is not PAG. Let's keep the reader in mind (not to mention other editors who may want to check Christgau). Am restoring the website as a second source. No harm in doing so. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 04:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Accessibility is good" is not a valid argument; I don't see what you mean by common sense applying here. Apart from resorting to our personal preferences and opinions, what guideline suggests we should add a citation additional to the original for the sake of readers being able to see the review and grade themselves? As an encyclopedia, we're including the portions of the source material we believe is most relevant to readers when they are reading a particular article, so they wont have to look it up themselves. The original source for both the grade and the quote is footnote 51 --> Christgau, Robert (1990). Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s. Pantheon Books. p. 92. ISBN 067973015X Either this source verifies the grade and the quote or not. If you believe it doesn't, then that's a reason for adding what you have added. Otherwise, common sense would say what you added is extraneous because there isn't a distinction between online and offline sources, but you are trying to make one by saying one is preferable because it is more accessible, which WP:OFFLINE says is irrelevant. WP:RS#QUOTATIONS says citing the original source of quoted material is preferable, so just leave it at that. Dan56 (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, the guideline I originally referred to you WP:CITEOVERKILL#Reprints, "Another common form of citation overkill is to cite multiple reprintings of the same content in different publications ... as if they constituted distinct citations. Such duplicated citations may be piled up as multiple references for the same fact". That is what you did, adding a second citation with the same content, published elsewhere, to verify the same thing. "When possible, the retained citation should be the originator of the content rather than a reprinter or aggregator", i.e. page 92 in Christgau's book over his website reprinting it. As for harm, not much, but two footnotes for one grade could be jarring and unattractive to readers and not uniform with the rest of the ratings (not to mention the rest of what is cited in the article, to just one source, many of which are also original print sources not accessible online), which draws unnecessary attention to this particular grade. WP:CITEOVERKILL explains the downside to multiple consecutive citations, which can "look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode ... they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability." It especially stands out in a ratings template limit to 10 entries, where the one with multiple footnotes will obviously standout. Apart from WP:RS#QUOTATIONS and WP:CITEOVERKILL#Reprints supporting my position on this, there is no harm in leaving it as it is either. Dan56 (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Was about to make basically the same edit and was nearly e/c'd; GMTA. :-) It's a great album, isn't it? For me a desert island selection. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Help

Could you please help me with the article, Tom Bailey. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Help how? Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Some assistance over album reviews

Hey Dan, I know heavy metal is not your primal musical interest, but if you have some time these days, can you fill the critical reception on Kill 'Em All and Ride the Lightning? Much appreciated.--Retrohead (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments

A Request for Comments about the use of album covers is currently on at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. It would be greatly appreciated to have more opinions on the matter. Lewismaster (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Safe and Sound (Taylor Swift song) - "Composition" section

It's such a silly thing to edit war/argue over by that user, and think that all together was a bold step to take. 115.164.91.59 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FAC Input

Hi, sorry I didn't get a chance to offer input in your FAC for the article xx (album). I do see that various editors offered input and the article looks excellent. JosephSpiral (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

About Lachlan Foley - why are you reverting his work?

Why would you revert nearly all of Lachlan's edits! He is an experienced Wikipedian! Just chill out, OK?

THANKS!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

He's experienced at genre warring (which I clearly made known in my edit summaries, so you should have an idea of why I am "reverting his work"). And who are you anyway?? @Malmsimp: Dan56 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm Malmsimp by the way

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Song X

I entirely disagree with your changes to my edit and the philosophy on which they are based (the terror of quotation among some Wikipedians is absurd), but I've learned it's pointless to get into edit wars with people who feel as proprietary as you appear to, so I'm just registering my disagreement here; I suppose I should be grateful you didn't simply revert my edits entirely. Languagehat (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Exile on Main St.

