User talk:Be Black Hole Sun/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Articles i've worked my ass of on[edit]

Articles i'm goin to clean up or expand[edit]

Current Featured List nominations[edit]


Yes, I took a look at it. So it's on one discography out of many. Go ask a mod or a respected user about this issue. I've never come across this chart before and find it kind of questionable. Until there's a definitive word about don't add it just yet.-5- (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's not listed on any of the Nine Inch Nails album articles, only the discography.-5- (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's just that I like to have a paradgim to work under when I edit articles. This is something that could affect several articles that I edit, so I just want to be sure about it.-5- (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums in the United States[edit]

No problem. If you want the list to be complete, it needs to go all the way down to 5x platinum which is what is listed on the web site. In which case, Janet will be listed a few times. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Source added to the a-ha recordsales. This is albums AND singles, AND special JApanese releases NAD Local releases such as best in Brazil. The source is a french site. The author of the site has gotten the numbers from Warner. Mortyman (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is claiming that it's not reliable sources ?

You yourselfe are using Norwegian newspapers as resources. What makes you think that these newspapers are reliable. That any newspaper is reliable ? a-ha has sold 40 million ALBUMS alone. You have completely ingnored the singles sales and the special Japanes and local version etc, etc, etc, etc. If you got a problem with this, I suggest that we remove the numbers all together. Mortyman (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing to consider, is that even thoguh let's say Hunting High and Low was released in 1985, it has sold also after that. No one here is gonna tell me that the album has'nt sold in the USA after it's got its innitial certification in 85 / 86. So the 1 million number should be taken with a pinch of salt. Same with the UK and all other countries. Old albums continue to sell, as new albums are released. To base discography on the innitial certifications the got amny, many years ago is silly.

Their first 3 albums has also been released as a 3 pack. That is also something to take into consideration.

Also much of the sales go through such channels as Amazon and Play. does these sales get registered ?

Mortyman (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Be Black Hole Sun, I agree that this obsession with sales figures in the a-ha article (not to mention several others—have you ever taken a look at the Cher discography?!) is disconcerting from the standpoint of a music lover, ridiculous from the standpoint of a rational human being with any understanding of the music business, and unacceptable from the standpoint of an editor. Unacceptable from the standpoint of Wiki policy, however, is to engage in such blatant name-calling and profanity as you have at User talk:Mortyman. I think both of you should take a step back from the article and the issue and chill out a bit before progressing. Abrazame (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock Wikiproject Featured Articles[edit]

I replaced the list you created of featured articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music with links to the lists of Featured Content at WP:ALM and WP:HMM. It's not accurate to list articles not promoted or maintained by the Rock WikiProject that people at these particular WikiProjects worked very hard on. Make a list of articles and lists that come solely under the discretion of the general Rock WikiProject (like Pink Floyd and Rush (band)) and just keep the links to the alt-rock and metal WikiPrject links. This will also make the lists easier to maintain. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Roxette discography[edit]

please stay away from the Roxette discography!!! The whole single list is not correct because you changed the order of the countries. That not tolerable! Don't destroy this site again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas81 (talkcontribs) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The singles section is still a mess. please clean it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas81 (talkcontribs) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

someone fixed the mess with the singles section. BUT take a closer look at the chart list from the UK. It is wrong. Listen To Your Heart was never #1 in the UK. It was #1 in the US but now there is that it is #2. That's totally wrong. It is all a mess.

Besides that I'm not very happy with the order of the country's. It is reasonable to take the swedish charts first because they come out of Sweden. But then there have to come the two most important music markets in the world: UK and US. These charts are without a doubt more important than Australia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas81 (talkcontribs) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bryan Adams discography[edit]

Hi Be Black Hole Sun. I've had to withdraw the above FLC as it simply isn't ready for the FLC process. Can I suggest you get it copyedited and then take it to the peer review process before returning to FLC? That way the list is less likely to contain the basic errors it does right now and hopefully then the community will support its promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Europe discography[edit]

