User talk:BGC

The Concert For Bangla Desh

Nice job on that page... however, I was confused by your spelling as the country it was about is spelled Bangladesh as one, even though Bangla is the Bengali language... in any case, I looked and found The Concert For Bangladesh already made... now yours has the CD album box... but, I just was wondering if you knew and wanted to merge or whatnot. gren グレン 16:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well I wasn't sure how they intended it, I only know how the country is spelled in English and that there are two pages. so, they need to be made so they aren't redundant. I'm going to do a little fixing of that now. gren グレン 16:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Albums by the ex-Beatles

I'd just like to let you know that you've done a fantastic job on improving the over quality of the solo albums by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with the other two Beatles. --DaveGorman 19:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on the Ringo albums. What are you going to be fixing next? --DaveGorman 07:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of the Beatles' compilation albums only contain a few lines of text at the most and could do with being improved. --DaveGorman 19:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi BGC - I've never really been much of a fan of The Rolling Stones but I can appreciate the difference you've made to the overall quality of the articles relating to them: It's just a shame that their discography page is in such a mess. --DaveGorman 18:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

I hereby award you this Working Man's Barnstar for your contributions to music related articles.

Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

All things Beatley

Alright mate? Just wanted to say nice work for the George Harrison solo albums, a job I could never bring myself to do.

In particular, I like the concert for george page where you've put where the original song can be found. Nice touch, keep it up.--Crestville 11:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Reviews in albumbox

I started a discussion about appropriate sources of album reviews. You are probably interested. -Hapsiainen 18:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Monicasdude

I saw your comment on JDG's user talk page. I believe that your contribution to the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude would be extremely valuable, either as a co-endorser of the RfC description and/or as an additional outside comment.

I would suggest that if you add a comment you try to maintain a factual and non-confrontational tone in your descriptions. Although I concur Monicasdude's behavior as been dreadful (I created the RfC; with some encouragement and now co-endorsers), the process is best served by rising above the low standard Monicasdude has set.

If you are concerned about revealing your current username, you could either post anonymously (with a description of your previous username), or simply post under the prior username (but mention that you use a non-specified new username). Of course, Monicasdude may well read JDG's user talk page, just as I did; there's nothing private on WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:20, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Monicasdude back at it on Dylan page

Another admin unprotected the Bob Dylan main page. So Monicasdude immediately started his shennanigans with trying to revert to his favorite version (in this case, eliminating any reference to Dylan's Christian trilogy, which proximally started the whole RfC). Would you mind keeping an eye on that page as well, since I don't want to 3RR myself should more corrections be needed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Chicago chart positions

Good work to add these to Chicago, but I suggest the singles be done the same way as the albums: list US position, then list UK position if and only if it charted. As it stands now, it's hard to absorb the singles information with all the empty UK positions shown first. Wasted Time R 21:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Beatles Broke Up In 69

For some reason I cannot see how to edit the main article for the 1 album. I notice an inaccuracy in that it says that The Beatles had not played together since 1970 however that is a common misconception. The Let It Be album was released in 1970 however it was recorded before Abby Road. Abby Road was a request from Paul to do one last album "the way we used to". John had left the group shortly after in 69 although he did not admit it untill later. The official breakup did come in 1970 when McCartney announced that he had left the group and never wanted to play with the others again. Curiously, he sued the other three later that year for dissoloution of the group.

So, anyone will change the appropriate line, that would be more accurate.

RfC on Mel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Etitis

--Anittas 00:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Beatles breaking up in 69 or 70

Also, is that your comment/question about the Beatles break-up on this talk page? The Beatles actually reconvened to re-record "I Me Mine" in early 1970. At this point, I think they were PLANNING to split (or possibly just go on hiatus, not actually end the band), but they were still officially a band. John wasn't at the "I Me Mine" session though, but it was still a Beatles session - it was intended for a Beatles album, for one thing - and Lewisohn and others refer to it as a Beatles session as well. In that case, you could say they last played 'together' in 1970.

Keith Richards Discography

Overall I appreciate your work on the 3 Keith Richards records, and the new category. They are improvements over my original style, but I would offer only a couple of suggestions and let you think about it- since as I said, I like the copy and you seem to have a solid background in the topic, sort of speak.

MAIN OFFENDER- where did you hear/read that 'Love is Strong' is a Jagger inspired tune off MO. I think Richards was in pre-preduction in Ireland with Ronnie and wrote a song called 'Love is Strange' (I have a bootleg of it with him singing the lyrics) and I don't think Jagger had much to do with the song but change the lyrics. P.S. I remember an interview in print where Jagger dissed MO, except for '999' and 'Eileen'.

Live at..Hollywood: The colour on my computer of the border is really ugle green, it could improve the overall appearence if you changed it. --Mikerussell 01:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A Head's Up

A Head's Up JDG 16:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Album Infobox 2

Yes, I saw that you had been reverting the Fragile page (with reason!). Monicasdude should not be changing these templates when there has yet to even be anything close to concensus on the fair use debate. I had looked at Monicasdude's contributions and it appears he/she is on a crusade to revert all these infoboxes to the non-graphical version. I will keep an eye on the user and probably comment in that RfC, thanks. --Comics 23:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ugh....enough is enough! I'm going to add a comment to the RfC now. This has to stop. We have to get admins involved. --Comics 00:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't happen to see an alternative. He continually shows bad faith edits, censors any user that is critical of him on his talk page, and generally is an obnoxious user. He refuses to address any issues that are raised against him. To me, the only solution would be to ban him immediately. We just need a mod who is willing to do this, and we have to present a proper case. --Comics 00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think we should ask for a mediation? --Comics 00:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I just added a comment on JDG's talk page. Thanks for the heads up. --Comics 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a comment in the 3RR notice. Hope it helps. --Comics 02:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude, the censor.