I left a message on this albums talk page concerning the edit that I made in regards to what number of British and American studio album releases it is. It explains why I made the edit. I just thought that I would let you know. Thanks.Frschoonover (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A little help please

Hey Dan, how's it going? I've been having issues with an editor making un-constructive changes on the Ready to Die page (I've contacted them several times now on their talk page). Can you please message them - hopefully you might be able to talk some sense into them (evidently I can't). --Blastmaster11 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit reversions

STOP carelessly reverting my changes. You give no valid reasons for reverting my edits, all of which have been productive. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A hypothetical

Dan, allow me please to run a hypothetical situation by you and ask how you would react to it. Let's say a young man was mistreated at school by an older student and so reported his mistreatment to the principal's office. The principal is shocked at the young man's story, immediately agreeing he was mistreated by the older student, and speaks to the older student on the young man's behalf. The principal lists the mistakes made by the older student very specifically, asking him to ensure such behavior is not repeated in the future. All is now well and good. But then the young man continues complaining to the principal. He complains to anyone who will listen how mistreated he was. He again tells the principal that someone should do something about it, acting as if he and everyone else had ignored him. The principal begins to feel foolish that he had sided with the young man, who is now behaving quite immaturely, continuing to complain. Friends of the young man try warning him to stop; explaining to him that the matter had been handled and that everyone needs to move on—but the young man is hearing none of it, complaining louder than ever. Prhartcom (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

FAC

I have made a review of Too Much Too Soon (album), as you requested. I don't know the band, but that was not a problem. May I ask for a review of Graduados in return? It is open here. Cambalachero (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Christ! You're the reviewer from xx (album) who asked for "quid pro quo". Dan56 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"Quid pro quo" means that I make you a favour, and ask for a similar favour in return. Very few people would review articles about some topics out of their own initiative, so this is a way to find reviewers. I have helped you by making a review and pointing some things to fix (and for a second time); what do you do now about it, it's up to you. Cambalachero (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in my seven-year experience soliciting good article reviewers and featured articles reviewers, you're the only one to suggest that. I found you're name at the list of FACs and didn't think you were looking for something in return. If anything, expecting something in return would border on conflict of interest and make both our reviews/votes look suspect. Television articles are out of my area of expertise so I wouldn't have been able to offer an adequate review anyway. Thank you for suggesting the improvement to my FAC though. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Aaliyah.

Sir...lol. There is TOO much info for you online. One can simply even look on the billboard charts and see the release date for that album. There are PHOTOS AND VIDEOS of her on THE 17th of July, for the ALBUM RELEASE. You're going to tell me that Aaliyah released that album on a Saturday? Do some research, kind sir. I sure have. Forhiphop (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You probably should make that clear then. Becuase your info is confusing those, like myself who believe the release date to be the 17th, which is the only date acknowledged in interviews By Aaliyah herself, as well as numerous articles covering the release of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forhiphop (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill

I totally agree with you. Complete bullcrap GA review he did. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @DannyMusicEditor:. Try telling that to Calvin999, J. Johnson and them at WP:GA smh Dan56 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan56, now that several days have passed, I'm just dropping by to offer support on this topic. FYI, there was some discussion between the reviewer and myself off-wiki that you are not aware during which I reiterated and amplified the strong suggestions I gave them, asking them not to engage that approach in the future. Likewise, I hope you take to heart the suggestions I gave to you. I don't wish to revive the discussion, I just wanted you to know you were not alone in your opinion of the situation. I feel confident your next review of this article will go much better. Keep up the good work improving Wikipedia, and all the best. Prhartcom (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Lachlan Foley, is he already back with this ip?

I dunno but these edits look like his. Carliertwo (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I reported the IP at WP:AVI @Carliertwo:, but if that doesn't work then please notify Chillum, the admin who closed the ANI discussion regarding Lachlan Foley. Dan56 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Aaliyah album date

Ok, but the album date was wrong. I have the Billboard and Amazon article with the release date. (July 17, 2001) Datyger (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsigned comment

Hi, I understand what your trying to say but i have more resources that point towards that being a netural opinon. such as, pitchfork media also ranking it on their list of the best albums of the decade so far, q magazine readers voting it 64th on their list of best albums of the past 30 years, studio brussels including it in their list of 500 greatest albums ever. also nme, factual opinion, cokemachineglow, and others including it in their list of best albums of 2010. Im not the most experienced with wiki truthfully, and i would be more than grateful if you could add some of these accolades. thank you for being polite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.131.127 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RE: To Pimp A Butterfly

Hey there, I'm here to talk about the Metascore of To Pimp A Butterfly. First of all, in your initial removal of the Metascore and any mentions of it from the article, you described it as "extraneous". The Metascore has generally been accepted on Wikipedia as a good aggregation of reviews for a given piece of media, and is used in featured articles about albums such as Pinkerton and Doolittle. It is a helpful piece of information that allows the user to get a general idea of the album's reception before reading into specific reviews. It is far from extraneous.