That DVD has an article on Wikipedia: Rock the Night: Collectors Edition (which is the correct title of the DVD.) Rock the Night: The Very Best of Europe was the title of the greatest hits album which was released at the same time as the DVD. --Aphasia83 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • No sorry, I don't have a clue about who directed the other videos. Sadly there's really not much official info about Europe's music videos. - Aphasia83 (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there is a Europe album called Hit Collection. It is obviously yet another greatest hits album. There are many Europe greatest hits albums, such as Super Hits, Simply the Best, Rock the Night Away, Carrie, All or Nothing, etc... But I don't think it's necessary to make Wikipedia articles for all of them, especially since a couple of them have the same exact tracklists. The main ones already have articles (1982–1992, 1982–2000 and Rock the Night, as well as Definitive Collection), and I think that's enough. - Aphasia83 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The only sources I can think of are biographies on their own website and in liner notes for album covers, but that can't be used as sources, right? So if you wanna search for better sources, go ahead. - Aphasia83 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to let you know that I'm done with adding sources to the Reunion section in the Europe (band) article. - Aphasia83 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


I now agree its reliable, but the editor I'm working with has a book on the band with chart positions and all. So there's presently no need. Thanks for the tip though. indopug (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, its just a handy indicator, nothing more. indopug (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard of this. indopug (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"messing" with the chronology? Please try to be civil. Only studio albums should to be listed in those infoboxes for studio album articles. When they are done with making and air the video, I will think about how to include it in the article. indopug (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


It stands for Autori Vari, which is Italian for Various Authors. Aphasia83 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Soul Bomb[edit]

I can't, it's not an article yet. It's in my sandbox. Crash Underride 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominated in your post on the project talk page. Crash Underride 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mark Lanegan discography[edit]

If you allow me, I have made some changes in order to improve the quality of this discography. Now, you must wait for the views of other users and see what is the assessment they will make this list. If you like the changes I made in this discography can I kindly continue helping you. Cannibaloki 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Write a message under my last message (on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mark Lanegan discography) that I wrote so that I can change the Conditional Support to Support, and explaining why that you accept my modifications on this list. Cannibaloki 17:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
"Are there any references to reliable sources that verify the release dates of the albums?" Remove the references for release dates of the albums, isn't necessary. Cannibaloki 16:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! Cannibaloki 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Remove that YYYY in Music, can not make use of this. See WP:ALBUM. Cannibaloki 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


There is no "supposed to" here. Your Season 1 page is completely redundant of the main list. Stargate has many many seasons and a single list would be way to long; Rome only has two seasons, and the list will never grow. Put it up for discussion on Talk:Rome (TV series) if you must, but you won't get much support. — TAnthonyTalk 17:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Lanegan[edit]

Apologies if it seemed like I was being a bit of a twat regarding the discography nomination. I realise if it does get to FL status, it's solely down to your hard work, and even if it doesn't make the grade, thanks. Red157(talkcontribs) 13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they have... Though it would be odd if they haven't. Red157(talkcontribs) 11:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point... Gutter Twins is less of a collaboration more Lanegan in a new band. But isn't it just him and Dulli mainly (The Gutter Twins). More so than Soulsavers... And I think Billboard may be mistaken. It's not mentioned anywhere else and the song is called "Honey Child What Can I Do?" not "Honey Child What Can I Say" Red157(talkcontribs) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Billboard and Amazon both have it wrong. "Honey Child What Can I Do?" was released as a single, but someone along the line (Either working for Billboard or Amazon) got the name wrong. Red157(talkcontribs) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. You'd have to check around his site and see what it says. Normally I just upload regardless and see if it gets removed. Red157(talkcontribs) 12:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be good. It just failed it's latest GA (As you may have seen) and I truly am unsure why. Apparently the article isn't broad enough... Wish they'd told us that when they were reviewing it instead of getting us to fix all minor stuff. Red157(talkcontribs) 15:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a plan. Oddly enough, it may have been my fault it didn't get GA as I assumed stuff like tour and such wasn't needed until FA status. But ah well, nice work on the No One Knows article, by the way. Red157(talkcontribs) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Queens of the Stone Age discography[edit]

Yeah, that works. QOTSA have way too many side-projects, so that brief comment works. Red157(talkcontribs) 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Will try and find out. Red157(talkcontribs) 21:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See here for accolades - I didn't add them, as compared to Red Hot Chili Peppers album's, this hasn't been acknowledged by enough magazines in countdowns. Red157(talkcontribs) 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: G-Unit discography[edit]

Hi, so the sources should be at the top with the header? But with the G-Unit discography, a different source is used for each position. For example the charting for their first album in France, has a different source to that of the second album. So if it's at the top, when people go to check that the position is correct per the ref, they won't know which ref to check. Thanks. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 08:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

a-ha discography[edit]

Fair enough, but you removed some of the videos like "You Are the One" and "Minor Earth Major Sky". I'm putting them back in the list. - Aphasia83 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Discographies of heavy metal bands that need to improve the quality[edit]

1) Initially I need expand that list, aren't present all discographies of heavy metal bands. They're presented only the more I like, hence I want to create a sandbox with more detailed information. AND my intention is self-promote the quality of these discographies elevating class to B or C.

