User talk:Piriczki

Orphaned non-free media (Image:OfficialLiveLegUK.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:OfficialLiveLegUK.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Paulanka.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Paulanka.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 01:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Changeof heartps.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Changeof heartps.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Changeofheartred.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Changeofheartred.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Benorr.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Benorr.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

The main issue is that this is clearly a copyrighted image. You may not use copyrighted images in articles about living people, since it is reasonable that someone in the future may take a photograph of that person and uploaded it Wikipedia under GFDL liscence. Additionally, the image has NO source information other than the fact that it was scanned, and than, in and of itself, is enough to delete it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Jakeholmesdazedandconfused.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:Jakeholmesdazedandconfused.ogg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleged sockpuppetry

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piriczki. Thank you. Aervanath (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And you have been exonerated. :) It turns out the editor accusing you, User:Trevvvy, was himself a sockpuppet of a banned user. By the way, was this comment made by you while logged out, or do I need to go CheckUser that IP as well? It looks like I'm going to be up to my ears in sockpuppets.--Aervanath (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, wasn't me but good thing someone caught it. I didn't really look beyond the articles I normally follow. Hopefully you won't have to deal with this sort of unpleasantness for awhile. I could certainly do without it. Piriczki (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin worldwide sales

Thank you so much for your efforts on this subject. I'm the user that initially broached this subject on Led Zeppelin's talk page, did the research, and demonstrated that the 300 million figure originated on Wikipedia itself (as a contribution from a known vandal) and was subsequently parroted by "reputable" news organizations. I persuaded several that my take on the situation was probable, but was eventually shouted down by MegX and the like. I had given up in disgust. Thanks for carrying on. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Volts

I was just wondering why you removed Volts from AC/DC's discography? It was released as a separate album, not just as part of Bonfire. What are you referring to as total fiction? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn't spot that. Then yes, total fiction. We can leave the album off until someone finds verifiable chart positions. It was definitely released separately, but not in all territories. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd discography

Thanks for the change you made to Pink Floyd discography. Your change was made shortly after a large change made by another user, which he shouldn't have done (see my response on his talk page, and I had to revert the page back to before his change. Your edit appears to be good, and I should re-insert it, but I'm afraid the other user may attempt to edit war (pardon my assumption of bad faith, but as far as I'm concerned, his first edit was not co-operative, so I have no idea what may happen next), and feel it may be best to wait a short while. You may wish to keep an eye on the article. It does need more eyes to fix the existing problems with the singles section, and to make sure we don't get more counter-productive large changes. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Fresh Start" For the Eagles...

I'm completely with you on this one, but after I briefly edited Joe Walsh's page, an "Eagles Only" supporter changed all references to "the Eagles" to just plain "Eagles", where it hadn't been a problem before. I'm as frustrated as you about this, believe me, and I tried to compromise with these folks; but they just keep coming back, more fanatical than ever. It sounds grammatically reprehensible to use "Eagles" as a single article in many cases, but the "lunatic fringe" won't seem to let it go...

This is obviously an edit "war of attrition" that started long ago, and every edit that one camp makes is subtly undermined by the other on a "tit for tat" basis. To say, "The Eagles..." is to say, "The band..." in conversational speaking (as we know the actual members of the Eagles referred/refer to themselves). Keep fighting this as I do, and eventually the truth will be known... Doc9871 (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just redid references on Joe Walsh's page - check page history there. We'll see who responds... Doc9871 (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a "Fresh Start". It had to be done; good job. I've been working on Randy's page first, then Bernie's - adding images and references. If any major opposition arises concerning your recent sweeping changes, they will be dealt with appropriately on the talk page... Doc9871 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

World Series of Rock

Is ¶ 4 of this article from you? It should include inline citations like the rest of the article. If it's not from you, I am inclined to delete. Please let me know. Thanks! Swinterich (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side official release date

Man... your theory about The Dark Side official release date is more than just theory. It's bull's eye ! I entirely agree with you that the 10th and 17th of March could never be regarded as official, specially after seeing the add for March 1st. It all makes perfect sense. What you proved can never be regarded as WP:OR. Anyway, I took a look at some other albums and their respective release dates and maybe if we could apply the same "theory" to Elvis Presley's Aloha from Hawaii and Alice Cooper's Billion Dollar Babies, that could corroborate your statement. Could you take a look at them for me once you know how to ? I'll think of something else. Thanks for the lesson pal ! Krenakarore (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Billion Dollar Babies was released the same week as The Dark Side of the Moon and it also entered the Billboard album chart the week ending March 17, 1973. Aloha from Hawaii: Via Satellite entered the chart the week ending February 24, 1973. The US release dates of several Pink Floyd albums shown in the wikipedia articles have been incorrect at times although I have corrected some of them. Curiously, the release dates were all wrong in a similar way—they showed the release date being exactly seven days prior to the chart debut date. Not only would such a date be impossible as the actual release date, those dates all fall on a Saturday which is not typically, if ever, a day of the week when albums are released. For example, I just noticed the release date of Pink Floyd's Meddle is shown as Saturday, October 30, 1971 which is an impossibilty since that album entered the Billboard chart the week ending November 6, 1971. Piriczki (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All I could find as for Meddle was: Echoes: the complete history of Pink Floyd, pg. 174, and Billboard 23 Oct, 1971, pg. 63. The book entry mentions October 30^th as the official release date. That happened when they were on their US tour, and Billboard Nov 20, 1971, pg. 90 shows that Meddle was on the charts for three weeks prior to that date. Did Oct 23^th and Nov 20^th come on a saturday ? Krenakarore (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several Billboard reference books by Joel Whitburn so verifying chart data is relatively easy. While there can't be a precise method of determining an exact release date based on the chart debut date, certain dates such as the chart date or seven days prior can definitely be ruled out as the release date. Piriczki (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Eagles

Hmm. I was told to use "is" after even plural band names when The Kentucky Headhunters was promoted to GA, since bands are referred to in the singular in American English. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

American English differs in that way when a collective noun is singular in form. For example, in American English it is grammatically correct to say "Shenandoah is a band from Alabama" but in British English it is "Shenadoah are a band from Alabama." In both forms of English, collective nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb, with an exception for titles of works of art or names of organizations or countries which take a singular verb even when the subject is plural in form, as in "the United States is a country located in North America." However, when a name is plural in form and refers to a group of individuals, it still takes a plural verb. For example, "the New York Yankees are the world champions" or "the Beach Boys are from California." Piriczki (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that works. Subject-verb agreement are confusing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are still incorrect with regards to Eagles and Ramones. Using your example, one would say, "The New York Yankees is a baseball team..." - not are, and yes, "The Beach Boys are from California", but "The Beach Boys is a band...", a unit, an entity. Radiopathy •talk• 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, see American and British English differences#Grammar Piriczki (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

your opinion

Hello Piriczki we need you to opine on the talk page of Led Zeppelin. The sources claim that Led Zeppelin is a rock band, but not the parents of the same. The history says the parents of hard rock are Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Jeff Beck. The same sources call Led Zeppelin the fathers of heavy metal. There is a POV about it that was imposed without consensus. The first paragraph stable as we knew it was amended by a partial view. Your opinion would be welcome. Have a nice day! Paulotanner (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Revisited: Your Suggestions

I think you did not comment on that section- have you? Are you 98.113.216.32? Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's there, just hard to find, even with the link. Piriczki (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! It's there and I'd replied to it :) What happened to my memory... Greetings. Scieberking (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Eagles discography

The way I changed it is grammatically correct. In American English, bands are generally referred to in the singular. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, see American and British English differences#Grammar Piriczki (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Is"/"Are"

You reverted my edit to the Beach Boys article without explanation. Looking over your talk page, I see that you have attempted to make the same argument, in reference to other articles, using as a reference, the Wikipedia article "American and British English Differences". Please note that one WP article may not be used to source another. I can assure you that my change is correct. Mike Love, et. al. are The Beach Boys. The Beach Boys is a band. Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you are going to continue to revert this, please provide proof of the claim that you are making. Thank you. 2tuntony (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proper collective nouns, such as names of bands or sports teams, take a verb that agrees with the subject in number. So, when the subject is plural in form it takes a plural verb. You can check any style guide (AP, Chicago, New York Times) to verify this. Here are a few online resources that will further explain it to you: [1] [2] [3]. Piriczki (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A style guide and correct grammar are two different things, as evident in your style guide, where William Safire, in 2003, unilaterally declares how different plural nouns are to be handled. 2tuntony (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in, and I'm not taking sides, but there are clear differences in grammar between British and American English. In the US, to say "The Beach Boys is a band" is perfectly correct, but to say that in the UK is grammatically incorrect. Neither is right or wrong per se, they are just different. In this case, given that the Beach Boys are American, the article should use American English, as per WP:ENGVAR. For the same reason, The Beatles article says "The Beatles were an English rock band" etc. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