Secondly, in your reversion of my edit, you stated that there's "no reason to mention a particular score more than once", citing WP:COMMONSENSE. What do you mean by mentioning it more than once? If you mean you think it shouldn't be in both the Lead and Reception sections, then please know that the Lead section is meant to be a brief summary of each of the article's sections, and with the album being the highest rated rap album on Metacritic, I personally believe it is notable enough to be in both sections. Also, WP:COMMONSENSE states that Wikipedia's goal "is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers". In this case, removing a notable piece of information such as the Metascore is doing the opposite.

Finally, you also stated that mentioning the Metascore more than once "emphasizes a particular point of view over others". As I've already said, many articles about pieces of media, including albums, cite the Metascore in the reception section, so the majority of people who read and edit Wikipedia accept it as a reliable source for reception of media. Again, I believe mentioning it twice (Once in the Lead, once in Reception) is acceptable because it's the highest rated rap album on the site.

If you don't mind, I would very much prefer that the Metascore and information about it stays in both the Lead and Reception sections of To Pimp A Butterfly. BlookerG ^talk 22:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your changes to Astral Weeks

Your quickly done and numerous edits to the GA article, without any discussion on the talk page, do not in most cases, improve the article. You removed over 6,000 bytes on your own opinion of what should be there or not. It was reviewed by an experienced reviewer with 759 good article reviews to his credit. You have edited it into a mundane article about what reads as a mundane album. It has no soul now. @Agadant:

Dude, DONT. I cant even imagine how many of those other Van Morrison articles I see at your user page must suffer from the same kind of "soul" if this is your reaction. I saw the review and remember how reviews were once conducted over three years ago, with reviewers overlooking basic neutrality issues and simple source-checking, which Jezhotwells didn't do since the revision dated to when it passed GA lists NPR, PopMatters, and Rolling Stone as having given the album five-star reviews when in fact they didn't rate it altogether. Be thankful I did my research and made the article more objective, balanced, and accurate. Dan56 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, by 'soul' I mean descriptive writing that captures the essence of the subject matter. I've looked at other articles you are promoting and they have the same WP:FANCRUFT that you say you removed from AW... Those reviews you cite when originally published according to sources had five stars. What else did you find you say isn't accurate? The bulk of what you removed was reviews and information on the album written by well-known parties. Their descriptions were similar to attributed remarks in, as an example: The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Personally, calling another editor "Dude" seem disrespectful to me and does not denote a balanced demeanor on your part. Agadant (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You're so full of it!! PopMatters has NEVER used a star-rating system, and NPR NEVER published graded reviews, and I suspect you're lying about Rolling Stone's review as well. The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill has only one paragraph dedicated to paraphrasing positive reviews (as opposed to at least 10 paragraphs of quote farm--Reception and Legacy sections combined--in Astral Weeks) followed by a second paragraph dedicated to actual criticism of Hill's album. It was inaccurate of you to write Astral Weeks "received critical acclaim soon after being released". Even Sean O'Hagan from The Observer source you cherry picked a chunk of quotes from admitted in his article that Astral Weeks "left many contemporary critics bemused and his core audience baffled. NME originally compared it unfavourably to the songs of José Feliciano." ([2]).... which makes me wonder how you overlooked that part of his article or if you just chose to overlook it. More importantly, Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. Writing a good article means writing it in your own words, and you didn't do that. Your "descriptive writing" violated basic principles of writing good articles -->

• "Gather short quotations when they powerfully illustrate a point for your article. Overuse can result in a disjointed article and may breach copyright. (Extensive quotations are forbidden by policy.)"
• "Gather related items from the multiple sources and explain it to yourself: The point is to rephrase or summarize a body of information in your own words and sentence structure."
• "Quotations are used appropriately and infrequently"

I don't have a "balanced demeanor" because my improvements weren't appreciated by you @Agadant:. In fact, they were put down for reasons only a biased fan would have--you should be glad I went out of my way to improve it instead of nominating it for demotion, because there's no chance it would have remained a good article if reviewed by today's standards. I'm as big a Van Morrison fan as the next guy, but that's not why I'm here editing and writing articles. Perhaps you have the wrong idea of what Wikipedia is for. Dan56 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You know nothing, Dan56. Wikipedia should not be used to bully, call other editors liars and extol yourself in a self-righteous manner like only YOU have all the honorable reasons for editing here. @Agadant:

