User talk:Darwin's Bulldog

Link

Here's a link I'm saving for myself for an article I'll be writing soon: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/suede2/articles/story/5925179/the_london_suede

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/motleycrue/articles/story/5925213/motley_crue

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=305&cfgn=Albums&cfn=The+Billboard+200&ci=3101585&cdi=9997851&cid=10%2F04%2F2008

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=305&cfgn=Albums&cfn=The+Billboard+200&ci=3043517&cdi=7785484&cid=11%2F17%2F2001

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ao8H3rY_Z1wtVoqWRqCO3l0RvLYF?slug=ap-johnson-chasing300&prov=ap&type=lgns

saints of los angeles

yes but the 'wikifying' as you call it makes the page look cluttered unprofessional and messy, please stop changing it because it is better as a table and if you want to change it again leave a message on the disscussion page first and ask other users their opinionDrMotley (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

???

Could you please tell me why the hell you keep removing the images I put on. I have given them source information. -Mike kelly09

New Busch

The page is crying for a nice photo of the new park, maybe similar to the one that was deleted, only with a game in progress and showing the distance markers so that question will be settled. If someone could take a photo from atop the Arch, like the other 3, that would also be good. I would do it myself except I'm 500 miles away. d:) Wahkeenah 07:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

World Series teams

Since you added the World Series team categories to Walker Cooper's article, I thought I'd ask a question I posted to Floydspinky71's talk page last month (and a few others since): Are the categories for members of World Series champions really necessary? I can't help thinking it would be more economical to simply include the roster of the champion team in the article for that year's World Series (most of the WS articles could use some serious expansion). There's already something of a glut of categories on some articles, including those for baseball players with numerous All-Star appearances. (Between All-Star games and WS champions alone, Yogi Berra would end up with 25 categories, in addition to another 15 already on his page.) I don't think it's advantageous to have that many categories on an article; at some point, it gets difficult to wade through them, and individual categories become easy to miss. MisfitToys 02:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:April Downloads 014.jpg

Please do not arbitarily change licenses. All images on Wikipedia are required to have a source and a license. It is unclear from the image description page of this image what the source is. It might be User:Mdglazerman but it certainly doesn't say so. If it's to be licensed under the GFDL, as you had tried to do, then we still need to know who the author is. You'll notice that I'd replaced this specific image in the Busch Stadium article infobox with a properly sourced and licensed image (I only point this out to demonstrate that I'm not just attempting to get rid of good pictures). Regards, howcheng {chat} 07:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on Carpenter

I saw how you cleaned up his article and added the new record from last night. Good job on keeping up with things. I haven't checked yet but did anyone put mention of Izzy taking over the all time save record for the club? Sir hugo 11:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your research and solid contributions to Fuel-related articles. Keep up the good work! Melsaran (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Credits

As per wiki:

A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list.

1. "Complete song title" (John Doe, Brian Smith) – 4:23
   • First verse: Name of rapper
   • Second verse: Name of rapper
   • Samples: Name of sample source (preferably including artist, song, and album)
2. "Complete song title" (Doe, Kelly Kalamazoo) – 3:24
3. "Complete song title" (Doe, Kalamazoo, Smith, David Whitman) – 2:34

As you can see, after a person's full name is listed, only the last name need be listed in subsequent credits. Please be sure to read references carefully before citing them when reverting edits. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Recently I have reverted several instances of someone changing a track list as formatted above, to one where names are in full, and wikilinked, on every song. I take it you found an instance where I reverted in the other direction. If so, it was an error on my part, or perhaps I was attempting to revert something else and the example you listed just got caught up in the change. Usually when reverting, I quote the revelvant instruction page, which is WP:ALBUM#Track listing, in the edit summary. (Whoops, I see your example was copied from that page – never mind!) Hopefully you have corrected whatever was done wrong, and if so, thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S., I think I confused a "change to" as a "change from" on the Meddle history page; my apologies. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Triggerofmylovegun.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Triggerofmylovegun.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Suede discography

Hi, nice work on the Suede discography, its looking really good. I just made a few edits in accordance with MOS:DISCOG, but overall well done. AFAIK, its comprehensive aside from a list of their music videos and the video album(s) they've released (and the lead needs to be made a little more concise). Do you plan to take it to WP:FLC? I've written a couple of FLs myself so if you want any help, feel free to ask. indopug (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added the music videos, I think we're almost done. Couple of things, we need to whittle down the number of singles charts to ten and add this DVD in a Video album section (no idea Allmusic lists it under "Suede Chain" though). For UK certifications, you can see The Libertines discography--basically search for them at bpi.co.uk. indopug (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's a MoS guideline somewhere that requires British-subject articles to use British English and date formats. indopug (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Heatseekers

What I meant is that it's not the main American album chart. That's the Billboard 200. Heatseekers chart chats records that haven't made it onto the Billboard 200 yet. The Billboard 200 is infinitely more important than the Heatseekers chart. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. My concern was that it was misleading without clearly indicating that the chart positions were on the Heatseekers chart. With discographies, the automatic assumption people make is that if they're looking at an album's chart placing in the US under a column that merely says "US" (even if it links to the Heatseekers page), they're looking at the Billboard 200. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's important to indicate that you are not using a country's primary chart in the tables to avoid confusion. Otherwise the impression is that Suede's albums did pretty well in the US, which they did not by a longshot. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Selling out. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Fair Deal (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To reply to your question. You are the only one breaking the rules. You keep re-adding unencyclopedic, unreferenced personal opinion and if it gets re-added again you will find yourself blocked for it. Don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your own personal views. Fair Deal (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: This