American and British English differ in that way when a collective noun is singular in form, i.e., in American English one would say "Led Zeppelin was a heavy metal band" but in British English one would say "Led Zeppelin were a heavy metal band." In both American and British English, it is proper to say "the Beatles were from Liverpool." Piriczki (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the British variations. However, I think the same examples in English are a matter of preferance, rather than grammatically correct. As there's no sense in having a revert war, I have, for the moment, restored the version I am contesting, and will take it up at the appropriate noticeboard. Thank you. 2tuntony (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Eagles

Stop changing the wording of the first sentence of the lead of this article. I've seen your arguments regarding the is/was issue, and you are dead wrong. "The Eagles" is the name of a collective unit. In American English, collective nouns are treated as singular. Stop reverting without discussion; you don't own the article. Radiopathy •talk• 23:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, guys! Radiopathy, here's an interesting example: The Beatles is a Featured Article (which the Eagles article should emulate), and the lead sentence states, "The Beatles were an English rock band...", not "The Beatles was an English rock band...". When you add a "The", it often changes the way singular and collective "tense" is used. I am of the opinion that it is more correct to say, "The Eagles are(/were)..." vs. "The Eagles is(/was)...", and the same goes for a band like "The Doors". R.E.M., Nirvana, Pink Floyd, etc.: totally different story. "The ---" band names follow a different drummer... Doc talk 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it is not the definite article but whether or not the subject is singular or plural in form. Since User:Radiopathy acknowledges reading the previous discussions here, here and here, I won't repeat them. However, I can surmise that Radiopathy doesn't appear to understand that American and British English only differ when the subject is singular in form (see American_and_British_English_differences#Grammar). Also, based on his statement

"The New York Yankees is a baseball team..." - not are, and yes, "The Beach Boys are from California", but "The Beach Boys is a band..."

it appears he is confusing the subject of the sentence with the object. The verb agrees in number with the subject (Yankees), not the object (team). Piriczki (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, a reference to The Beatles here is inapplicable, as they were an English band, and collective nouns in UK English are treated as plural.

Second, see if this makes any sense: "The name of the band in which Joe Walsh and several other people are members is 'The Eagles'". When you speak of the name of the band in the opening sentence of the lead, you are invariably referring to the object, not the number of people in the band. Why don't you stop your nonsense already? Radiopathy •talk• 20:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the following resources for examples of proper subject-verb agreement: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Piriczki (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

End of the Century

I herein explain the reason for the "some" and "others" opinions which you have omitted from the revision of 28 Nov. 2010 : The previous version (12 Nov. 2010) had stated that "the result was a change in the Ramones' musical style". This is a subjective interpretation, and hence the need arises for the "others" comment in order to maintain objectivity. While my first impulse was just to eliminate the material altogether (as you have chosen to do), I ultimately thought it appropriate to include the matter (in this balanced way) in the article, as I think it is a crucial point in providing this wikipedia entry a relevant context within the history of the band. I'd be interested in knowing why you think it isn't. Jcantrell7 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Some" and "others" are classic weasel words and should be avoided. Whether one or two viewpoints are given, they must be attributed to someone—preferably someone with recognized expertise such as an established music critic, otherwise such statements will appear to be original research. If there is some consensus on these views among critics or fans it would have to be documented by reliable sources, which would likely be difficult. I'm sure there were differing views of the album offered in critics' reviews at the time that could be cited. They might not say what you want to say though. Piriczki (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Heartland rock

Hi. Your recent edits occurred just as I was about to post a much revised version. I think I managed to incorporate them all, but I apologize if I missed some. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin discography

hello,

I am going to nominate this discography. Want you to be the co-nominator?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Cars talk

I liked what you put on The Cars talk , i dont agree there powerpop either, hell i dont even like the idea of calling them pop...there a rock band that just happen to use some catchy guitar and synth lines, and somehow some hard headed labelers assume it's powerpop...if anything there power rock, lol

but in real talk, there just rock, pop and new wave, and if you watch there last interview, ocasek (lead vocalist, songwriter) tops of the confusion even more by calling the band a pop band, which im ashamed to say that i disagree with him..but he was probably thinking of there latest albums at the time that incorperated alot of pop... what do you think? MajorHawke (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, I think these genre discussions lead nowhere, and that presenting a long list of genres in the infobox does more to confuse than inform the casual reader. Traditionally, pop music simply meant "popular music" and encompassed various styles including rock. By referring to the Cars as a pop band, Ocasek was likely trying deflect any attempt to label them rather than pinpoint a specific style that defined their music. Piriczki (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Q

Could you please check the last entries on the Sales discussion in the Zeppelin talk page, starting from where I discard JudaisPriest's Beatles/Zeppelin comparison. Isn't that actual bullying from those guys? Note that LedRush then writes on my own talk page, completely civil and implores me to be civil. He shifts between these two attitudes depending on which talk page he's on. I don't know the works around wikipedia, but surely, if he thinks he can address my being uncivil, something can be said to him, or them. Revan ltrl (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I stopped following the discussion after the comment "Records means albums+singles+CDs+DVDs+vinyls+everything." The endless series of completely uninformed and ignorant statements, and the refusal to address direct questions on the part of some users has made any rational discussion impossible. It doesn't help that most of the experienced editors appear to have abandoned this article. Also, I find it odd that a new user appeared with such an intransigent point of view on this single subject, although it has happened before (see Talk:Led Zeppelin/Archive 5#Disputed accuracy of worldwide album sales). Piriczki (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I might not have followed wikipedia's civility standards that you and other "experienced" editors do, but I feel that I have tried to apply common sense (embedded in my anti-wikipedian uncivility, I admit) on the issue and tried to focus my answers on direct questions, so I don't want to include myself in your generalizations of the absurd course the discussion has taken, at least not in a logic sense, but I can agree. I acknowledged you in my answers in order to create some kind united front against the other "intransigent" (thanks for expanding my vocabulary, and I hope once again that you did not necessarily mean me) editors, but you remain, if I may, overly chill, almost cold about it. I would think that experienced and dedicated editors would give a harder try to change the course of a discussion run into a wall - and please have in mind that a discussion that "ceased to be productive a long time ago", as you said in your first post, is not the same as a discussion that lacks good arguments - the good arguments get ignored or countered by these intransigent editors with nothing but a few sources and a non-existent logic to back them up and these deadlocks occur, hence unproductiveness. I don't have a source for this conclusion, so please don't call it uninformed or ignorant, but I would think this is why our discussion became unproductive, not because every word of it was pure nonsense. I also wouldn't call my comparison to Floyd "fan boasts", but I won't digress that far. Anyway, I can understand if you deliberately decided not to acknowledge me because of my obvious inexperience or unwikipedianess, lack of medals. But I had a question that I asked continuously without any response. What decides which sources should be used? The discussion's deadlock consists of two groups of opposing sources stating two different figures, though one group has logic and common sense on its side, the other circulation and untruth. This is what I presented, a logic that was called "horrendous" by one of the vile creatures that stuck to their conviction. Maybe you see what's so horrendous about? General advice would be appreciated to. Revan ltrl (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily referring to you and I do appreciate your thoughtful comments. I will say that, overall, the discussion has the appearance of a "who's better" argument between fans of rival musical artists. I simply have no interest in that type of discussion. I share your frustration with the course that the discussion has taken. I would prefer to discuss only facts relevant to the article, but that may have to wait until the subject can be revisited with a fresh start. The article may have to remain as is until then, as long as it is clear from the talk page that the content is still in dispute and no consesus has been reached. The chances of the article reaching featured article status are nil at this point however. Meanwhile, I have reported Judaispriest's behavior at Wikiquette alerts. Piriczki (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that. I'll try to react differently when similar incompetence finds its way into a discussion. And ignore what I said about you being a walking paradox. You make a lot of sense. And I actually never saw Judaispriest's last comment until now. Thanks, it pleases me to see him reported. Seems like stupidity and fawning never gets out of fashion. Revan ltrl (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it ok to erase the entire discussion to clear the way for a fresh start later on? Revan (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think talk page content is supposed to be deleted. If sockpuppetry is found, a note can be placed at the end of the discussion. Further discussion should probably begin in a new section but I think that can wait until later. Piriczki (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that should definitely wait until later haha, considering the aftertaste from this one... Thanks for your help, Piriczki, your cool is admirable, and so is your nihilistic front page. Revan (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the deal? Is Scieberking Judaispreist or have I misunderstood? Revan (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pirizcki, you know we both and other users, like the IP address who put LedRush in his place, want to eliminate the 300 million figure. I found the current consensus a small improvement on the article. Posting an estimation, however, does not necessarily mean that the two numbers should be in perfect balance. I made the suggestion to name Atlantic Records with the 200 million figure, e.g. "according to Atlantic Records, the official worldwide sales of...", while the 300 million figure can be left as it is, with "while other sources." The current status of the article leaves readers and journalists to choose between the two figures uninhibited, but disrupting the balance between the figures could work as an indication towards the more accurate number, and it's not inaccurate to name Atlantic Records at all, it's to the contrary very appropriate. Revan (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The link to Atlantic Records stating 200 million doesn't open. Anywhere else maybe? Revan (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want, you can give your input on my suggestion on the Zeppelin discussion page. Revan (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Piriczki. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Gerardw (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why wasn't Scieberking banned for his sockpuppeting? 206.216.34.251 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"The" versus "the Beatles"