Evasive cop-out, ad hominen, etc. Dan56 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I was not the one who changed the ratings from favourable to 5 stars that you called me a liar over: revision . Agadant (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Agadant:, you said, and I quote, "Those reviews you cite when originally published according to sources had five stars." Dan56 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I thought that's what I remembered. I didn't have time to check it last night but I did today. But I wasn't being a liar as you called me! I guess my biggest gripe with your editing on the article was your lack of discussion of any of it on the talk page. A lot of your edits were subjective and should have been discussed as I'm sure you know. Agadant (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how or why. Examples would help, since I feel like your original edits to the article were subjective rather than mine. Dan56 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Dan56, for one addressing me, you said, It was inaccurate of you to write Astral Weeks "received critical acclaim soon after being released."

You revised the article, using Johnny Rogan's 2006 book as a reference: "When Astral Weeks was first released, it sold poorly. In the United States, the album became a somewhat popular cult import, while it was largely overlooked by critics in the United Kingdom.The British magazine Beat Instrumental published a negative review, finding Morrison's songs monotonous and unoriginal, while Nick Logan from NME called it a pale imitation of guitarist José Feliciano's 1968 album Feliciano!, the best-selling record that year. With the exception of the title track, he felt the compositions were indistinguishable and "suffer from being stuck in the same groove throughout".

And yet, Ritchie Yorke, a contemporary, wrote in his book published in 1975: "So, one presumes it was no surprise that a legion of perceptive rock critics were extraordinarily moved on first exposure to Astral Weeks, even if the public's reaction was somewhat less vocal across record store counters. "Rolling Stone" named it the album of 1969, while in Europe, Morrison was voted third most popular male artist after Otis Redding and Bob Dylan... There was no shortage of estatic reviews from across the globe.They simpy poured in, with their creators fighting among themselves to come up with the most extravagant phrases of passionate praise." Yorke, pgs. 65-66 Agadant (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It selling poorly is indisputable (both Rogan's book and the Christgau source currently verifying it do so). As far as how critics received the album, I don't see the relevance of him being a "contemporary", but the fact that he overlooked negative reviews from Beat Instrumental and NME while making glowing claims about "ecstatic reviews" without mentioning any is telling. Calling those critics "perceptive" for being "extraordinarily moved" by the album sounds biased also--even though Rogan admits to disagreeing with Logan's assessment, at least he mentioned it. Voted the third most popular by whom in Europe? How could there be ecstatic reviews from across the globe when the album wasn't promoted by Warner Bros. (who themselves claimed in their advertisements the album was "obscure") and when the album barely had any exposure in the U.S. and the U.K., let alone other parts of the world? Your source seems suspect to say the least. Does Yorke mention any of these reviews?? Or have footnotes attributing them as sources for his research/claims? Dan56 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Morrison told Yorke, pg. 67 speaking of Astral Weeks: The critical acclaim was really good. A lot of people I knew really liked the album and I knew they weren't just putting me on. And, anyway inside I knew that it was good." Agadant (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Was he being asked about the acclaim it later received? Dan56 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The book was published in 1975, so he had to have been speaking previous to that. Agadant (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Using GoogleBooks, I found a few more reviews from 1969, a negative review from Stereo Review ([3]) and a positive review from Rolling Stone ([4]), so perhaps it can be assumed Yorke was making this assumption because it was Rolling Stone who had reacted favorably to the album? Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not supposed to assume, are we? Only to report what Reliable Sources have said. Agadant (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add more positive contemporary reviews (if they exist) to the section for balance, so if you have access to those, it'd be greatly appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anymore if I do. It's been 3 years since I worked on this, but I'll see what I can find when I have time. BTW: Johnny Rogan was known to have a prejudiced view of Morrison and his book reflects it. One of those writers who thinks negativity sells... As time went by in writing about Van Morrison, I learned to double- check anything Rogan wrote or disregard it altogether. Agadant (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Agadant:, I don't know anything about that, but if Rogan backed up his claims with references to reviews (footnotes, for instance, citing NME and Beat Instrumental) and Yorke didn't, then Rogan did the better research on this matter. Rogan's ideas are echoed in other sources, like Carys Wyn Jones' book The Rock Canon: Canonical Values in the Reception of Rock Albums. Furthermore, Yorke's take on the album's original reception is contradicted by other sources, including The Mojo Collection ([5]), Sean O'Hagan from The Observer ([6]), and Erik Hage in his bio on Morrison ([7]), pointing out Greil Marcus was one positive reviewer while most other critics were "slow to warm" to the album. Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Melody Maker described it as "one of the strongest albums of the year." from Celtic Crossroads. Agadant (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Agadant:. I see from the Amazon.com preview of the book Hinton writes after mentioning Melody Maker, "This was not the common view. The NME likened Van to a poor man's Jose Feliciano ... Beat Instrumental shrugged off the album as..." Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

