User talk:Wikiuser100/archive 3 (2010)

Orlova

I don't see what value you think tagging that article is going to do, it is a simple little article no big issues, if you want to edit it go ahead. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the hatnote at the above article. It is my perogative to indicate the article is NPOV and needs editing; it is not yours to delete it or charge me with the edits. If I had time, perhaps I would do them. I don't today. The article needs editing and readers need to be aware of its bias regardless. Please do not delete the hatnote and escalate this into an edit war. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are coming back in a few days to edit the article? well great come back then and improve it, adding a worthless template does nothing to benefit the article at all. thanks. What is iyo actually wrong with it? It is all cited? Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar XF

Why did you remove the "TV Appearances" section from the "Jaguar XF" Article? 216.48.162.118 (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to this date on your Talk page.Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radius edit on A-10 page

Hello, Wikiuser100. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted removal of content

Greetings, WU100. Your edits to Propane last month were summarised as a general cleanup, but you removed apposite, encyclopædic material that was well supported with ample citations of reliable sources. I'm assuming this was inadvertent, and I've restored the deleted material. Please have a care when cleaning up articles not to discard the bathwater with the baby…er…wait, that's not quite right, is it? ;-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made so many edits to the article (and it's been so long since) I do not know one way or the other at this point. I apologize for not taking the time right now to go back and review them. More than likely I intended the deletion, as I prefer succinctness and germaneness over their opposite as a general rule. Regardless, I do not intend to revisit the article and contest your re-introduction of whatever material you feel is so essential.Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Criteria studio Track Identification Chart

Hello, I just noticed your edits to Layla, and was wondering about the reference you added. It's merely "Original Criteria studio Track Identification Chart", which I am sorry to say means nothing to me. What is it, and how/where can I get a copy of it? Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your clear explanation and your generous offer. It sounds really cool, especially the legible bits (LOL) and if you know anything about music and recording. I think I am probably too ignorant in the area to appreciate it fully (and I'd feel a bit funny about getting scanned copies I shouldn't have), but if I ever get close to such a set, I might well spend some money on it.

For purposes of WP, sending me a copy wouldn't help us with verifiability, since you'd have to send everybody a copy, and then you're suddenly a publisher! But what would be cool is, if you can sort out what info to use, to expand your ref to use the title of the booklet, the name of the box set you got it from, the publisher (music label, maybe), etc., such that at least somebody else could find the same info without asking you for it. The six words currently there didn't even tell me what it is (since I'm not knowledgable enough), but with more info even my mom could find it, or at least know what she was looking for. Ideal would be if my mom looks for it, finds it, and then sends it to me for my birthday, but I'm not sure I can expect that much from Mom. Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, you're on.

Since (I see at your User Page) you're a Template guy, could you please suggest one (or link thereto) that would be appropriate for expanding/filling in as you suggest. I see exploded references in various pages I edit but have never used that format myself.

I'm sure by the time I'm/we're done your Mom will know just where to look, and Wikipedia users in this galaxy and beyond will be similarly well informed. I don't think it violates any copyright laws for me to send you copies of items I scan in for my personal use (I'm basically categorizing their content for easier reference and indeally improved verifiability), but just in case your Mum stumbles there, here is a link to add to your Christmas list for the whole kaboodle: http://www.amazon.com/DEREK-DOMINOS-Assorted-Remixed-Anniversary/dp/B000THDHYU/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1286071943&sr=1-4.

Look forward to a template suggestion. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in answering, I was, er, out shopping.

As for templates, we really have only two choices, as I can easily rule out the majority of possibilities at WP:CIT. {{Cite mailing list}} won't help us, for example. Our two candidates, then, are {{cite book}} and {{citation}}. As it happens, the former actually makes use of the latter, but that's behind the scenes, and needn't concern us. It could be, though, that if we choose {{cite book}}, since it sounds to me as though that's a fair description of what you've got, and then find that we can't do what we need to with it, that we then fall back to {{citation}}. Plan C is to do it by hand, which is, obviously, the most flexible.

So do you need further help? If you've never used a template before, the best thing to do is... try using a template. If you know how to use Show preview you won't disturb anybody while you try things out. Just enter in the whole {{cite book}} template within your main <ref></ref> set, and start tweaking the parameter values. You know better than I do what info you have (ISBN, for example), but probably you can just use the briefer "Most commonly used fields" shown in the documentation.