2) Excellent start! You can and should work in any one of them, but I give you a board (for free): of preference for the bands that you really like.

Regards, Cannibaloki 00:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


How's that working out for ya? Unschool (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thought on my talk page . . .Unschool (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Auto-archiving starting point on my talk page. Unschool (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Lanegan[edit]

Alright. I'll give it a go sometime. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did what I could. I hope my help is what you wanted. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 07:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Here to help. :)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Queens of the Stone Age discography[edit]

Stay calm, now I'm on this page, ending to correct some small details. I'll give you support, don't worry. Regards, Cannibaloki 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Aerosmith discography[edit]

There are exceptions. When an artist becomes so big and releases so much material, it becomes necessary to split their discography into an album discography and a singles discography. See Madonna singles discography, Michael Jackson singles discography, and List of The Beatles songs. Aerosmith isn't a minor aritst with only a handful of albums and songs like a-Ha, Soundgarden, or even Metallica (who has half the material Aerosmith does). They can be condensed into one readable article. Aerosmith's catalog of material is too extensive and requires signiciant elaboration to provide all the information. Thus, when an article becomes too long, it requires a split. See the Wikipedia policies on article length for more information. Condensing all of Aerosmith's material into one article wouldn't do the band the proper justice or the people who would be seeking detailed information on their material. In my opinion, readability and wealth of information trump combining albums and singles just to get featured status. Not all articles can be featured articles.

In addition, since you didn't consult the Aerosmith WikiProject before making major changes, I will continue to revert. Abog (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a vandal. I've been an established user on Wikipedia for 2 and a half years, and am a contributing member to the Aerosmith WikiProject. Perhaps you should read up on Wikipedia's policies regarding civility. In addition, I gave you an answer. And that is that the article should not be too long nor should coverage be sacrificied, in addition to citing articles that have been split which work out quite well. Also, who ever said that an article can't become featured if the singles are in a different article? If so, they are foolish. If anything, you are the vandal, since you were the one who merged articles without permission or consensus. Abog (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, you joined three days ago? Still, you never consulted with the fouding members, Janadore or myself or anyone else, before making these changes, and effectively deleting an article. There is still plenty of room for expansion in both the album discography and singles discography, which is likely to make a single merged article incredibly long in the future. When the Aerosmith articles are merged, it's about 54K and likely to increase when further content is added, which indicates the article should be split according to Wikipedia's guidelines on article length. Metallica's is only 44K, which is just over the limit. Bottom line, a merged Aerosmith discography article would be too long. The article was split for a reason. Aerosmith has way too many albums and singles and it was becoming cumbersome to read. Add to that all the potential other details we could get on sales, special releases, bootlegs, expanded leads, and upcoming albums and singles which are likely to be released in the future, and it would be too long for a discography. Abog (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well maybe that's because Linkin Park has only been around like 10 years, whereas Aerosmith has been around 38 years, and has about two to four times as much material as some of these other bands you're citing as examples. Does Linkin Park have 30+ music videos and 8 DVDs? Does Linkin Park have 60 singles? No. What works for one artist doesn't necessarily apply for others. Aerosmith is a top caliber artist with mountains of material. There's no way it can all be covered in one article, without it being too long. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on article length. Also, the Aerosmith WikiProject does control all Aerosmith articles, so guess again. Barging into our project, merging top-priority articles without asking, and accusing longtime members of being vandals is not a good way to work around here. Abog (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Quit making up lies and quit causing problems on Wikipedia. Metallica has only released 13 albums and 38 singles. Aerosmith has released about 30 albums and 60 singles, not to mention having more videos than Metallica as well. In addition, Aerosmith's discography is longer in bandwith and would be reaching the threshold for splitting it into two articles, as evidenced by Wikipedia's policies on article length. I have yet to see you provide any logical argument other than "Metallica has more material", which is grossly false. Also, a-Ha isn't even featured, so why bring it up? And I will not give it up. I suggest you give it up. You're the one who barged in here and merged two perfectly fine articles in the first place, without receiving any sort of permission or forming a consensus. Please stop disrupting and vandalizing Wikipedia. Abog (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Screaming Trees discography[edit]