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

First Beatles Record played in US

Please provide a source for your repeated claims that Beatles music was played in the United States before December 1963. The claim in the article that it was was backed is by a reliable source. That does not necessarily make it correct. The Beatles arrival in the United States is a very well researched subject, if the source in the used in the article is wrong and you are correct there will be numerous reliable sources to back you up. Go find them and I will not only remove that claim but all material based on that source. You simply can not keep on imposing your opinion factual or not without reliable sources to back you up even if you are 100% correct. Edkollin (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The notion that the broadcast of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" on December 17, 1963 was "the first airing of a Beatles song in the United States" is clearly dubious to anyone with any knowledge of the subject. First of all, for that statement to be true, no other Beatle record could have been played even once by any radio station in the entire United States prior to December 17, 1963. Not only is that impossible to prove, just the idea of it is highly unlikely considering the Beatles already had three singles and an LP released in the U.S. by then. Just the fact that "From Me to You" bubbled under the Billboard Hot 100 for three weeks in August 1963 is an obvious indication that it received some airplay. Now, if you had carefully read the blog which you are citing as a reliable source, you would have noticed the acknowledgement "this overview of the Beatles' American breakthrough draws on information in an excellent book titled The Beatles Are Coming! The Birth Of Beatlemania In America by Bruce Spizer. If you had bothered to check that source, you would know that "Please Please Me" was #35 on WLS (AM) Chicago in March 1963 and "From Me to You" was #32 on KRLA 1110 Los Angeles in August 1963. If you had bothered to click on the links to those articles which I provided in my edit summary, you would be aware of the very well researched details of the U.S. airplay of those songs as documented by Spizer. Piriczki (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not know who played the first Beatles record in the US. I was 6 years old and could not have possibly listening to every radio station in the U.S. at the time. The links you provided are Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles are not considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia. The source is in the industry and and he provided a reliable source. It was verifiable which is all that is asked by Wikipedia. I have a life don't have time to play gotcha and go page by page through every book and reference reliable sources trying to catch errors. You evidently do that is great and wish I could also. I don't understand why you did not say "see talk page" and provide the book and page numbers, note the the "beatles bubbled under the charts" in 1963 and provide links for that if possible.

In short I am not disputing or affirming your claim. I challenged your changing sourced material without giving reliable sourced reasons. That was the disruptive editing in my view. But now that you are starting to do that I am copying relevant portions of this discussion to the British Invasion talk page and withdrawing the disruptive editing claim Edkollin (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We will rock you

You mean this source is wrong. Why? Materialscientist (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that source is wrong. I prefer this source. Piriczki (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR report

Looks like no one's been paying attention to WP:3RRNB lately. I just declined your report on User:24.181.234.151 because it was stale, and the user didn't quite pass 3RR on that article. However, I have given the user a final warning regarding edit warring on making unsourced changes. Since you seem to watch a number of these song pages, if you see this editor again trying to force their versions into articles, please tell me directly on my talk page and I'll block them for disruptive editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about your change to the Beck article

Hi. I noticed that after the sentence "They performed on the streets as a duo for a while," you reinstated the sentence "Some of his earliest recordings were achieved by working with Tom Grimley at Poop Alley Studios, a part of WIN Records." There had been a footnote after "They performed on the streets as a duo for a while" that went to citation of an article in the Idaho Statesman; that footnote now appears after the sentence you put back in. I went to look at that article to see if the sentence you inserted about Tom Grimley is backed up by the article, but the link is dead and I can't find the article on the Idaho Statesman site. Do you know for sure that the sentence you added is backed up by the Idaho Statesman article? If not, the footnote should go before the Grimley sentence (and also the Grimley sentence should have its own citation. Candy (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I merely reverted an unexplained deletion by a sockpuppet. The footnote is in the same place it has been since it was added more than three years ago. I see no valid reason to move the footnote now, especially if you don't know what the source says. Piriczki (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Eagles

Hello Piriczki, I was looking at your edit to "The" Eagles page and was curious about the discussion, which I assume is about using "The" in the lead and not in the title but, I cannot find this discussion, could you provide the link to this discussion as I have many bands watch-listed and would feel better arguing the point if I knew what consensus was reached. Thank you. Mlpearc Public (Talk) 14:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 1#Eagles vs. The Eagles, Talk:Eagles (band)/Archive 1#Fresh Start and Talk:Eagles (band)#WP:LAME:"Eagles vs the Eagles". Piriczki (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mlpearc: what point is left to argue? You commented on that last discussion linked back in May, and I don't think anyone can possibly argue that while there is no "The" in the title, everyone from the band to every single reliable source out there puts on a "the" when speaking about them. "Caveman-speak" like, "Don Felder was fired from Eagles" is not going to happen on WP when it doesn't happen anywhere else. The one concession that could possibly be made is to eliminate only that first "the" in that first sentence like the IP did, but I certainly can't blame Piriczki for undoing it as it's proven to be a very slippery slope. I expected the IPs next move to be the removal of all of the "the"s from the article (which has been attempted at least 4 other times). Cheers... Doc talk 19:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Doc9871, I was merely looking for the discussion. It's better to know what you are doing before you blindly revert even an IP. , sorry wasn't shopping for drama. Mlpearc powwow 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember now, Thank you Piriczki. Mlpearc powwow 19:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Born to Run reversion

Thanks. I was debating with myself whether to restore the content that I deleted because it actually looked legitimate even though the reference that was given appears to be total spam to some Japanese search site, which makes the content not easily verifiable of course. That user at that IP 186.18.29.100 (talk) seems to have made many similar edits although not recently.

-- J. Wong (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Others' comments

Hello. May i ask you a question? In russian wikipedia edits like that is quite incorrect and may be reverted, are they incorrect and can i revert it without any doubts in enwiki? Thanks. OneLittleMouse (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my comments were improperly removed. Another editor has since restored them. Piriczki (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Doors

Hello. Please stop edit war. The Doors have sold over 35 million albums in the US alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists#cite_note-RIAA_Certification_Database-4 Ron Bigam (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source in another article. Second, the article mentioned above is loaded with questionable original research and synthesis, and the 35 million figure refers to a user-derived total of albums, singles, digital singles, videocassettes and DVDs which a handful of uninformed editors have collectively defined as "records" for that article. See Talk:The Doors#Album sales for more information. Piriczki (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen disocgraphy - Live at the Main Point

Hi,

You removed the Live at the Main Point live album from the Bruce Springsteen discography because of being bootleg, but with that album the case is not that simple. In the US the album would be considered as a bootleg, but therefore it was only released in UK, Ireland, Germany and Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden). Live at the Main Point was initially released in UK only through amazon.co.uk before being released to HMV and other record stores. Bud Scoppa writes in his review in Uncut about the legality of the album. "Due to different copyright law the release is legal in the UK and some European countries only. Because of a loophole in UK copyright law US radio broadcasts can be released legally in the UK." The original recording was professionally recorded for broadcast on Philly Rock Station WMMMR. On the 2005 released Bruce Springsteen live album Live On Air, which includes a partial release of the Main Point material, contains the following in the Copyright Warning; "Attention is specifically drawn to Sections 16b and 181 in respect of qualifying broadcasts as defined by Statutory Instrument 1991 No. 1751 (Application to other countries) Order" A similar copyright credit is very likely to be found also on the Live at the Main Point album.