LF 's new profile

Apparently, he has got a clone see here and here. Carliertwo (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please consider posting about this at WP:ANI, @Carliertwo:. I honestly don't have the time and patience to pursue this genre warrior to the extent I'd need to get something effective done. Dan56 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Appetite for Destruction Page

How exactly is my editing "disruptive"? How am I disrupting the page? I was adding more of my own stuff that I thought would help the page. It had a source to back it up too. I didnt need to add my own reference because there was one already there that backed up my edit. It IS the 11th best selling album of all time in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom2123 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The "claim" is definitely backed up. If you go to the source that is actually listed right there, located at RIAA.com, you can see that it is the 11th best selling album of all time in the US. They do not say word for word "It is the 11th best selling album in the US" you're right, but they ALSO don't say explicitly that "it sold 18 million copies in the US" or "it sold 28 million worldwide". Regardless of all this ...don't you think it's something noteworthy to put on there? An accolade/achievement of sorts? It is the 11th best selling album in the US for christs sake lol. If it can be backed up by the RIAA site it should definitely be left on there. Do you just hate GNR or that album or something Dan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom2123 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok Dan, I suppose you're right. I'm new to this whole wikipedia thing so cut me a little slack. One thing though, if I do happen to find a source that explicitly states it is the 11th best-selling album in the US, where should I put it? On the first paragraph or where?

Under My Skin; lead too short

Hello, I've recently noticed that the 2004 album Under My Skin by Avril Lavigne that the lead section is 60% shorter than her other albums. I would like for you to contribute to the issue. Thanks. troublednbored (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guitar (Sonny Sharrock album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Composition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Imagine (John Lennon album) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Misterioso
Thank you for quality articles on albums such as The Way I See It and Misterioso, for collaboration such as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, for taking care of articles with explaining edit summaries and polite warnings, for being an ally, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 954th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicki minaj Album sales

Hi I wanted to know if you could find if pink Friday and roman reloaded album sales have been updated yet ? It would really would mean alot thanks Kingkali97 (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Unforgettable Fire page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Lauryn Hill's MTV Unplugged 2.0 Page

I don't know why you bit my head off when I removed the wrong edit and corrected it in flat list form. Being disruptive would've been leaving it a mess, but I fixed it and now you've changed it back. Just letting you know that I wasn't trying to mess anything up. Thank you. Rmcrae2015 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

More Than a Woman (Aaliyah song)

Please read WP:RFC carefully. "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue..." Not sure why you want a 30 day RFC anyways when you can edit the article in a couple days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note [8] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bird&Diz 2007Verve.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bird&Diz 2007Verve.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj is Trinidadian and not American

Nicki Minaj is a Trinidadian, Not an American, Stop putting false nationality for her. She was born in Trinidad therefore she is a Trinidadian citizen. As a source, She stated to VOGUE magazine that "I'm not American, I'm Trini and I'm proud to be an Island girl". Do your research before stating false facts that people are going to believe after reading an aticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PositiveEM (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dan56:

Nicki Minaj was born in Trinidad, Therefore she isn't American, American isn't even supposed to be there. She stated in an Interview with VOGUE "I'm not American, I'm Trini and I'm proud to be an Island girl" Once more I state she is Trinidadian weather you like it or not, You cannot appoint someone a nationality just because they live in that country, She is still a Trinidadian being born there. Stop giving false advertisement of her being American because there are people who will believe that she is American after reading this article when that is clearly wrong, Why Edit something if your editing it with wrong information. You need to stop putting that she is American. She have said numerous times that she isn't an American and she is still Trinidadian.

For example: Rihanna was born in Barbados and lives in America and did most of her recording in the United States, But yet still she a Barbadian.