I gave an initial cleanup on this discography, but for now I will read more about this on the Internet and verify that no missing something, Okay? Cannibaloki 01:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This exact moment I'm making some adjustments, for on few minutes give you support, then, you just be wait. Regards, Cannibaloki 19:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Lanegan discography[edit]

I've got quite a few concerns over promoting this and have left some more comments for you. I will archive the nomination soon because despite the support you have I think the list is not up to scratch quite yet. Not a big problem, because if I do archive it then you can simply make the required changes, discuss it with WP:DISCOGS to make sure you have their support, and then renominate. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, your Screaming Trees discography nomination will expire tomorrow and there's been little community interest in supporting it (or otherwise) so I'll archive that tomorrow too if nothing changes. I'd go get some supporters.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can remove it. I will not promote a list which is below par, regardless of the current support. It's failing on a number of basic points. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I asked you to prove to me what makes those websites reliable. I didn't say they were unreliable. It's up to you to prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I didn't understand anything of what you said. Cannibaloki 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
What I said was "prove the website is good". I don't have to prove the website is bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations!, until finally... Cannibaloki 14:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Hi please see my comments here Please discuss this first. Please also note that you and Abog are dangerously close to violating the three revert rule. Keep that in mind in the future. Thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


In this edit you call me a "pain in the ass". I'm not bothered particularly but I'd advise you not to attack me personally, whether it be directly or indirectly. If I see any further comments like this then I will remove any FLCs you have and, if required, block you from editing. I can understand that my comments may be hard but you need to understand that I will not promote a list which I'm not happy with. Your choice, improve the list and be patient or insult me and be blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not bothered but going against WP:NPA is unacceptable. Be polite, work hard and the list will succeed. There's no time limit and there's no reason why, if it fails, you shouldn't renominate. But do not resort to personal attacks. I'm doing my best to ensure Wikipedia's featured lists are the best they can be. Nothing personal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Just remember to not call people a "pain in the ass". It will result in your account being blocked under WP:NPA. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
2001 in the "Other appearances" table is too far left. Collaborations table goes all the way across my browser and the other tables don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
More comments at the FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


What do you do, follow my edits? Stay out of my business.-5- (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought I was the only one. Lovetoadmire (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


It's promoted, waiting for the bot to arrive to give it the bronze star. Good work..... but please, please, please consider the problems we had here (particularly the references not being specific enough) on the other discographies you've got at FLC. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Lanegan "Stay" video[edit]

Do you have a link? As a Mark Lanegan fan, I'd like to watch it. Red157(talkcontribs) 18:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Isobel Campbell discography[edit]

You always seem to do amazing work with discographies, so I'd love for you to check out the one I just made (And randomly nominated for featured list). Red157(talkcontribs) 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, they are technically singles. I only added them as EP's due to their classification as such in their own articles. But I guess it looks better that she more singles. Thanks. Red157(talkcontribs) 10:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Screaming Trees discog[edit]

Hi BBHS. I've archived this FLC as I've got as many concerns with its referencing as I did with Mark Lanegan's discog and I can't spend six hours with you trying to fix it. Please look carefully at each reference and be careful to only use them to cite the right information. For example, this is a reference for singles only. You've also used it to reference the peak positions of albums. You need to check every single reference, and while you're doing that you need to make sure you've filled in the {{cite web}} template correctly with as much information as possible. The title should be the title on the webpage, not just a generic "British charts" (for example). And one other thing, the Tripwires linked to in the image caption is a British band, is that the band you mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend six hours with you on QOTSA discog either. You need to check ALL of your references again, from scratch. And there's no need to leave me a message each time you make a fix - keep the discussion at the FLC please. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

You know I like you dude, as you're an enormous help with the Lanegan related discography articles, but a lot of your recent edits have been very sloppy. I know English isn't your first language, but every time you make a mistake and leave it on the article it means someone else has to fix it unless you do. So I know The Rambling Man was referring to references, but I mean punctuation and such... So just be a little more careful. Red157(talkcontribs) 13:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Queens of the Stone Age discography#2[edit]

