User talk:Kiac

Leave a message, click New Section! ^^

Re: Review citations

Saw your question on Talk:21st Century Breakdown and thought you should know: the WP:ALBUMS standards have changed due to consensus that external links ought to be provided in the form of citations. See Wikipedia:ALBUM#Professional reviews for the new MoS wording. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Delicious

Bruce's comment has achieved enough coverage to warrant Delicious referring to Rioli. Everyone around the club calls him that now, if you were a true Hawthorn fan you would too. You need to loosen up and quit crying so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.165.91 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

R.E

What are you talking about? What I did was revert genre vandalism by a single purpose account whose sole mission is to remove the completely verified and accurate "pop rock" from all Nickelback related articles. I just had mistakenly reverted further back than I needed to; simple error.

And since you didn't completely revert my edit - you actually kept the change that I intended to make, but reverted the sales source, you must have made more than just a cursory glance, which means you must have read my edit summary, which leads me to ask why didn't you notice it was a simple oversight? I will now remove your "warning", as it is erroneous. Cheers! 123.211.141.151 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, no worries. 123.211.141.151 (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

fending off the noobs

I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary to include "poor" references when there are also good ones in there. In other words, two genre references is enough to fend off genre warriors, and there's no great reason to ignore rules simply for that reason.

I could easily be missing something- but it seems the remaining reliable sources should be fine.

Cheers, tedder (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne talk

Perhaps checking what was actually deleted and coming to an educated conclusion as to why something so obviously useless was deleted in the first place might help you in future ventures as well. Don't be so quick to revert stuff if you can't be bothered to actually read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real Stucco (talk • contribs) 11:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of how to sign my name on wiki, thanks for the useless batch of info. I said what I had to say and you said what you had to say, we can both work on being better editors. Stay off my page with this crap though. I am not going to have a worthless pissing match with you, you are more than welcome to keep what you want on your page as i am with mine. If you want to leave it up on yours, good for you. I don't want useless crap on mine, do not revert MY page again. Savy? The Real Stucco (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Got a question

Yeah, I'm not sure how this works with user's talk pages and stuff, but you said to talk to you on your talk page, and then there's all these people just asking questions and stuff....I'm just not sure I understand what I'm supposed to do when I talk on here? lol --Zzguitar14 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I just never use Wikipedia, so Idk, am I supposed to respond to you on MY talk page or on yours? --Zzguitar14 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious; you do plan to respond to me right? --Zzguitar14 (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true, however, that there first two songs have charted at #26 and #28 so far, which is pretty high on the Billboard Hot 100. I don't know how accurate that chart is, but if they knew of the presumed popularity of the two singles, I think they would be trying to pick the best ones for commercial use....I don't know, though. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, yeah. I'd say that there won't be any more successful singles from that album, although I don't know about some songs. Some people judge songs on lyrics, some on the tune, some on both, and some on other aspects of the song. So I'm thinking that the lyrical content is not all of what's got to do with it.

And besides, a big way that a song can get popular is due to sales (including digital downloads and CD sales), and since it's Green Day, you could imagine that a lot of people are probably going to make downloads and buy the CD single. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds about right; I do think it's a shared effort, however. And that's pretty weird....about the CDs in Australia.... --Zzguitar14 (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I wanted to ask you something about what charts are allowed on here. Does Wikipedia not allow people to put up the "World Singles" chart? Because I think that would be, like, the most notable chart in the world, lol. --Zzguitar14 (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hottest 100

I've added citation tags to the statements left by User:Kitagz regarding the Triple J Hottest 100 results. Would you like me to move them out of their own sections as well?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 07:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Artwork bonus tracks

You should know that User:Jakers 78 is a sock of User:USEDfan who was banned over a year ago and has made numerous new accounts since then. In the last year, the other editors that knew him simply as USEDfan would block the new accounts on sight. I figured that maybe after a year he would have changed, but I have come to find that was quite the mistake. He will be ignoring any discussion and editing pages how he sees fit. I will be tracking down one of the other editors that dealt with him previously probably sometime today to get him blocked again. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that the Brand New article had a practically new section written for the upcoming album every time I popped my head in. I will see what I can do. Looks like it's just ref issues, yes? Fezmar9 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Once is enough?.. That sure seems rude... I guess I just don't understand the protocol for the discussion page... The reason that I re-entered my comment was that I thought that the person that responded to me (who's comment is still showing on the discussion page) had accidentally deleted my comment... Are you saying that my comment isn't worthy of further viewing or discussion?... I would love it if you would explain to me the discussion protocol so that I will act correctly.(Cindy10000 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)).

RE: B-sides

Thanks for the help. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still find it difficult to navigate communication procedure and to understand proper general protocol. It's good to know that constructive argument is welcomed. I really believe that this subject needs to be re-evaluated.(Cindy10000 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)).