Reviews of the album were published in Uncut, Record Collector[14] The Guardian[15], that would hardly be the case if it was a simple bootleg, UK magazines wouldn't be allowed to publish reviews on illegally released albums on the UK market. The album also entered the UK and Irish Albums Charts (very low positions, but still..) but most importantly was given a wide release in Scandinavia. In Norway the album was available in all big record stores and is still to this day legally available there. It even made the Top 20 on the Norwegian albums chart[16]

The album is not a bootleg, as it is a legal release in Europe. It could be considered as a "semi-official" release, as it's not part of the official Bruce Springsateen Columbia/Sony Music catalog. It's essentially one of those budget releases that are not part of the artist's proper discography, but still a legal release, due to the artists not owing the copyright to the material recorded. In many such cases the record companies have obtained the material with the license to release it through the original radio broadcaster and therefore being able to relase it legally.

To give a complete picture of Bruce Springsteen's chart history in different countries it should be included in the discography, but with a note about it's status as an only "semi-official" release

Kai81 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the IFPI, "bootlegs are the unauthorised recordings of live or broadcast performances. They are duplicated and sold - sometimes at a premium price - without the permission of the artist, composer or record company." The RIAA also defines bootlegs as "the unauthorized recordings of live concerts, or musical broadcasts on radio or television." By either definition, this is a bootleg. While the release is not illegal in a few countries due to a loophole, it is illegal everywhere else. Many bootlegs have been released due to loopholes in the law in a particular country at a particular time. For instance, an earlier CD of this same recording, The Saint, the Innocent and the Main Point Shuffle, was released by Great Dane Records in Italy in 1990. In that country, at that time, it was not illegal, but everywhere else it is a bootleg. At best this is a "grey-area" release similar to CDs like Before the Fame which was supposedly legitimate and sold in stores until it's legality was challenged. Calling this CD "semi-official" implies it is "official" to some degree, which it is not. It might not be illegal, but it is unauthorized and not "official" in any way, shape or form. Piriczki (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen disocgraphy - Born to Run UK chart position

The UK chart position for "Born to Run" is from June-July 2009, when the studio version of the song entered the UK charts for the first time ever (only the "Live"-version with E Street Band had charted in 1987). Naturally, the 2009 entry was a digital download release, instead of a physical single release. The 2009 entry debuted on the chart for June 27, 2009 (week 25)[17] at #168, climbing its way up during the following weeks, reaching its peak position on July 11, 2009[18][19][20]. I thought about placing the 2009 entry separately in the other charted songs section as it wasn't actually a single release in 2009, but then again thought it would be too complicated and somebody might still move it to the 1975 release. Likewise the Swedish chart entry for "The River" and Norwegian chart entry for "Born In The U.S.A." are both from summer 2008, as those two failed to chart upon thier original release but entered the charts much later when Springsteen had concerts in Sweden and Norway. Those two chart positions were also placed for the original release. Maybe some explanation notes about those three being 2008/2009 entries could be useful. Any suggestion/idea?

Kai81 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Many classic songs have popped up on charts as downloaded tracks in recent years but I don't think that has much to do with a 45 released 30+ years ago other than it's the same song. I think most readers looking at the table would assume that record (CBS 3661) charted at #93 in 1975, which it didn't. I would put any downloadable tracks that appeared on a chart in a different section since they're only part of the chart history and not the discography. Piriczki (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Colitas" and Eriogonum jamesii

Hello. If you have the time, I would like to direct you to Talk:Eriogonum jamesii. There are a couple of issues I stumbled onto there and I am asking you because you reverted another editor who linked "colitas" to Eriogonum jamesii. I'd just like a second opinion before editing it, if you don't mind. Figured the article doesn't get much traffic. Thank you. --Racerx11 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Stairway to Heaven

Re:this edit. Thank you for improving the wording and preciseness. --Javaweb (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

WMMS

In the WMMS talk page you wrote about why sports were moved to WMMS.

In the grand scheme of things, it was the beginning of the transition of 100.7 from a pure "rock station" to a more "man-cave" format with hot talk, rock, and some sports. [User:Vjmlhds|Vjmlhds]] 14:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect it may seem that way but at the time the move was made specifically to boost ratings and hopefully attract new listeners as WMMS had fallen out of the top 10 in the market. Piriczki (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

All Things Must Pass album

I see you recently removed a mention of the All Things Must Pass album being rock music's first triple album. Rather than simply leaving the comment 'removed false statement', it would be more useful if you could add a reference for the claim that ATMP was only the first triple by a solo artist. I'm happy to go with your claim − in fact, I'm intrigued to know what the first one was, if not ATMP − as long as it can be verified of course. Right now, sources such as Jann Wenner (in the Editors of Rolling Stone book) and Chris Smith's 101 Albums That Changed Popular Music (and who knows, perhaps the Schaffner Beatles Forever and Mojo references − I can't remember if I added them also) state that All Things Must Pass was rock's first triple, which makes for quite a compelling argument(!). Of course they all could be wrong ... in which case, verification is needed. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Woodstock Piriczki (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for being so engaging on the subject ...JG66 (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation

We have missed your logical insights at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles lately, please do join us there when you have the time, your perspective would be appreciated. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we are quite close to a poll. I was just wondering if you could shed any unique light on the issues in general. Maybe you have a suggestion or two for the poll that would be helpful. Any fresh perspectives at this point would be great. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion

I could use your input here. Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Request comment

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ping. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Avoid-dance caveat discussion

Your input would be greatly appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

American Fool release date

Hello. I'm trying to straighten out the Release Date of American Fool.

[[21]]

In November of 2008, you changed the date from 25 JUNE 1982 to 12 APR 1982. What is the source for the 12 APR 1982 date? The official website doesn't give a day or month, only the year (1982). Right now, the wiki shows 01 APR 1982. The only source I can find (Classic Rock Review) gives 10 JULY 1982 as the release date. I'm going to change it to that, unless you can source the 12 APR 1982 date. (I hope you can, haha! I think the release date should have a more substantial reference than just a review site.) Thanks for your help. Quidsane (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the copyright registration American Fool was released April 12, 1982. The album entered the Billboard chart the week ending May 8, 1982 so the date July 10, 1982 is obviously wrong. The changes you made to other Mellencamp articles are also incorrect. Piriczki (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"According to the copyright registration". Where does one get that info? I would LOVE to look at or acquire a copy of this. Thanks! Quidsane (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Go to http://www.copyright.gov/records/, click on Search the Catalog, search for: american fool john cougar, search by: keyword, click Begin Search. Piriczki (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

All By Myself

I don't care if Rachmaninoff is listed as co-writer or not, but the Celine Dion infobox and the Carmen infobox need to match because they are the same song! I made them match; you have made them mismatch again. JGabbard (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The infobox should match exactly with the record it describes, not another infobox. They are two different records, that's why there are two different infoboxes. Piriczki (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but it seems to me it should be the other way around. Carmen copied Rachmaninoff in spite of failing to give him credit, but Dion copied only Carmen.JGabbard (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Da Ya Think I'm Sexy?