I'll see what I can do. I also wasn't sure what to name this since I noticed there's one with the same name so I added #2.₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Ready to help. :) −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 03:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirror Ball[edit]

It's just an album that they guested on. It's not part of their chronology. It's not listed in their discography, for one thing. If it makes you feel better, I'll change it to "Studio album by Neil Young featuring Pearl Jam."-5- (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.-5- (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm very busy. I'll get round to helping out soon. Please stop leaving me messages every few hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Grunge is a term for hard/heavy rock that came from Seattle from the mid-80s to the mid-90s. I think that fits the description of those albums well, and no other extraneous genre listing is needed.-5- (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll do one of their albums to start off and see how it goes.-5- (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aerosmith discography. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Libs (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Final Countdown[edit]

I'll take a look sometime. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 19:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems fine to me very few mistakes. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 21:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nile discography[edit]

I don't delete, are temporarily hidden. Stay calm! :) Regards, Cannibaloki 22:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

G-Unit discography[edit]

Please revisit the FLC and give your opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! (album)[edit]

Why do you feel the need to include 'studio' in the album type along with 'cover' when this level of specificity is not employed in Pin Ups, Garage Inc., Take Cover (album), Big Bang Theory (album), Honkin' on Bobo, Dylanesque (album), Feedback (Rush album), Under Cover or any other article listed in the 'covers album' category? The text of the article can make it clear that the album was recorded in a studio. —Zeagler (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of being "more correct", it just makes it more confusing. To me it suggests something of a mix between originals and covers, when of course it's all covers. —Zeagler (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact, this view is supported by article studio album, to which you link, so I'm reverting. Please don't change it again. —Zeagler (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Def Leppard discography[edit]

Need help? Cannibaloki 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sorry the acidity of my comments, but they are for their learning, now I will seek further information about this band on the Internet in an attempt to help you, okay? :) Regards, Cannibaloki 15:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the discog from FLC - it is simply not ready. It needs copyediting by a native English speaker and by someone who understands full the WP:MOS before its resubmitted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I left some comments at the review before closing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Skynyrd assessment[edit]

Howdy, how many citations to get a B? I've added a couple since it was rated at B..surprised to see it move backward. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup (Circa)[edit]

I'll take a look sometime. Made this (like on my page) to keep your requests for me together.₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I finished cleanup on the Def Leppard discography finally. I almost forgot about it then I became busy one day but now it's done. I may come by again to see if I missed something. And too bad you got blocked I would be more careful. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 20:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey again, sorry for the late late late reply but your message must have been drowned out by another that someone added after but no problem either way. :)

Thank you for the offer but I've been trying to decide if it's even necessary for me to join the project since I'm mostly a part of WP:Heavy Metal and rarely work in rock related areas but I think I might just join anyhow. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2008[edit]

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 16 - July 2008
"We are the best band in the world....modestly the best band in the world." - Darren Middleton
Project news
New members

Arbocalaviv, Samushi101, Carbonrodney, Red157, and dmodlin71 joined the alternative music fold during July.



SoxBot II (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

QOTSA discog[edit]

You do realise I won't be supporting or opposing this don't you? Have you read the notice at the top of my talk page? And please refrain from talking to me in bold like a child. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And I still don't think it meets criterion 1 but I have plenty of other lists to deal with, not just this one and I've provided plenty of help before. I want someone else to look at it and comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If you have to ask then you're not following the process correctly. Read WP:WIAFL please. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You should ask an independent native English speaker who has not read the lead before to copyedit it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagging of The_Beatles_discography as a stub[edit]

Regarding this edit: [1]... in future you probably should post some justification for changing the ranking of a discography as elaborate and longstanding as this one on the talk, and get consensus, before actually changing. It's hard to imagine how this discography is a stub. I note you've been counseled about abrupt changes like this already, you probably should heed that advice, because some of your actions border on disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your query about The Beatles discography over at the wikiproject talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock music[edit]

I am removing the templates is not a requirement to generalize the musical style. I am not denigrate his work. Regards, Cannibaloki 15:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ikke noe problem. :\ Sorry, Cannibaloki 15:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of threatening you[edit]