Same goes for Nicki Minaj, She has not adopted American citizenship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PositiveEM (talk • contribs) 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Moondance

The article Moondance you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Moondance for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Moondance

The article Moondance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Moondance for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra

I only did that because you can't see the genres on his infobox. Could you fix that? - Dpm12

Madonna articles

Hi Dan. You have been updating the critical reception sources in the Madonna articles. A big thanks for that. I wanted to ask you, since you are such a FA cohort, would you like to develop any of her article for FA? Many of them are GA already, including albums. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I'd have the time or effort in me for FAs anymore tbh. Dan56 (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Real life calling? :( —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

lol yes Dan56 (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

808s & Heartbreak

Just wondering why my last edit on the 808s & Heartbreak page was reverted—to my eyes, my edit just seems less clumsy in terms of syntax and more stylistically coherent. For example: "a series of distressing personal events" sounds better and more concise to my ears than "multiple events that distressed him" (which also vaguely neglects to specify the nature of the events); or, the second sentence of the second paragraph, which lists two musical features but only explains what the latter was used for, which is grammatically awkward and a bit confusing—is the clause referring to one or both features?; or, the disconnect between the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph, which seem to flow into each other but are needlessly broken by a paragraph break; or the awkward phrasing "to evoke a presence of tribal drums" etc.

Apart from those stylistic changes, no significant information was modified, added, or excised, so I'm not sure on what grounds a reversion needed to take place. User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Tricky, again

You seem to have a habit of writing sentences bereft of any professional style or grammatical accuracy, and then finding negligible excuses to revert edits to those sentences.

"Its release happened after its recording, so mentioning it beforehand makes no sense."

It's an opening sentence. It briefly mentions immediate information about the album, such as who its by, the fact that it's a debut, and when it was released, followed by a second sentence briefly mentioned background about where and how it was recorded. I don't see the problem.

I don't see a problem with how it was before, which made more sense chronologically and with the order of what is discussed in the article's body. Dan56 (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"'prominently featured the vocal contributions' is more elaborate wording than needs be"

Excuse the sarcasm, but unless Wikipedia is meant for people who read at a second grade level, the suggestion that my phrase is somehow convoluted is ridiculous. Moreover, your original clause, "shared vocals on many of the songs," contains MORE WORDS than that phrase. Finally, she didn't only share vocals on songs—on the opening track, for example, she is the sole vocalist. So it's inaccurate in addition to sounding inane, simplistic, and clumsy.

"Prominently featured" and "vocal contributions" are pretentious, verbose ways of expressing such a simple idea as her singing on the album's songs. "Prominent", considering how it's usually defined, is awkward in the context you are using it. Same for "contribution". Not that it's technically wrong to use those words, just that it sounds inflated and stupid and not encyclopedic writing. By my count, she is only the sole vocalist on the first three songs and, with the exception of Goldfrapp on "Pumpkin", she sang alongside Tricky on the other eight songs, so she did share vocals on many of the songs. Dan56 (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Not understanding the quote isn't reason enough to remove it"

Sidestepping the fact that Wikipedia is intended to be a helpful and clear resource rather than a riddle for people who want to dissect the meaning of a verbose quote, I have to inform you that I understand the quote just fine—and it is quite a fine review. Unfortunately, your ridiculously convoluted deployment of the quote, chopped up between two sentences with the grace of the aforementioned hypothetical second grader, renders it entirely confusing and seems to fundamentally misunderstand the structure of the "warm, beatwise..." line, which you inexplicably cut off MID–SENTENCE in a way that is grammatically incoherent....it's a contingent clause, which needs the cut-out second half to make any sense.

Christgau's reference to "a bad place you should take a chance and visit" is a reference to the album, as is his reference to what he describes as "warm, beatwise", so changing the punctuation (from a period to a colon, like here) would make it more correct grammatically. Either way, quoted material doesn't have to be grammatically correct or up to the same standards of grammar; Christgau's reviews haven't always followed proper grammar, but that doesn't mean we can't quote him even when he doesn't. Dan56 (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"It was hailed by many critics as the year's best record "

is redundant. The previous sentence already mentioned it received widespread critical acclaim.