Why did you reverte my Da Ya Think I'm Sexy? edition? The plagiarism is well-known, and Stewart was condemned and agreed to donate the royalties to UNICEF.Rbrandao (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was undone because it was inaccurate. The artists involved in the Music for UNICEF benefit (Abba, Bee Gees, Earth Wind & Fire, Olivia Newton-John, Rod Stewart, Donna Summer, etc.) agreed to donate their royalties before the songs were released and long before any claim of plagiarism was raised. Piriczki (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it is not what Rolling Stone magazine and Songfacts say. They may be wrong, but do you have links that may prove you are right. Regards,Rbrandao (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Also in Spinner, that describes exactly I wrote: Ben, who also wrote the '60s pop hit 'Mas Que Nada,' won a lawsuit against Stewart for lifting his song. Stewart agreed to donate proceeds from sales of his single to UNICEF. So, when you can prove your point, you change the article. Regards, Rbrandao (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Those sources are wrong. Stewart did not donate the royalties from the song to UNICEF as the result of any lawsuit. The Music for UNICEF project was started in May 1978 with the Bee Gees being the first artist to donate a song to the cause (see [22]). In November 1978 the other artists enlisted to donate songs, including Rod Stewart, were announced (see [23]). The claim of plagiarism was not raised by Jorge Ben until after the song became a hit in early 1979, as documented in this Los Angeles Times article dated April 8, 1979. The article states that no lawsuit had been filed and points out that the case would be complicated by the fact that Stewart had already donated the song's royalties to UNICEF. Stewart's manager is also quoted saying "it's ironic that a Brazilian artist is making this claim when most of the money will go to countries like Brazil to help underprivileged children." Piriczki (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Album-oriented rock

I understand that you don't agree - however, the edits were cited to reliable sources. If you scan the article you'll note that the word "adult" appears several times. I agree with you that "new" is vague, however, that is what is in the source, and we should be working toward an understanding of that, rather than a rejection because we as individuals don't understand it. "Classic Rock" is, however, closely linked to AOR, as seen here, here, here, etc. The more we look at and consider what others add to articles, and read the sources that are cited, the more we begin to understand, and the better we can make an article. I hope that helps. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am quite knowledgeable about the subject and have done much to keep this article accurate, well-sourced and devoid of various interpretations and conflagrations of the acronym AOR unrelated to the subject of this article, which is "album-oriented rock," an American radio format popularized in the late 1970s. That is why I reverted your edits.

There is no question the term "adult-oriented rock" has been used in this context. The question is whether the term is absolutely synonymous or unconditionally interchangeable with the term "album-oriented rock." It is not. While album-oriented rock, alternatively known simply as "album rock," is specifically defined as a radio format and recognized as such by Arbitron, the term "adult-oriented rock" has variously been used to describe everything from adult contemporary artist Engelbert Humperdinck in the 1970s to different types of music genres, to the present day radio format known as adult album alternative (which I suspect is what you are actually describing). Probably the most relevant use of the term "adult-oriented rock" has been in describing those AOR stations that sought to retain its aging demographic as the format began to splinter in the 1980s. However, not all AOR stations were the same and that was just one "flavor" that some had but the term was not applicable to all AOR stations.

There can be mention of "adult-oriented rock" in the article, but it requires some explanation rather than simply jamming the phrase into an existing sentence where it might cause confusion and lead to further edits taking the article further off track. For instance, in the past one misguided editor attempted to change the entire article to "adult-oriented rock," which he defined as a soft rock music genre typified by groups such as Toto and Air Supply. Another wanted the subject of the article to be "melodic rock," a vaguely-defined sub-genre of hard rock typified by groups like Night Ranger or Great White.

The other addition to the lead, "AOR [a radio format] radio stations tend to play 'classic rock' [another radio format] as well as 'new rock' [whatever that is, or was, in 1998 when the cited source was written] to appeal to adult audiences," seems to be describing several different formats in the same breath, again conflagrating different terms in one confusing sentence. AOR long ago split into different spin-off formats making such a brief catch-all description impossible. This would be better addressed in the programming or spin-off formats sections of the article but again requires some explanation instead of just a simplistic, blanket statement.

Although loosely defined, "adult-oriented rock" has become part of the jargon and no doubt can be found in what are considered reliable sources, but its usage is not necessarily accurate or appropriate. Take the case of the supposed magazine College Music Journal, or CMJ. There are innumerable references to "College Music Journal" in otherwise reliable sources, some which specifically say CMJ stands for "college music journal" which is completely false (it was actually College Media Journal). Unfortunately, acronyms are sometimes misconstrued and their meaning deliberately or mistakenly altered over time but the fact is AOR, as defined in this article, is an acronym for the specific term "album-oriented rock" as originally coined by Mike Harrison in 1975, widely-adopted by the industry and still recognized as the formal name of the format by Arbitron, although very few rock stations are still classified as AOR today, with most being identified as active rock, alternative, adult album alternative or classic rock, but not "adult-oriented rock." Piriczki (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, reviewing the sources cited, the first uses the qualifying term "variously" meaning varyling, inconsistently or unpredictably. This hardly seems definitive when it is documented that the acronym has a very specific meaning. The second, which is a bit dated now, says that classic rock is "associated with adult-oriented rock and album-oriented rock" which seems to imply they are two different things. Piriczki (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Off the charts.

As a general rule, I try to avoid confronting other editors on an individual basis regarding their contributions. Fortunately, I have not had to do this very often in the years since I began editing Wikipedia. I regret that this is not one of those occasions. Starting with the assumption of good faith, as we all must, there are a couple of reasons why your recent edits to the "Chart performance" section of the "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" article were not as helpful as you may have intended them to be:

1. You removed inline citations of primary sources (various issues of Billboard magazine) for the "Best Bets for Christmas" and "Christmas Hits" charts. The corresponding reference citations (which you neglected to remove, thereby orphaning them in the "References" section) were linked to scanned copies of their respective sources online, enabling readers to view the actual charts for themselves.

2. You replaced these several primary sources with a single secondary source (Top Pop Singles 1955–1996) which features chart information aggregated from the primary sources that were originally cited.

3. You did not format this replacement reference citation in accordance with the reference style currently in use in the article: i.e., a short citation in the "Notes" section – usually consisting of the author's surname and a specific page number, perhaps also a quote or other relevant information (no need for a separate notation scheme, like the one you implemented, in this case) – and a full citation in the "References" section.

4. You removed certain significant details about the Cash Box chart, in particular, when the song placed on the chart, how long it remained on the chart, and when it achieved its peak position. In addition, you altered the corresponding inline citation so that it no longer conformed to the article's reference style.

5. Your initial edit summary "copyedit for accuracy and added references" was itself not altogether accurate, because, as indicated above, you removed four inline citations to each of four cited sources while adding two inline citations to one cited source – which, if my math is correct, equals a net loss of two citations and three sources.

Taken as a whole, there is now less information in the article about the song's US chart performance than before you made these changes. By any measure, that is unhelpful and does a disservice both to the article and, more importantly, its readers.

You and I previously held a discussion concerning "Happy Xmas" and the Billboard charts. I suppose that the issue was not resolved to your satisfaction, hence your recent work on the article. In the interests of taking an informed stance, I reviewed several consecutive editions of Top Pop Singles from the past 20 years. I was interested to discover that Christmas singles which did not appear on the primary Billboard charts – such as "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)", for instance – were no longer listed in the book after the 10th edition (2004). In the "User's Guide" prefacing the subsequent edition (2008), author Joel Whitburn justified his decision to remove these songs: "There is no way of knowing how well those songs would have charted on the Hot 100, or if most of them would have even made the big chart. Showing them with their Christmas-chart peak position and weeks charted skewered [sic] those artists' rankings (p. 14)." Notice that Whitburn has drawn a clear distinction between the Christmas singles charts and the primary Billboard charts. While it is definitely the case that "From 1963 through 1972, and from 1983 through 1985, Billboard published a seasonal Christmas Singles chart, and did not chart Christmas singles on the Hot 100 (2004, p. xiv)", it would seem that the Christmas Singles charts are, in his considered opinion, neither equivalent to nor substitutions for any of the primary Billboard charts, otherwise he would not have eliminated the songs that made their sole appearances on these charts from his book. From this, I feel confident in maintaining the position that it does not matter why "Happy Xmas" has only appeared on various Christmas Singles charts instead of the primary Billboard charts, the fact remains that "Happy Xmas" has never appeared on the primary Billboard charts.