Do not level accusations about me behind my back as you did here. I have not threatened your or your lists in any way. I just will not promote lists which I don't consider are good enough. If you continue to harass me and talk about me like this then most likely your account will be blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman emperors[edit]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the historiography of the later Roman empire, but there was no entity known as the "Western Roman Empire" or anything like that distinct from the Roman Empire as a whole. Some emperors were in charge of certain regions of the empire, but the empire remained at least in theory a single unit. To cut off the list at 395 is ahistorical. Even the names "Western Roman Emperor" and "Eastern Roman Emperor" are modern historical constructs -- to contemporaries, they were merely emperors, without geographic qualification. Anyone looking for a list of Roman Emperors will expect to find the emperors both western and eastern down to at least the end of the 5th century here. --Jfruh (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia policy doesn't require you to break up lists in ways that make no sense historically, especially when the list is trying to convey historical information. I love most of what you're doing to the list -- it was a mess, and full of cruft -- but it needs to go down to the end of the 5th century or it's incomplete. --Jfruh (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


It doesn't look too bad but you should take it to peer review before nominating it at WP:FLC. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Roman Emperors at peer review[edit]

The way the peer review page is generated has changed. Please read the directions at the top of WP:PR, specifically the part that says "The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add or remove peer reviews." (emphasis added). I fixed the article's peer review request and it is propely displaying on the page now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nile discography; FL[edit]

Please, Do not add to this list the FL star, let bot do their work. Regards, Cannibaloki 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, congratulations! :) Cannibaloki 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that congrats :). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


I don't really care what the they do on the Faith No More page. I don't like the idea. It's not representative of the band as it was to add a picture of a former member in the present when the band broke up so many years ago. I said this before to someone else, but it's like adding a picture of Paul McCartney in 2008 to the Beatles discography. It doesn't make any sense, and I think it's really stupid.-5- (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't just upload any random image. Where did it come from? Who took it? Is it licensed? These are the questions that have to be asked when uploading an image.-5- (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what the license is. I've looked through Flickr several times for Soundgarden photos, and none of them have a licence that allows them to be used freely.-5- (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the List of Linkin Park awards article doesn't have it, and that's a featured article. I think it would be better to keep it simple, because then you don't have to get into the trouble of thinking about which honors and recognitions to include. I think it would be better to just keep it as the awards they have either won or been nominated for, and nothing else. It would then be a much easier page to manage.-5- (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This award page could probably be put up for a Featured list nomination now.-5- (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Megadeth discography[edit]

Can you help me with the lead text? Not yet looked for your work, because have not had time. Regards, Cannibaloki 20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock project[edit]

It's already covered under the alternative rock and heavy metal projects. Anything else is unnecessary and unneeded. As you can see from the edit summary, multiple editors have disagreed with its addition. If you have any questions, ask the members of the rock project or the alternative rock project.-5- (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think that would be unnecessary. If someone wants to know about Soundgarden's songs, then they can be pointed in the direction of the Soundgarden discography. Plus, neither of those articles are well done. The Nirvana one was nominated for deletion on June 9, 2007, and both contain no references, with the Pink Floyd one being cited for having no references and containing original research. All of Soundgarden's songs can be found on the various album and singles pages.-5- (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss changes to alternative music rankings with the rest of the project. We've decided to use FA as the single denominator of our highest quality articles (which include lists). Also, adding WPRock to the talk pages is redundant and unnecessary. CloudNine (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I could answer your question, but I would only be repeating what CloudNine said.-5- (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are irrational, disruptive and radical. You are required to consult your fellow Wikipedians before making such tactless, thoughtless changes on mere whim. NSR77 TC 23:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Block again[edit]

Can somebody contact WesleyDodds for me. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Green tickY Done. Rudget 10:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Why was I contacted? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
First why was i blocked and you said "It's not accurate to list articles not promoted or maintained by the Rock WikiProject that people at these particular WikiProjects worked very hard on." I worked my ass of on the Queens of the Stone Age discography and Mark Lanegan discography and page. This is why i've gone nuts on the other alternative FL articles cause you do it to my articles which are maintained by the rock music project and not the alternative one. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone contact Wesley again please. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Read your block log. You engaged in edit wars. Read about the 3RR rule which gives an automatic block if you reverted an edit more than three times in a day. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but i stopped the edit war, i said sorry to the user, shouldn't this be enough?
Some administrators are not sympathetic and give an automatic block for violating the 3RR rule. I do have one piece of advice. If more than one editor reverts your edit, you are certain to lose that edit war. Also, please type four tildes (~) after your posting to sign your message. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. And i gess i'll take a pcbreak to day so see you tomorrow or the nexy, lol. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