[See here] JDG 02:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Chicagoband" template

Very nice job on the new template (Template:Chicagoband). I suspect someone is going to whine that you didn't include Stone of Sisyphus, but I personally agree with your decision not to place an unreleased concept album in a general navigational template. Keep up the good work! Engineer Bob 07:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude

I still think we should do a mediation, yes, but I'm so busy lately that I fear I won't have the time. I haven't been around much. Feel free to start it up, though, and I'll add comments. --Comics 04:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Beach Boys Infobox

It's a long time since I've been around this area, I've been concentrating so much on other matters of Wiki..dom. I do quite like the look of the infobox you made. Are we going to include within the template the song titles, currently California Girls, Fun, Fun, Fun, God Only Knows, Good Vibrations, Heroes and Villains, Kokomo and Sail On, Sailor, but which I can currently see all the singles included within the box, from Surfin'/Luau to Hot Fun In The Summertime/Summer Of Love or maybe even Summer Of Love/I'm Always Here..

Et cetera. Maybe it's overkill, I can't exactly find the precedent by which I'm working, but I know there used to be one. Thank you. Bobo192 14:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Album articles

I notice that after in spite of a request to discuss the issue you are now once again reverting to your preferred template[1]. Judging from your contributions, there are a very large number of articles involved. User:Gamaliel asked you to spend your "prohibition period" attempting to build consensus, but you have not edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums since November 2 and have never edited Template talk:Album infobox 2. Please reconsider your approach. You might begin, for example, by explaining why you hold a "no consensus" vote at WP:TFD to be consensus that WP:ALBUM should use that template. It is clear to me that you are not the only editor who prefers that template. It is unclear to me why you do not, knowing that, argue for a change at WP:ALBUM. Guidelines get changed regularly, in response to persuasive arguments. Please build consensus instead of reverting. Thanks for considering it. Jkelly 05:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised to see your request at my Talk page, because I am generally concerned about the use of not-free content on Wikipedia, which leads me to prefer the Template:Album infobox. On the other hand, however, I have also, in the past, argued that Wikipedia:Fair use should be loosened. My argument was that people are using a lot of copyrighted images, and we should write our rationales to cover more so that there is some kind of defense for such use, rather than having very narrow guidelines that don't describe our use and leave us with no rationale. This may be more information about my position on the matter than you're interested in, and the point really is that, if you are looking for a collaborator to craft a compelling argument to use Template:Album infobox 2, I am an unlikely candidate. If you're looking for someone to help craft a statement that this matter needs to be settled one way or the other instead of having editors revert each other back and forth through a hundred different album articles, I absolutely will help with that. If you, or any other editor(s) want to run a rough draft of an argument to switch to Template:Album infobox 2 past me in order to find out whether that argument is compelling and addresses the concerns, I would be happy to respond. If any of the above was confusing or unclear, let me know. And thanks for entering into a discussion of it with me. Jkelly 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:ConcertBangladesh2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ConcertBangladesh2005.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

infobox 2

Just a quick note, Monicsdude has nominated Template:Album infobox 2 for deletion at WP:TFD. —Locke Cole 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say "nothing regarding fair use abuse has been proven", it is unclear to me what you mean. The only way "fair use" can be "proven" is at the conclusion of a trial. I know that you cannot seriously be suggesting that Wikipedia should use every image until the Foundation loses a court case over it, so it might help to be more clear on what you mean. By the way, Smile (Brian Wilson album) is a WP:FA. That means that it needs to meet the standards of the appropriate WikiProject. I'll be changing that one myself. Jkelly 00:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is not the way to handle things. Don't go reverting back to the last version using {{Album infobox 2}}, that's a sure-fire way to get blocked for being disruptive. Instead, demonstrate how similar the templates are by merely copying the lower 4-5 lines (the ones that add the images) from your older versions into the latest edit (as I've done at Smile (Brian Wilson album)). I fully support this template existing (or its features being folded into {{Album infobox}} if possible), but mass reverting is a bad idea. Also, Monicasdude left a note about your reversions on WP:AN/I, you may want to read and respond to that. —Locke Cole 02:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just an example, this is the way to change things without escalating it–

• right way
• wrong way

Like Curps says below, play nice. Don't trash other improvements to the article, especially when it's so easy to update a regular {{Album infobox}} to {{Album infobox 2}}. —Locke Cole 03:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your recent mass reverts

You'll stop this, of course, or I'll have to block you. This behavior is completely unacceptable. Any repetition will get you a very long block indeed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You were accused of making mass reverts arbitrarily and your response wasn't exactly encouraging or a denial [2]. I have accordingly mass-reverted many of your contributions over the past couple of days (naturally article histories retain edits). I have no involvement in album articles and don't know who's right, but please see WP:POINT and please play nice in the future. -- Curps 02:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the page Guero, this is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Rhobite 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)