On that basis, I have restored the "Chart performance" section of the article to its prior state, but I have retained your note in the form of the direct quote that appears immediately above and added a reference to the corresponding edition of Top Pop Singles from which it is taken, both of them in the proper format. This should hopefully address your concern about readers' potential misunderstanding of the song's US chart performance. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There are still a couple problematic areas in this section which should be omitted or rewritten in order provide the reader a clear and accurate description of the record's chart performance. One is the statement that "in the years since, the original recording by Lennon and Ono has never entered the primary [whatever that means] Billboard charts." This statement is utterly meaningless. Yes, it is true, but it is true of virtually every single ever released because the Hot 100 does not include recurrents except in certain circumstances. Readers who are not aware that the single initially did not chart on the Hot 100 because it was not eligible for that chart, and that it did not chart on the Hot 100 "in the years since" because it was not eligible for that chart in subsequent years, might presume that this is reflective of the record's chart performance and supposed lack of success rather than a simple matter of chart methodology. This brings up the larger problem with this section which is the opening sentence "'Happy Xmas (War Is Over)' did not meet with much success in its 1971 U.S. single debut, owing to its late release and lack of promotion." The source beatlesbible.com seems to base this assertion on the false assumption that "the single, which was issued on green or black vinyl as Apple 1842, failed to chart." This is incorrect since the record did chart in Cashbox. Even if this statement was in reference to Billboard it is still incorrect as the record didn't "fail", it was simply ineligible. Mistakes like this are probably why beatlesbible.com is not considered a reliable source for Beatles-related articles, see Talk:The Beatles/Archive 30#beatlesbible.com. The idea that "Happy Xmas" was unsuccessful may stem from The Beatles Forever by Nicholas Schaffner (1977) which was a good read but not necessarily encyclopedic. In that book, Schaffner wrote "but the record, released too close to Christmas to catch fire, became the first Beatle single not to even crack America's Hot Hundred." Again, the record's absence on the Hot 100, without understanding why, seems to be the basis for deeming it unsuccessful. Not only did "Happy Xmas" chart on the Cashbox Top 100, it reached #36 which was actually a fairly good showing for a Christmas record in that era. Consider that other popular Christmas singles such as "Merry Christmas Darling" by the Carpenters (1970) and "Step into Christmas" by Elton John (1973) only peaked at #41 and #56, respectively. In fact, the only Christmas single to chart higher than "Happy Xmas" in Cashbox in the 1970s was "Please Come Home for Christmas" by the Eagles (#29 in 1978). One could even state that "Happy Xmas" was the second-highest charting Christmas single of the 1970s. Of course, this fact contradicts the contention in the article that the record "did not meet with much success." In my opinion, the article gives an inaccurate impression of the record's chart performance based on false assumptions and a lack of understanding of chart methodology. Piriczki (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I just stumbled across something that renders at least part of our discussion moot (for which I must admit to feeling no small amount of relief ;). In a sense, I have you to thank for it, because I most likely never would have found it had I not looked through several editions of Top Pop Singles in order to engage you on this topic. So, in the artist entry for John Lennon on page 406 of the 10th edition – published directly after the one you originally cited – I happened upon the following: "#32 Adult Contemporary hit, Christmas 1995". Well, as you can imagine, I wasted no time in tracking this down. Of course Google Books does not feature copies of Billboard magazine for either the last week of December 1995 or the first week of January 1996 (otherwise I might have uncovered this when I was rewriting the article back in December and spared the both of us some effort), so I turned to other sources. And, yes, as declared, there it was on page 84 of the issue for the week ending 6 January 1996: No. 32 on the Hot Adult Contemporary chart. Based on this new intelligence, I have done away with the line "In the years since, the original recording by Lennon and Ono has never entered the primary Billboard charts." since it clearly no longer applies, and I have incorporated the additional chart information. I am certain that this by itself does not resolve all of your concerns, but I would be grateful if you could allow me some time (a day or so) to formulate a response to the questions that remain. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Whitburn also publishes an Adult Contemporary chart book but I don't have that one. In contrast to the barrage of Christmas music heard today, it doesn't appear there was much of a taste for it in the 1970s. This 1973 Billboard article describes apathy toward Christmas records and little airplay. It doesn't mention "Happy Xmas" so I don't know if it can be incorporated into the article but it's an interesting backdrop. I also noticed "Happy Xmas" didn't make the 1973 Christmas chart while lesser songs like "Jingle Bells" by the Singing Dogs were still there. Piriczki (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hotel California (song)

Hello, Piriczki! . '""Hotel California" the song was released as a single on March 12, 1977, and also hit number one, going gold." This is a direct quote from allmusic. Every other Eagles single came out on a specific day, and this one is no exception. Do you have a ref for "February, 1977" as the release date? I would think they would not be so vague as to when the single was released, and allmusic is a perfectly fine source. I can't add the cite while on my iPhone, but I will later. Doc talk 01:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Allmusic is incorrect. "Hotel California" entered the Billboard Hot 100 at #72 the week ending February 26, 1977 so it had to have been released at least 11 days prior to that date. The record likely made the chart in its first week so it was probably released in early February. The writer of the allmusic review got the Saturday, March 12 date from Joel Whitburn's Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits which lists records by the chart date in which it reached #40 or higher. Piriczki (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay - I found something more specific: '" It turned out to be thier fourth chart-topper, entering the Billboard Hot 100 at number 72 on February 26, 1977, and moving to number one 10 weeks later."' This would seem to make more sence if allmusic is wrong. What do you think? Doc talk 17:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That matches the record's chart history. I wonder where the specific release dates for the other Eagles singles came from. Piriczki (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Mick Ronson - American Fool

Not sure how much evidence you need to keep Mick Ronson's important contribution to Mellencamps 'American Fool' album. It took me a very long time to convince that Jack & Diane was 'saved' by Mick, and that credit is now added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_%26_Diane along with Mellencamp's confirmation that Mick Ronson contributed guitar and arrangements to at least 4 other tracks on the 'American Fool' album. Please leave Mick's artistic contribution which I've added once again, and until it sticks. thanks.Ronnohof (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It should stick with a proper reference. The liner notes to The Best That I Could Do would be the best source and should include everyone, not just Mick Ronson. Piriczki (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Revert

When you did this, you said "not that type of cue sheet". OK, so what type of cue sheet is it? Just reverting to link to the disambiguation page doesn't help the reader at all. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's probably closer to the third one on the disambiguation page but there is no article for that. If linking to the disambiguation page doesn't help maybe there shouldn't be a link at all since there is no article. Piriczki (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Doors

I want to know why you don't want make "†" front Jim Morrison and Ray Manzarek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.73.174.215 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what I want or don't want. The guidelines for Template:Infobox musical artist require members of the group be listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. Piriczki (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok, but it's because in the French or Spanish Wikipedia, for example, we can make "†". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.73.174.215 (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, why in the English Wikipedia we can not make it while in other Wikipedia we can? 86.73.174.215 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.73.174.215 (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't write the guideline. It's probably because in English the dagger symbol is more commonly used to indicate a footnote. Piriczki (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, sorry for the inconvenience. 86.73.174.215 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Eagles Are...

Thanks for the Talk citation for the proper wording. Had no idear. Ckruschke (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The 'The'.

Calling, and esp insisting on "THE Dark Side Of The Moon" is, since primeval times already, THE shibboleth of just about all wankers, dear. So just you know. AlterBerg (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Self-published source by Scaruffi

Thanks for your edits. Feel free to edit yourself those scaruffi reviews when you see them on articles with a summary like this one:

" rv wp:self published source by Scaruffi per wp:consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews '

Woovee (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

New wave music

Please cite a source for your claim that "New Wave" is "never capitalized". As someone who was very much into the music at the time, and a reader of numerous music magazines (New Music Express, Sounds, Trouser Press, Melody Maker, Rolling Stone, etc.) I know from experience that's not the case, so I'm going to have to insist that you need to provide a citation from a reliable source to verify your strange claim in the Ric Ocasek article. In the meantime, you should review WP:BRD - your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor (me), and next comes a Discussion, while the article stays in the staus quo ante during the discussion. That means that you should not revert back to your preferred version until there is a consensus on the article's talk page in favor of your version. BMK (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're confused, I didn't say "never capitalized." And reliable sources are not required to simply follow the Manual of Style. Piriczki (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not proper album charts

Hi. Can I ask why you're removing all chart positions on the Italians Albums Chart from 1970s album articles? Or better: why is this chart not a "proper" album chart?