08:46, 4 August 2008

Black Hole Sun, WesleyDodds didn't block you (it seems a little random to contact him here). Articles are maintained by editors really, not by projects; projects don't own articles, and the most specific project (i.e. alternative versus rock in general) should be chosen for a talk page. A general good rule: if someone reverts your change, it's best to discuss it with them at length before trying it again. CloudNine (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh now i get, never notice that before. Wikipedia has it own special time or american what do i know. Sorry didn't notice that before now.

{{unblock|1=What have i done. I did what Wesley said i could do, so why did i get blocked. Your blocking cause of your personal opinion. The Queens of the Stone Age article was in scope of the rock music before the alternative one came, thats why i'm removing it and Wesley said who is the founder of the alternative wikiproject "It's not accurate to list articles not promoted or maintained by the Rock WikiProject that people at these particular WikiProjects worked very hard on." i worked my ass of on the Queens of the Stone Age discography and Mark Lanegan discography for the rock music project. Unblock me talk to Wesley about this. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)}}

SOMEONE CONTACT CLOUDNINE FOR ME. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You were a member of the project when the Queens of the Stone Age discography and Mark Lanegan discography were promoted, so why shouldn't they be added to the wall? Making a decision by yourself that the alternative music project header should be removed is not the right way to go about it; you should discuss your edits if they're reverted. Seek a forum for discussion when changing headers; not everybody is going to agree with your changes. I blocked you because of your disruptive editing, which made a lot of work for me and other project members to revert and restore. CloudNine (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
But i was also a member of the Rock wikiproject, when i worked on those list i did it for both project not only the alternative one, is that hard to get. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the alternative wikiproject is the more specific of the two. I'm a member of Wikiproject Music, yet I don't write my featured articles "for both wikiprojects". There's no concept of "working for a specific project" on Wikipedia. If you feel like you have to write a featured list/article for a particular project, choose an article that isn't covered by a more specific project. CloudNine (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

See now i understand, if you had told me this i would had stoped but the alternative on isn't most accurate Mark Lanegan is hard rock which has nothing to with alternative Queens of the Stone Age is Neo-psychedelia, Desert rock and hard rock which feat better under the rock music project, get it now. But i'm finished with this i'll stop editing the talk page without a proper discussion with you guys first if you unblock now. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So you think you're the only one qualified to make such a decision on their genre? I'll think about it and let you know soon. CloudNine (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No but you said "Yes, but the alternative wikiproject is the more specific of the two" which is not and the band is most known for being a hard rock band, but no i don't think i'm the only one to qualifie genres. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
User AuburnPilot said that Block again: disable unblock request; user unblocked by CloudNine. But i'm not unblocked i'm still blocked or is my ip addrese still blocked? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Try now. - auburnpilot talk 16:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


For one thing, I was pretty sure you listed yourself as a member of the project. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the edit history of the member list, you were. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FLC comments[edit]

Please keep your comments on the FLC page. I watch every page so you don't need to tell me when you've done something. As for a source which doesn't actually name the song correctly, sorry but it's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Josh Homme[edit]

I added some comments to the FLC. Please address them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about Queens of the Stone Age discography[edit]

According to your references, in UK certifications Rated R is still silver (Not gold), Songs for the Deaf is still gold (Not platinum) and Era Vulgaris isn't on it at all. What it currently says makes sense (Songs for the Deaf is certainly likely to be platinum not gold), but you've got no references for it. I'm just unsure whether to change it or leave it as it is. Surprised this wasn't spotted in the review. Red157(talkcontribs) 14:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it needs fixing. The reason it wasn't spotted in the review is probably down to the fact that I'm the only person bothering to check the references at all and when you've got a backlog of 50-odd lists, one or two will slip through. Good spot though. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Be Black Hole Sun said it was vandalism from another user (Which makes sense as someone posted similar on the Songs for the Deaf and Era Vulgaris articles). No offense was meant about it not being spotted in review, by the way. Red157(talkcontribs) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No offence taken! But it wasn't "vandalised" per se, because it was there when the list was promoted - it hasn't happened since then so it was definitely overlooked at FLC. Tsk tsk. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I only noticed now because the whole 'Note: User must define search parameters as "Queens of the Stone Age".' was annoying me so I was going to fix them and saw they were all a bit wrong. Going to fix them now though. Red157(talkcontribs) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