"Rumoured" is not a misspelling; it is an English variant of the Americanised (Americanised is also not a spelling error) "rumored". {{sic}} would be the correct coding for it if it were an actual "misspelling". On Wikipedia, when we quote things, we use sic for mistakes that appear in the original text; there is no mistake in that text excepting the speculation, which I shall now remove. If you would like me to explain anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I dig that. I didn't want anyone to think it was an error though... which is almost circular logic... Bah, never mind. I do apologise if what I wrote seemed a little aggressive. Score for Wikipedia though in the removal of speculation! Hooray! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Carr-promo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Carr-promo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Tears are falling single.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Tears are falling single.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Usa mercury 884141.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Usa mercury 884141.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Personnel sections

What is your precendent for making the Personel sections as they are in those articles? If you read here, it just says to put the personnel in a bulleted list. Featured album articles like Blood Sugar Sex Magik and In Utero don't do this. If you check here, from what I can see the majority of featured album articles just have a regular bulleted list. I remember when working on Ten (Pearl Jam album) for good article status that it was said to just have it as a regular bulleted list. If this is a new policy for Personnel sections then okay, but I would like some clarification. I like to have consistency when working on articles so if this is a new policy I'll integrate it into other articles I work on, but from what I can see it is not recommended to do Personnel sections this way.-5- (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted questions regarding this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and another Wikipedia user whose judgment I trust so I just want to ask that you hold off on this for now until I get a definitive answer.-5- (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making this about me, and I ask that you don't either. I always have the best interest of articles in mind. In this case, I'm just going by everything I've learned over the past three years and evidence I've provided. There will be a definitive answer, and I will accept it if it is favorable to your stance. Please relax.-5- (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to feel ownership over the articles I edit. I am pleased when other editors add good material to the articles. Unfortunately, building these articles up over the past few years has left me with a sense of pride over them. When I see an edit that displeases me, I have no qualms about being bold, and I can see how that might piss people off. I love for the articles I work on to have consistency. In this case, I'm simply going by what I've learned over the past few years working on other articles. By reverting your edit, I was just going by how I think the article should look, just as you did. It's strange looking at the articles now because they don't match up to the other album articles I've worked on, like a sense of being incomplete I guess?

Anyway, I'm rambling. My stance is based on what I've learned from other Wikipedia users. When I get an updated answer I'll gladly change the other album articles I work on to match these pages. I hope that clarifies some things.-5- (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this matter seems to be resolved for me.-5- (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How about doing it the way its done on the featured article In Rainbows? Just a thought.-5- (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also the Kid A way. Which way do you prefer?-5- (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, I think I've exhausted this issue.-5- (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Sure Know Something promo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sure Know Something promo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Welcome --Ursa Major

You are most welcome, glad to be part of the Wiki team with you.--Kbob (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Suede

Hi Darwin, i'm glad to hear that an American like yourself is a fan of Suede. From all the research and reading i've done on Suede, it seems hard to avoid the subject of their lack of success in the states, however i'm pleased you're one of the few trans-atlantic followers. I've been very disappointed at the quality of Suede's articles and had been planning to expand them for a while, i just didn't know where to start. I'm quite surprised at the amount of Suede related sources online, there was more than i thought, especially for Dog Man Star and Suede. I have also been using Suede's biography Love and Poison as a very useful source. I would like to see Dog Man Star and Suede promoted to GA standard, and possibly even Featured article. I feel that the band article, Suede could be improved and expanded considerably as it seems to rely on one main source. I'd appreciate your help contributing to these articles as i think its time they got the attention they deserve.PhilOak (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Grunge. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. JD554 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about gaining consensus. You are the only editor to have breached 3RR on that article. --JD554 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Hello, I thought that you might be interested?
Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Is it really needed? (18 Charts)
For completeness of discussion please make any comments there.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RIAA

Apparently you and EndaleComplex are having an argument about whether to use "5 × Platinum" or "…Multi-Platinum." It may be redudnant, but RIAA's website does use "multi-platinum." Best I can say is to agree whether to use one or the other. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, that makes sense. I guess just use "platinum" then. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oasis Recording Timeline

Could use please justify your deleting of the Oasis recording timeline at Talk:Oasis_(band)#Recording_Timeline? I've reverted your deletion for now, I will keep bringing it back unless you point out a good reason to do away with it. Also, what does "Rm'd" mean? Thanks. Iminrainbows (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle Studies (album)

Why dyou revert my edit? I explained myself w/my revision. The two seperated sentences are simpler, expressing 2 different ideas w/2 seperate sentences. Dan56 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

4 further discussion, see talk page 4 consensus. Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mojo (album)

I have nominated Mojo (album), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojo (album). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

that Jagger/Richards co-credits chart

hello Darwin's Bulldog – this is just to let you know i've started a discussion here of the chart you created for the Jagger/Richards page. the discussion should stay on that talk page, of course, but i wanted to make sure you're aware of it. thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)