Re: The Betrayed

I apologise for not fixing the links to The Betrayed film. I will work on this after writing the album article. As the "fourth studio album" article was always redirected fortwith, it didn't actually occur to me to move the article, especially as it would have to go over a redirect. The versions created before aren't really the same article, and every time it has been redirected before it has been because there is no title or reliable info on release etc. That has changed now. I must admit I forgot that articles on this album have been attempted before, but really they could have been deleted, but redirecting was easier. I don't see their edit histories being overly useful. I'm trying to create a good article before a rubbish one comes along and gets deleted, because I believe there's enough info for it now. And don't worry, I will hunt down and include sources across the article; I'm just concentrating on getting it written first. U-Mos (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists, Michael Jackson

A semi-protected edit request was performed, to amend the figures for MJ to 750m. This request was reverted. Therefore, I have started a fresh discussion thread, in Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Michael Jackson (again).

I see that you contributed to the previous discussions, which is why I am leaving you this note.

I remain neutral on the issue; I hope that we can form a consensus.

I am asking any and all interested parties to please make brief, policy-based arguments as to whether or not the edit should be made.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, Kiac. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  07:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

if you read Thugs-n-Harmonyharout section in best selling artist Harout72 says articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music are acceptable but for michael jackson its different why is this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

i gave you this messsage beacuse for some reason i am not allowed to edit the best selling artist talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Venezuelan vandal

Did some detailed history searching. Results are at WP:ANI#Serial Venezuelan Katy Perry vandal.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jackson

I've tried to summarize the debate; I'm not quite sure what your opinion is on the matter, hence I didn't list you in support or oppose. Feel free to do so. Please see Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#Michael_Jackson.2C_summary_and_further_discussion. Hopefully, it's somewhat less tl;dr now! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

if you read Thugs-n-Harmonyharout section in best selling artist Harout72 says articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music are acceptable but for michael jackson its different why is this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

i gave you this messsage beacuse for some reason i am not allowed to edit the best selling artist talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

it does not seem right

Talkback

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

POKERdance ^talk/contribs 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

POKERdance ^talk/contribs 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Montana soundtrack

I'll have to go adjust the sourcing guide. It's clearly on the compilation chart, per http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/compilations.shtml . Apparently Zobbel is blurring the charts. Per chartstats.com, the only Hannah Montana album that has ever made the official UK album chart is "Best of Both Worlds".—Kww(talk) 03:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Won't have to adjust anything. The sourcing guide doesn't recommend using Zobbel, and the Basic CLUK Rules at http://www.zobbel.de/ clearly state that it includes the compilation chart.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Watsername Video

It was definitely not fan made. It was with the girl from the JOS video singing Whatsername in front of the camera. It was most certainly not fan made, you should check it out sometime. The video's pretty lame too...lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWilliams75 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I am trying to find a new way to show/not show info in discographies. That article looks like any other FL-Class Discography articles, but a reader may get more information about a recording simply by clicking the "show" link in the Additional info hidden table for that recording, and that would be great! Can you please check The Clash discography out if you have the time? Cheers. 12:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Re: Discogs

The Beatles discography has track-listings and there is also a discussion on "Track Listings". I'll think about that and make a proposal at WP:DISCOGS.
In regard with The Clash discography, I have to confess that I created those three sections //o\\. I thought it was best to add those sections to that article for trying to make it more readable. On the other hand, the {{Infobox Artist Discography}} and the TOC feature different items... I think I will do nothing for now. If someone decides to move everything in the lead sections, I will not oppose. I think that they never charted in Australia, but I will try to find more international charts. I really don't like that UK-US Singles separation. Also, a couple of singles are not listed there because they were released in other countries... so I have to work on it. Probably, I will merge them into one list. I have tried to find out something about "Music videos" at MOS:DISCOG and on Wikipedia, but have not yet found anything that would help. In the '80s, with the launch of MTV and the advent of the Audio CD, Promo Singles were gradually replaced by Promo Videos, Singles by Music Videos, and Vinyl by CD. Before the '80s bands, musicians and their producers chose which pieces would become the single(s) from an album. Now, the pieces are chosen to become Music Videos, and MVs are often used for promoting albums. So, I thought to add that column. About the Filmography, if I remember well that section was removed from the main article, so I decided to include it in the Discography (but I'm not sure about that). I know it is the wrong place to put it, but I will work on it too.
Anyway, I will take all your suggestions into [great-great] consideration. Thank you for your prompt and very helpful reply. All the best. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Clash Film/Videography and DISCOGS

I forgot to say about the Filmography/Videography of The Clash.... You are right, This is Video Clash is a compilation of music videos, and same for The Essential Clash, which also features 2-CD, Hell W10, a b/w silent film written and directed by Joe Strummer, a promo footage, and an interview. The Clash: Westway to the World has been awarded Best Long Form Music Video at the Grammy Awards in 2003, but it's a doc-rockumentary exactly like The Clash: Up Close and Personal, Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten, and The Clash Live: Revolution Rock. I've copied the Filmography and Singles sections on a scratch page of mine, so I can separate films from video albums, and combine all the singles in one table.

• What about having the Box sets subsection??? The Discography Infobox does not provide a field for them, so the link is showed at the end of the infobox and in the right place on the TOC.