According to the Wikipedia article on Italy's chart, the Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana stepped in to establish a new, improved list. As those cites you've been removing show, album sales were monitored before 1994 and chart positions were given. As with chart compilers in the UK, US and everywhere else, methodologies evolved and improved through the decades, but it's not as if when compilers changed the criteria (eg radio play and sheet-music sales used to be big factors in the US and/or UK) that anything compiled under the previous criteria no longer counted. So my point is that there was a national albums chart in Italy, during the 1960s even, but FIMI decided its compiling methods were unreliable and rebadged it. That's no different from the situation in the UK in the late 1960s/early '70s, surely.

Not only that, but WP:GOODCHARTS talks about recommended charts but doesn't prohibit those it doesn't recommend. Even above the table there, the heading says "Typical sources for record charts and archives, by country" – so again, no insistence or requirement that only the charts listed there should be used.

I see you've deleted a French SNEP chart position also. SNEP's been going since forever ... According to that article, they were certifying albums and singles "gold" by January 1973 (I would've thought before then, but never mind). So how is it we can't trust the sales chart that the same organisation compiled? JG66 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the chart positions are not referenced by FIMI or SNEP, they are referenced by two hobbyist web sites, hitparadeitalia.it and infodisc.fr. Both of these web sites gather information from various (incomplete) sources to recreate, through their own methodology, a single, albeit fictional, album chart. It is akin to taking information from old issues of Billboard, Record World and Rolling Stone and combining it to create a "US Album Chart" which never actually existed. Piriczki (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your commentary here (I would not have reversed your reversals, had you dropped a line in my User Talk section...) Angelo Somaschini (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

But are you sure about that (Piriczki) – that this info never existed beforehand? Perhaps hitparadeitalia.it compiled the year-end list, I don't know, but if you look at the source that was at Imagine for 1972, highest chart positions are given there, and as the FIMI article says, an albums chart did exist previously. (We shouldn't forget the politics in this sort of an issue, especially in Italy.)

Going back to our guidelines, infodisc.fr is included in that "Typical sources" list at WP:GOODCHARTS. I appreciate your suspicions about the site, I have some problems with it too. But a) it doesn't appear as though we're prohibited at all from using the site – it even appears to be "recommended" through its appearance in the table – and b) there are reliability problems with quite a few of the other sites there. Definitely Hung Medien, I suggest. As an example, going from Paul McCartney discography, HM list plenty of New Zealand chart placings for Wings and McCartney solo. But I've found they don't for plenty of other artists who had chart success during the 1970s in NZ; George Harrison would be one – "My Sweet Lord" was number one there in early 1971, but according to Hung Medien, nothing of his charted there until over four years later.

What I mean is, in many cases, we shouldn't confuse omission from a supposedly reliable charts source with a statement of fact that a song or album didn't chart; with Hung Medien, I think there's an element of someone adding full details if they want to. (It might be about the best we've got, but it's a long way from definitive.) Also with NZ, I also have a feeling that methodology changed to some degree in about 1974–75 – the Harrison situation would be one example, but far more obviously, the Stones, who apparently never had a chart hit until 1976, while McCartney and Wings were racking them up. Another problem area I've found on HM (and ultratop.be also), concerns Belgium: I think for a lot of artists from the early '70s, they only give their top 20 singles placings; for other artists, it's the whole lot.

Which is all a round-about way of saying: well, who can we trust?

Back to this issue with French and Italian albums charts. I used to own a (very old) copy of Joseph Murrells' The Book of Golden Discs (1978; ISBN 0-214-20480-4) – outstanding book, sourced with full industry backing, and it would've been so useful for these Wikipedia articles. I remember how Murrells would give all the other national charts where a (US) gold-certified song or album had had significant success, and how albums and songs by the Beatles and other major '60s-era names had invariably topped the national charts in France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, etc. So I'm convinced these listings definitely existed (for Italy, France and elsewhere) – no doubt with the same shaky methodologies that a more-established chart nation like the UK, perhaps the US and Canada, also had. The problem is, we're relying on Hung Medien or someone to acknowledge these listings, which is a mistake because the websites are so inconsistent.

I think those listings you removed belong back in the articles, Piriczki. Maybe the year-end lists are suspect, but the chart peaks we need. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry … Angelo Somaschini, are you talking to me or to Piriczki? (I'm confused!) JG66 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, I am sorry. I was talking to Piriczki, the guy who reversed my (apparently unacceptable) edits to Led Zeppelin album entries. Angelo Somaschini (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Put them back if you want. I'm curious though, what was the actual name of the "French Albums Chart"? In what publication did it appear? In a magazine? What was the name of the magazine? How often was it published? Weekly? Monthly? Same for the "Italian Albums Chart." Name of the chart? Name of the publication? Same goes for all the charts at "Hung Medien," whatever that is. Does anyone know where any of these charts were originally published? And who is now compiling this information and putting it on a web site? No one would ever dream of putting 1970s chart positions in Wikipedia articles for a supposed "American Album Chart" and reference some web site put together by unknown persons that don't clearly identify the original source. That's because everyone knows there was no "American Album Chart," it was either Billboard, Cashbox or Record World. I'm not questioning that charts existed in these countries, or questioning the methodology of those charts, I'm asking what charts or publications did this information originate from? Piriczki (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. The reason I took the discussion on something of a curve ball is to show what a vexed issue international charts continues to be. I mentioned Hung Medien firstly because it gets such positive coverage at WP:GOODCHARTS, and also because I figured it must've been okay by you, in that I hadn't seen you removing any chart placings cited to one of the various HM websites. But I agree – "Same goes for all the charts at "Hung Medien" ... Does anyone know where any of these charts were originally published?" The answer's no in most cases, but they seem to satisfy our guidelines for inclusion. (Personally, I'm less bothered by the lack of details, such as chart name, publication, weekly or monthly, etc. than I am about the inconsistent approach for a particular country's chart: the McCartney vs Harrison/Stones NZ example; Belgium.) So what I'm saying is, with everything that we do include via Hung Medien, why should those French and Italian charts be any different?

For what it's worth, I've come across a lot of information by chance when looking through the Billboard magazine archives. There'll often be a report (in an early-'70s issue) on international sales, perhaps concentrating on a specific region; in those situations, I've learned that there was indeed a chart compiler and sales monitoring service in a surprising number of countries. I know that sounds vague – as I say, it's not as if I was actually looking for this information. But if I was interested enough, I guess I (or anyone) could trawl through all the issues for the period and come up with something authoritative for our various articles on national charts, which would then feed into a more concise rationale for Charts boxes in our album and song articles. As it is currently, my approach is influenced by that Murrells book also – there appears to have been national sales charts in the majority of European countries and in New Zealand by, say, 1970.

Your point about no one using a term such as "American Album Chart": well no, and that's because there was a choice of three. In the UK, there was a similar choice (more like a rivalry), but by about the mid '70s I think, the national chart was accepted as such, and with there no longer being a need to differentiate between charts by publication name, they gradually adopted the innocuous title "the UK Albums Chart". So, in cases where there might not have been competing compilers, perhaps in France, Italy, Spain etc., would it have been such a surprise if generic-sounding titles such as "Italian Albums Chart" were standard? I say "if" because I have no idea either way; I'm simply speculating on what the situation might have been, logically, if there wasn't a host of magazine publishers vying for supremacy in each territory. JG66 (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, not doubting there were charts in these countries back then. In fact, there were several publications in both France and Italy with charts or "hit parades"—Show, Best, Salut Les Copains, Musica e Dischi, Discografia Internazionale, RSI Italiano, among others. The problem with the web site infodisc.fr, they take information from various sources, whatever they can locate apparently, to arrive at estimated or supposed chart positions through what they call a "synthesis." The home page even states: "We take this opportunity to update our database numbers and rankings to reflect new information and corrections. Information will therefore progressively update." In other words, as they locate more information they change their "synthesized" positions accordingly. They describe their method as: "A weekly summary of the various hit parades calculated as the average weekly positions in the various rankings (with a co-efficient for each hit parade)" and "a penalty is established for all titles appearing only in one publication to avoid any over-rated favorites." The reason given for using this "synthesis" is that "because there is not an authoritative hit parade, but many have their own charts and their fields of interest: youth for Salut Les Copains for example." They go on to list a number of sources they are still searching for.