It sums up its ranking in year-end polls and accolades such as the Mercury Prize, but it can be merged with the preceding sentence so it is mentioned as an example of the acclaim, like here. Dan56 (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

""British" refers to citizenship"

finally, a justified reversion! User:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill

The article The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry, I forgot there were no individual tracks on Pangaea, thus forcing you to paraphrase. I was thinking RC literally meant there was no track listing on the sleeve. Stupid old me. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Selena Gomez Revival

Hi, why do you think the meta critic score for Revival shouldn't be shown? It's shown on every other album page. Plus, the other ratings have a description in the summary, so why is meta critic any different? Smoore95GAGA (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Smoore95GAGA (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Light of the Sun

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Light of the Sun you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Light of the Sun

The article The Light of the Sun you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Light of the Sun for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hendrix edits

I do believe you are making a mistake, England is only a part of the UK. And although Great Britain does not make up the entire United Kingdom, British is still the official demonym of the UK, including Northern Ireland (but let's leave that for another day). VEO^onefive 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Modern Vampires of the City

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Light of the Sun

The article The Light of the Sun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Light of the Sun for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Azealia911 -- Azealia911 (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

UK Albums Chart

Hi Dan. Noticing that UK Albums Chart has become a redirect to Official Albums Chart I looked to see that it was you who had moved it. I see your thinking - that the Official Albums Chart is the name used by Official Charts Company; however, we tend not to go by official or corporate names. And in this case the new name has only been in use for a relatively short part of the period covered by the chart. I would think that WP:Common name would tend to apply here, and UK Albums Chart is still the name used by the media ([9], [10], [11], [12]); but would like to hear your thoughts before I do anything. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I was just considering how articles on other country's charts go by official names (like Sverigetopplistan or Billboard 200), and the fact that as an article in the English Wikipedia, it wouldn't be consistent when the article on the American Billboard 200 isn't similarly titled "US albums chart" (a title that isn't all that uncommon in sources). I really don't care if my move gets reverted or not, although while we're on the subject, for the sake of internal consistency (which WP:MOS stresses), I would like to see more album articles use demonyms in all the entries for their chart sections, like I have done here, pipe-linking the Official Albums Chart and Billboard 200 as "British Albums Chart" and "American Albums Chart", respectively. Dan56 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I like what you have done at Xx_(album)#Charts, and can see the sense in having the articles on national charts being under the most obvious English name here on the English Wikipedia. Sverigetopplistan makes no sense to anyone who doesn't speak Swedish, and English language sources do instead say Swedish Record Chart or Swedish Album Chart (or Swedish album chart / record chart). I think it might be worthwhile opening a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Charts (as the most appropriate forum) and alerting members of relevant projects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. I think that people will wish to keep names like Billboard 200 (though for many outside USA even if "Billboard" may be recognisable as a chart, the "200" part may not signify that it's an album chart), though may accept that Independent Albums is not helpful. What do you think? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

UK Albums Chart and US Billboard 200 should stay as they are. Changing them (or, more appropriately in this case, disguising them under a different name) is completely unnecessary. Unreal7 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 24, 2015

Hi Dan, I'll do the summary on this one tonight. Good to see this one, TFA can use a little funk. - Dank (push to talk) 23:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your Rhythm Killers, - what Dank said!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Rhythm Killers

Hi, you seem determined to edit war on this issue, also leaving the article in an inconsistent state and inconsistent with the (correct) title of the chart that we have in the article on the chart itself. Your latest edit summary doesn't really justify your revert - can you take it to the talk page if you disagree rather than just reverting please? --Michig (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Michig:, check the official website of that country's albums chart. The correct title of the chart is actually the Official Albums Chart. What it is commonly referred to by sources is debatable, but what isn't debatable is that not using the demonym for one chart entry (when it is used for the other three) doesn't make the article internally consistent (WP:MOS). Dan56 (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't called the Official Albums Chart in 1987 because it wasn't compiled by the Official Charts Company back then, so that's pretty irrelevant. The country concerned is the United Kingdom, not Britain. I see no inconsistency in using 'UK Albums Chart' in th same table as 'New Zealand Albums Chart'. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 24, 2015

Hi Dan, I'll do the summary on this one tonight. Good to see this one, TFA can use a little funk. - Dank (push to talk) 23:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your Rhythm Killers, - what Dank said!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Maxinquaye

Just wanted to say: love what you're doing for Maxinquaye. Keep it up! :) — sparklism ^hey! 08:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Don't Stop the Music"

Hey Dan, how's going? I hope you are doing well. Can I get your help on the article? I recently nominated it for featured, but according to one user the prose is not satisfactory yet! Can you at least just do some rough checking and slight copy-editing? Thanks, as always... — Tom^(T2ME) 11:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)