User talk:Lukejordan02

Welcome! As far as I could notice, nobody gave you any rules or welcomes

Hello, Lukejordan02! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Hafspajen (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

  The basics of Wikicode

  How to develop an article

  How to create an article

  Help pages

  What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:

  Do assume good faith

  Do be civil

  Do keep cool!

  Do maintain a neutral point of view

  Don't spam

  Don't infringe copyright

  Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

  Don't vandalize

  Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

  Ask a question

or even:

  Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my [[ |talk page]] or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

  Fight vandalism

  Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

  Help contribute to articles

  Perform maintenance tasks

  Become a member of a project that interests you

  Help design new templates

Thin Lizzy discography

I've reverted your edits there, we can discuss it of course. I really don't know why you feel the need to decimate the compilation albums in discographies after all the discussion we've had. I'm getting a bit hacked off with it now, to be honest. You have to stop doing that if you want to continue editing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Did you have any criteria at all when deciding which compilations to leave in the list? You left out the massive band-authorised Dedication, for example. Yet again, no discussion. Why the hell not? There was probably some worthwhile changes you made and we can put those back, but seriously, the compilation changes you made were very bad editing, and it's not like I haven't told you how to do this stuff already. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And? It's a discography, not a list of stuff the band's management are still trying to flog. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's still available on CD, they have stacks of them at Philomena's place. Where on that page does it say these are the only albums recognised by the band? And why should that have any bearing on a discography? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what other articles have. There's nothing anywhere that says no foreign releases are allowed. We've just been through Fleetwood Mac and listed foreign releases, likewise AC/DC. You need to find credible backup for your edits and stop pulling stuff out of nowhere. You also need to stop removing huge chunks of discographies with no discussion. I'm not going to keep saying it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Which foreign albums did we include on the AC/DC page (except the foreign ones)? Is that a serious question? Fleetwood Mac - English Rose is American-only, for example. There are a large number of American-only singles on there. They're not British discographies. There are no rules, so you make them up? You have to quote actual rules, not say 'there aren't any rules so I'll do whatever the hell I want'. There are Lizzy compilations missing so you removed the whole lot? How does that stand up, that has to be the worst deletion rationale I've heard in all my time on Wikipedia. And you prove you don't have a clue what you're talking about with The Beginning Vol 12. If it's not a Thin Lizzy album, what do you think it is? All those are Lizzy albums. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, mister – stop swearing on my talk page. So you posted entirely the wrong title. Right, OK, that's a DVD. I didn't add that one so I didn't notice it. So we'll put it in a DVD section. You don't want releases from countries that speak foreign languages? Are you actually serious??? I would love to see the guideline on that. That page you linked to is a proposal that was never accepted. It's not a policy or a guideline. It's an idea. I know you didn't say you'd do whatever the hell you want, but you appear to be doing it anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't eff at you and I don't like being effed at. If that's a good guide to follow, show me where it says only English-speaking countries can have their releases displayed? "This is an English page"? What are you talking about? I'll say it one more time, if you want to do something, find a rule to back you up, or forget it. Without rules and guidelines to back you up, your edits won't be kept. Simple as that. Seriously, you're showing massive ignorance of how this all works, and I'm through babysitting you. Either do it properly or forget it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't contradicted myself. This is what I mean when I say you don't know how it works. If you want to make an edit to a page, especially to change a long-standing section, you have to provide a rationale for your edit. If you can't do that, you can't change it. I didn't answer your question because it doesn't matter. That kind of argument never stands up on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter one tiny bit what is on other discographies. Nothing anywhere says all articles of a certain type should be the same. It even says in that proposal that discographies will differ. If those other discographies were as comprehensive as the Thin Lizzy one, they would have foreign compilations. Furthermore, Lizzy are a band that does have a particularly large number of compilations, due to contracts with record companies that trot out vast numbers of them. That's the way it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, there aren't loads. There might be a few. But this line of argument doesn't really stack up against you removing nearly all of them for no good reason. If there are some missing, we add them, we don't take the whole lot off. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

More than a few, yeah, let's have a look at those. #1 can be added. #2 is already on there. #3 is a bootleg. #4 isn't even music. #5 is One Night Only with a different cover. #6 and #7 are already on there. #8 can be added. #9 is already on there (same as #7). #10 is a bootleg. #11 is the same as #3. So by my count, two. Not even a few. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thing about Fleetwood Mac was that between 1967 and about 1971 they made a lot of recordings of their live shows for potential release as a live album, which never happened. Then they lost control of those tapes in a court case in '74. Some got released illegally (bootlegs) and others were sold on by their old manager Clifford Davis and got legitimately released by proper record companies. With Thin Lizzy shows, no live recordings were sold off. They're still in the vaults, and recently Scott Gorham dug them out and released a couple. Most are in bad shape. Any that were leaked out are bootlegs. The Extended Versions disc can be added as a note to the live albums section, it's not a compilation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That was filmed by Australian TV, shown on TV and later sold to Warner Brothers. They can do what they want with it (and have done so). Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

They probably sold it on again, that's how they make their money. Nippon Crown is/was part of the Japanese wing of Columbia Records. Totally legit. The record label in the infobox should actually be the first record label, i.e. Warner, and the article is probably under the wrong title. It should be whatever the original title was when Warner first released it, not a re-release. The fault is with the article, not the discography. But then, I didn't write that article. We can carry this on tomorrow if you want, I can't stay up all night again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Without permission? Says who? We're talking about Columbia Records here, they're not in the habit of making bootlegs. If Warner sold the rights to Columbia/Nippon Crown, then they are fully entitled to make a CD of the soundtrack, how is that a bootleg? Have you got any evidence for your claims or are you making this stuff up? Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the video came out in the 1980s. The footage had been commercially available for over 10 years before the CD came out. Japanese Columbia = Columbia. Same company, different countries. If you want to claim that Nippon Crown make bootlegs, specifically that this album is a bootleg, you are going to need some actual proof. What you're sayig is pure speculation. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

But the album wasn't released by "Japenese Columbia" it was released by Nippon Crowne who are a spinoff of Nippon Columbia. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a spin-off, which is a perfectly legitimate company. You have no evidence that this is a bootleg. Until you have some, that's basically the end of this part of the discussion. Tomorrow. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not even close to being a reliable source. It's wrong. It even includes the Peel Sessions which was released by a label set up to distribute BBC recordings. The second link is a well-known unreliable source on Wikipedia. It's also wrong. Check the Nippon Crown article. It's right. You need a proper source to say it's a bootleg or that Nippon Crown is not a legitimate label. Not blogs by idiots. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you actually read the first link you would see they never called the Peel Sessions a bootleg but a rare recording did you actually read it or just decide you were going to say it was wrong beforehand. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read it. Why don't you read WP:RS and stop wasting my time? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

They're not reliable sources. You can produce 100 of them and it won't make any difference. Nippon Crown is a legitimate record company. That album is listed on Allmusic and Discogs with no mention of illegitimacy. I'm not discussing this any further unless you can provide any reliable sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

1. There are a lot of notes so I thought a notes section would be too long. I might try one to see what it looks like. 2. Discographies should include record labels, it's basic information. That proposal page recommends it and I think it should be there. I will probably add labels to the other sections, maybe in a separate column. I'll do a video section as well. 3. That was the point with the Peel Sessions / BBC stuff. They are specifically not live. They were recorded in studios, and mixed/overdubbed etc so are studio recordings. 4. I dug out the live albums and they are the titles. The venues aren't really part of the titles in some cases. 5. All those are already listed, some in the notes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)