I like those extensive/massive info in discogs (^___^). You do not have to jump from one page to another in order to find information about track listings, writers, labels, producers... it is all in one place, but that's just my opinion. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Box sets

Hi, thanks for the advice. As you have suggested, I will wait and see. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

^___^

haha. You got me. BUT IT WILL HAPPEN! I WILL MARRY ALEX GASKARTH! damn you. (; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohhaiitscarolyn (talk • contribs) 08:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

true, but so do I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohhaiitscarolyn (talk • contribs) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jet article

From what i have read, u seem to be stretching things, for a supposed expert, and appear to be distorting sources to put the band in a less favourable light. You seem to be playing cowboy, and downplaying certain "professional" aspects of certain reviews, with bias towards larger sources from a negative standpoint, as indicated by the reviews left in. While claiming others as unfavorable and illegal just because u don't like them. Bit of a stretch. --CosmicLegg (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shaka Rock

I suspect you have sockpuppeting problems, too, but that's hard to prove. For now, stop reverting. I think you are going to have to open an RFC on the topic to get more eyes on it. You are right that the set of reviews they are trying to insert are pretty ludicrous.—Kww(talk) 09:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youhavebeenthunderstruck—Kww(talk) 14:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not too surprising, but it was all one editor. I've requested semi-protection of the article as well.—Kww(talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Saosin

Who are you to say what is professional and what is not? RRR is NOT a personal blog, so it falls within the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.63.104.143 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to the message left on my page:

Professional? Sure, we're not as large or popular as Rolling Stone or Blender, but that doesn't make our review devoid of meaning.

Your point about 'qualified journalists' is slightly phased. Do AbsolutePunk.net have 'qualified journalists'? Are their opinions always respected? No - yet their reviews are everywhere. Their writers however, are good. Similarly, we have very high standards when selecting reviewing staff. We don't just find any d00d from a music forum. Linking our reviews provides an well written, informative review for readers of Wikipedia - often when there are only one or two other reviews to choose from for that particular album. Why not provide that information?

We may not be a reputable or huge website - we're a site covering generally underground bands, so by definition, we're not going to be 'Rolling Stone'. 'Blender' and 'Rolling Stone' are NOT our contemporaries - AbsolutePunk.net is the most reputable site which covers similar content. We are incredibly good at what we do, as has been acknowledged by the labels and publicists we deal with - we deal with pretty much most indie labels. Going back to my point about 'underground bands', you won't be seeing a review of a band like Between The Trees in Blender - this is the music we cover, not Blender. Without our review being linked, there would perhaps only be one review there. Why limit knowledge?

I certainly don't see us as being 'alike 10,000 sites'. To my knowledge, there are less than 10 sites who cover essentially, similar content to us - and this is our business to know, so please don't spit out figures like this.

To cover your point about advertising.. yeah, we are. Please remember however, we're not forcing anyone to read our reviews, and we're not fooling anyone into clicking a link. Looking at today's traffic statistics, I can see that many people have been referred from Wikipedia - so people are choosing to click the links, or extra information, that we've provided.

Please take what I've said into consideration. Sadly, you seem insistent on bringing us down, but I hope you'll read and understand my argument. We are adding to Wikipedia, not taking anything away.

Kindest regards, Denis (ReviewRinseRepeat Staff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisatRRR (talk • contribs) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, thank you for being reasonable.

I have no idea how you saw us on The Used's page, as we have never covered The Used in terms of reviews (http://www.reviewrinserepeat.com/?s=%22the+used%22) - just a few news posts.

I really and genuinely believe that we have something that sets us apart from other webzines which cover similar content (Quality, professionalism), but I really don't wish to spend time debating this. In standards of reputability, we may not meet Wikipedia's standards. In standards of quality, I feel that we certainly do.

We will continue to link to reviews of smaller bands. This benefits both Wikipedia, us, and the band. We will avoid pages which already have many reviews from more 'reputable' sources, such as the aforementioned bands (AFI, The Used).

Again, thanks for being reasonable, fair and supportive.

Regards, -Denis —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisatRRR (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Saosin. That makes senses. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisatRRR (talk • contribs) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Input request

Hi, I'd appreciate your two cents/pence here. Thanks. Rafablu88 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Daisy (album)

In the interest of ending edit warring, I'm going to respect the deletion of the review. I maintain that the site is not a blog but a website with a paid staff composed of professional journalists. The personal blog rules should not apply to it. In this case, it should remain in the article until the larger publications release reviews and there's no longer room for this one. Spidercomrade (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking Back Sunday - New Again

What's up, man. I did a review of this record and I've got published on absolutepunk as an user review. So, I think it's a very in depth and thought out review, I've worked my ass off on it. I'm trying to find a venue where my review can be qualified as good enough to be on wiki. I find the fact of the review been on ap.net hillarious, since it's well known the bias the website has with this band. I have published the review on my tumbler and my sputnikmusic account too.

So, could you help me getting my review linked over there? I don't want to brag, but I really think it's worthy the reading, I just don't know if it's possible.

Thanks for your time.