To make the analogy to U.S. charts again, this would be like taking a certain album that was #25 in Billboard, #18 in Cashbox and #17 in Record World, and then saying it was #20 on the "American Albums Chart." That would be total fiction as there was no such chart and it wasn't #20 on any actual chart, but that is essentially what you are getting at infodisc.fr—a present day re-creation of an imagined "authoritative" chart that never actually existed. I have no idea how this ever passed WP:RS. I don't have time to explain the hitparadeitalia.it web site here but it is essentially the same thing. Piriczki (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Blimey. I said I found the whole charts issue a vexing one, now it's gone up a few notches. Thanks for the overview on infodisc. On one hand, I agree it's pretty damning for that site; on the other hand, as mentioned, I see so many equally questionable chart placings reported, and with obvious inconsistencies … The situation's baffling, as far as Wikipedia goes.

On the subject of chart names and rewriting history, for instance, should the Beatles' "I Feel Fine" carry the chart name "UK Singles Chart", as it currently does? I was just looking in Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, where he says that (in 1963, at least) there was "no standardised chart" for UK singles. Which doesn't seem so different from there having been no "authoritative hit parade" in France – except, of course, no one's since doctored the original stats to produce what Guinness Hit Singles or the Official Charts Company recognise as the UK chart positions for that non-standardised period. (Or, hang on a minute – have they?!)

Original stats have definitely been doctored for Australia. There, the Kent Music Report didn't exist until midway through 1974, up to which point Go-Set had compiled the recognised national charts and awarded gold and silver discs. But Kent subsequently applied his methodology to cover the Go-Set period, and the decades beforehand, and his findings appear to be accepted as official. Kent's books are self-published (without any industry accreditation that I can see), and they end up nullifying Go-Set's charts, in that chart peaks sometimes differ between the two sources. I've found cases where a number 1 single from the early '70s has been downgraded to a number 5 placing. To my way of thinking, that's like rewriting the results of, say, past Formula 1 World Championships by applying the latest points system. Given the influence of Go-Set at the time, the nation celebrated a number 1 hit, but apparently not, according to Kent.

So, in a lot of ways, this revisionist scenario for Australia – which WP:GOODCHARTS again supports – seems to validate infodisc.fr, you know? In fact, I'd say that the Kent 1966–74 chart results are worse than infodisc, because at least the latter don't ignore a published sales chart, from what you're saying. I don't know, I award this entire issue a big, bold question mark ... JG66 (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Beach Boys#Legacy

Good Day, Piriczki

Yesterday I made copyright edits to the Legacy section of The Beach Boys band (there was a tag requesting it): The Beach Boys#Legacy

I mainly fixed the spelling and other small things - like the name of the band is spelled with "The", not "the". I'm just trying to learn my way around Wikipedia, and it was my first small contribution, but I noticed today that you just reverted all my edits back without any explanation. I actually did spend some time working on it, since the editor is new to me.

Did I do anything wrong? Did I not save it in a correct way?

Once again, I am new to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate if you could explain.

NancyJeanGF (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article), "the" is not capitalized mid-sentence. Also, an edit summary explaining your changes would be helpful. Piriczki (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I was not aware of that rule. I will go ahead and restore the other changes I made and add a summary.

NancyJeanGF (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin discography

Rather than reporting each other lets discuss it, after much research into the album I agree it should be included but rather than being in the compilations section if we add it to box sets section as it is a box set of 2 previously released albums agree? Kind regards Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a broader question to address here which is why I raised the subject at Wikiproject discographies. By the way, two CDs packaged in a slipcase is not a box set. And don't ever delete another user's comments from a talk page. Piriczki (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Who says it isn't a box set You? And I tried to discuss the matter with you there is no broader question your just trying to stir up the pot aren't you? Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflict with user Lukejordan02

Hello Piriczki. I saw that you had problem with that user at Led Zeppelin discography. I'm having similar dispute at Megadeth discography. Can you help me out?--Retrohead (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition to edit-warring, I suspect this user a sockpuppet of a blocked user. At the article Heritage (Opeth album), new user Lukejordan02, also editing as IPs 86.19.151.163 and 62.253.148.103, has resumed an edit war previously waged by Y45ed and You'reNotMyBrain, both blocked sockpuppets of Mrwallace05. Y45ed first removed the genre "progressive metal" and source "allmusic.com" saying it's not reliable (see diff) and again removed the genre and source saying it refers to only one song (see diff and diff). After Y45ed was blocked, You'reNotMyBrain removed "allmusic.com" saying it is an unreliable source (see diff) and again removed the source saying it refers to only one song (see diff). After Mrwallace05's most recent sockpuppet User:MetalicMadness was blocked, Lukejordan02 began making numerous, contentious changes to genres at various rock music related articles. Just like the previous sockpuppets, Lukejordan02 removed the genre "progressive metal" and the source "allmusic.com" from the Heritage article questioning the source's reliability (see diff, diff) and again removed the genre, saying on the talk page that the source refers to only one song (see diff). The edit warring continued by removing the genre (see diff) and source (see diff) again. New user HocolPrarum is also an obvious sockpuppet of Mrwallace05. I don't have time to sort through it all right now though. Piriczki (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are suspicious diffs, I agree. But apart from the genre changes, have those socks been overly verbose at talk pages? If filling a request for sock investigation, we must be sure that those usernames share similar articles of interest and show identical behaviour.--Retrohead (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Rollback in Led Zeppelin

I don't understand why this edit was reverted, if you search in RIAA database "Artist name" Led Zeppelin and "Album name" Led Zeppelin you can find 10x multi platinum for Led Zeppelin album (release date: October 8, 1990 and cerification date: March 2, 2001). --Afnecors (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That is the certification for Led Zeppelin (box set). Led Zeppelin (album) is identified as "Led Zeppelin I" in the database and is 8x platinum. Piriczki (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarification. --Afnecors (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"The"

Your argument for reverting, plz. I did give one, and a darn good one at that. AlterBerg (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your "magnum opus" is wrong. This has been discussed many times before, most recently at Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 5#Dark Side ... (without the def article). Since you apparently don't own a copy of the LP in question, here's a picture. Piriczki (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know about other copies without the def. article just as well. Perhaps there have been freaky copies around. For quite some time Hendrix' Electric Ladyland went thru life as "Electric Landlady". AlterBerg (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC you may be interested in

Previously, you participated in an informal discussion at Talk:Eagles (band) regarding genres in the infobox. Due to a recent dispute, a formal RFC has been opened on the matter. Please feel free to comment as you see fit. --Jayron32 23:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

My only comment would be that one of the participants is a sockpuppet of User:Mrwallace05. Piriczki (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice

I would expect an experienced user such as yourself to be aware that interview discs should not be included in a discograohy so i kindly ask that you revert yourself. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Point out where such a guideline exists. Piriczki (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for the reply, Here you go (second from bottom), cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, are you going to revert yourself or do i have to ask an admin? Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that guideline is unsuitably vague. By that measure, albums such as The Beatles' Story (Capitol Records), the Wedding Album (Apple Records) and The Paul McCartney Interview (Columbia Records), to name a few, would be excluded from the Beatles discography, the John Lennon discography and the Paul McCartney discography. As you can see, they are not. These were legitimate albums by the artists released by their record company, all of which charted. The same is true for Some Product: Carri on Sex Pistols (Virgin Records). I believe the guideline regarding non-musical releases is intended for the numerous unauthorized interview discs put out by labels such as Baktabak or Rockview which are mostly beyond copyright control. Otherwise, a discography, by definition, is a list of all records released by an artist regardless of content. Deleting a legitimate release and its accompanying chart history and certifications, will make the article inaccurate by its omission. Piriczki (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the discussing, fair enough i will leave it. BTW can we forget about the past and start fresh, cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

FAC for Of Human Feelings

Hi! Since you are an experienced contributor to WP:ALBUMS, would you care to review or comment at my FAC for the article Of Human Feelings? Dan56 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your unexplained reversion

Re this: [24]. If you refuse to allow this statement here, then you must remove the REDIRECT from "Dad rock" to "Classic rock". The term must be mentioned in the article, or else there's no point having a redirect. It is unhelpful. 31.50.70.172 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)