hm, good then all is fixed. Do we have a clue who added those certifications. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC) - This is the culprit. Red157(talkcontribs) 14:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:BPI, you don't need to use the primary source (i.e. the BPI website), there must be alternative sources out there which back up your claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I've been searching for Era Vulgaris certifications (As that's definately gone at least gold), but I can't find any. Found one for Songs for the Deaf going platinum though... Red157(talkcontribs) 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Because not every project needs to have a rating system. It just isn't necessary for some projects. If you want to try changing the QOSTA genre, try discussing it on WT:ALM or some other community forum, where a lot more people can have their input. CloudNine (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Josh Homme discography[edit]

...and? :) Cannibaloki 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for all! Cannibaloki 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty Noose[edit]

It was released later in the U.S. than it was internationally. These sites have the single as being released in March 1996: [2] [3] [4]-5- (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Roman Emperors Peer review comments[edit]

I've just added a few suggestions at the peer review. I'm particularly concerned about the quality of the article as it is now as it is some distance from being Featured List material. Whilst other lists that you've done (such as the Mark Lanegan discography) only have a short intro lead, please consider how much wider the topic of Roman Emperors is. It will demand, by its very nature, much more information in the lead than most other lists. Also, at the review i asked if this part of history was something that you're particularly informed about. Don't be insulted by this, I was just surprised because I've only seen you associated with the music articles. On the other hand, I too have a wide range of interests and work on culture topics like music, literature, football and athletics.

I just want you to bear in mind that you should only list things for peer review when you really think you have made the article the best it can be made (while working on your own or with a couple of other editors). Do you think this is true of List of Roman Emperors?

Good luck with improvements on the article. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough then! It is better now than when it was but there's still much to do, that's my main point. Another idea is to check the photos used, for example Vitellius and Titus seem to have photos which might look better than the current ones. Try that out with a few of the images. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Starting to look much better now. I think a little comment on how it was characterised by periods of either assassination/murder or long periods of peace is key. Haven't got the time for full comment but will do in the next couple of days. Good luck. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

From Kikkid851[edit]

I will be delited but I am on holiday so I will get to it as soon as I get home. talk to me at User Talk:Kikkid851. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikkid851 (talkcontribs) 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Adams discog[edit]

I've archived this already but added twenty or so comments about problems with the lead. Please start taking my advice seriously and take this discogs to WP:PR and have them copyedited by a native English speaker. Most of the comments are no big deal but there are so many that it makes the FLC become a PR. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the link. I honestly don't have much to bring to the table however, but if it's needed, I'll lend my support. Does seem all a bit silly from my view. One person is saying we shouldn't have too many as it's for general wikipedia users, not the fans. Which is just opening up a can of worms, as A)It's an argument over a couple of columns and is thus ridiculous and B)Who is more likely to looks at a band's discography page anyway? Until I started doing the odd edit for other nominated lists, I only visited the discography of bands' I took a liking too. It's things like this that bring to attention how flawed wikipedia is. Red157(talkcontribs) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So he was, but the only released material from them appeared on The Winding Sheet, Mark's album. I guess if it was associated people, all of Nirvana would be tied to Lanegan (Grohl performed with him on Songs for the Deaf afterall), but the band itself... I'm not so sure. Red157(talkcontribs) 19:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Soundgarden awards[edit]

I've already seen it. I still want my question answered by him before proceeding.-5- (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kurt Cobain[edit]

No google hits. No sourcing. No mention of it at all on the Kurt Cobain/Nirvana articles. No wiki article of its own. All this leads me to think that you've made it up. Please don't readd it until you find a really reliable source and please prove to me that they were a major band and thus deserve inclusion in the "associated acts" section. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't find sources then. Associated acts are only for notable bands that are well known to have been in existence. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Cobain recorded backing vocals on that one song, okay? They're not an associated act, mate. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello, Be Black Hole Sun. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_user_is_disolving_and_re-directing_active_WikiProjects_without_discussion Thank you.. –xeno (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)