The documentation is at {{cite book}}; click and read, then copy and paste, then edit, preview, compare with other refs. Repeat as needed. Save and, if you feel the need, ask me for help (although I won't be online much longer tonight). OK? And thanks for the Amazon link. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger all this. See how I can best cobble the desired info together, as the 20th Anniversary set comes with a 14-page booklet (of essay and standard song/performer data) and a white envelope containing 12 loose pages of Track Identification Sheets (as referenced). Standard "publisher" data is lacking for both, at least in any familiar format. It will take some detective work to ferret out in good faith. Tomorrow, or soon, as it is lights out here now. Enjoy the 20th Anniversary set when you get it. Thanks for your help. Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected link: This is the URL I used to order the 20th Anniversary set here in the US: http://www.amazon.com/Layla-Sessions-20th-Anniversary/dp/B000001FZ5/ref=sr_1_8?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1286075525&sr=1-8. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, thanks for your comprehensive note. It's good to know there's somebody else almost as verbose as I am on WP. And based on what I've understood from your explanation, we're best off just writing the citations "manually", without fiddling with any cite templates.

Including the author sounds a bit messy, since it appears you have a lot of engineers running around, probably marking occasionally on each others' charts, with the "Staff" and unmarked charts muddling the issue. I'd like to get them in there somewhere, if it's something somebody will need to know, but I'm not sure the engineer name counts for this, especially some aren't even attributed.

Since one of our goals is to uniquely identify a chart, we can apparently achieve this through the numbering and dates, without having to rely solely on the engineer. Then we can look at another goal, helping people locate the resource.

I've got some drafts, but before we get there I have to mention that I've a little uneasy about the caps in "Track Identification Chart". Is that how they're all marked? Or do the forms use ALL CAPS?

It's my understanding these are only from the original recordings, not any remixing that happened for the 1990 repackaging. Yes?

Also, I'm a bit confused about the companies involved. Apparently the original recording of "Layla" and the rest of Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs happened in 1970 at Criteria Studios, which I take to be both a building and company, owned by Atlantic Recording Corporation (Atco). It's not clear to me what roles Atco and Polydor played in the release, recording, promotion, distribution, etc., of the song or album. It leaves me unsure of who to name as publisher of what.

But here goes anyway, as samples which you can correct and we can discuss. One thing's for sure, these first attempts are pretty long.

Track Identification Chart "DEREK TRACKING SHEET 1 847 083 2/4" from Criteria Studios Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs recording sessions, packaged with Derek and the Dominos' Layla Sessions 20th Anniversary Edition, Polydor Records NR B000001FZ5.

Well, that one was so long, I already don't feel like doing any more. The "Polydor Records" is supposed to be whatever label is shown on the box you have (in olden times, it was on the LP sleeve's spine). The "B000001FZ5" is meant to by the catalog number there. I stole this from Amazon and there's a huge chance it's Amazon's number, not Polydor/whoever's.

The abomination above tells what it is (which we don't do with books and magazines, but then, everybody knows what those are); what it's title is (as best as we can divine it); more of its heritage (what it is, again: from the first recordings); and where we found it. Allegedly, the title, record label and catalog number are enough to allow any old dope to locate the recording.

So the only thing that's bugging me about this first example (besides the length), is that I wasn't able to squeeze the engineer's name in there somewhere. I was rather planning to throw a ", Ron Albert, engineer" in at the end of some line. This stupid thing is three miles long but still only one line. I used a comma before "Polydor" based on a style guide example. And I don't want to add the engineer at the end, because it will seem attached to the repackaged issue.

Maybe:

Track Identification Chart "DEREK TRACKING SHEET 1 847 083 2/4", Ron Albert, engineer, from Criteria Studios Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs recording sessions, packaged with Derek and the Dominos' Layla Sessions 20th Anniversary Edition, Polydor Records NR B000001FZ5.

Or:

Track Identification Chart "DEREK TRACKING SHEET 1 847 083 2/4", Ron Albert, engineer, from Criteria Studios Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs recording sessions. Packaged with Derek and the Dominos' Layla Sessions 20th Anniversary Edition, Polydor Records NR B000001FZ5.

Comments? Thoughts? Questions? Counter-proposals? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nuts! All that writing and I left out the date. Well, here's a shot at working it into that first example (numbered "1" above...):

Track Identification Chart "DEREK TRACKING SHEET 1 847 083 2/4", 26 August 1970, from Criteria Studios Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs recording sessions, packaged with Derek and the Dominos' Layla Sessions 20th Anniversary Edition, Polydor Records NR B000001FZ5.

Of course, you'll have to make sure to use the real dates, real engineer, etc. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatsamatter? My answers aren't verbose enough for you? Or did you just lose interest in poor Layla? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. Great stuff from you. I was just thinking about it and you today. Been flat out since last exchange, little in the tank for things demanding thought. Will stay that way this week. Shooting for weekend. See you then. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]