User talk:Ceoil/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ceoil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Also I wan't to tell you that "Dead did'nt see himself as human; he saw himself as a creature from another world. He said he had many visions that his blood has frozen in his veins, that he was dead. That is the reason he took that name. He knew he would die...". This part of the Mayhem (band) article needs a source. We don't know is that true. See WP:V for more info on this. Death2 20:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mayhem

Here's me again. I think those three new sections are unnecessary. Wolf's Lair Abyss (1995-1999), Grand Declaration of War (2000-2003) and Chimera (2004-present). The article is too fragmented and everything in one piece was quite sufficient. It is the band biography section and not album release info. I'm not sure about this but it looked better before especialy because nothing significant happend in 95 to 99 when Wolf's Lair Abyss was released. Feel free to contact me and say what you think! Death2 23:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem i changed the opening line thing. You removed Mayhem is, and replaced with seminal. I reinserted Mayhem is a seminal Norwegian black metal... Just take a look at the very first line of the article. See you. Death2 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for messing up the Mayhem article. By the way learn how to spell correctly or buy a dictionary. I'll leave you with your little playground now. Death2 20:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hint's and tips

You could re-insert Image:Mayhem current lineup.jpg to Mayhem's page and place Deathcrush pic somewhere down the article (maybe in the discography section where it was, it looks nice there). Death2 16:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the article seems a bit over-done :) You can start by removing a couple of pics (Euronymous with the sword???, way too many portraying two members which are now gone for a long time) and sweep the text through a spelling checker (MS word or something). As you may noticed I'm not doing to much edits lately too much better things in life to do than waste time on this usseles and non-essential project... Death2 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You misspelled useless. Ceoil 21:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pierre S Rosen

Hi, you listed Pierre S Rosen for deletion and followed the steps correctly except that you posted the reasons why the article should be deleted on the Talk page of Pierre S Rosen rather than the AfD log. I completed the AfD and it can be found here. I think you are right to list this article for deletion, thanks for helping to clean up Wikipedia. MLA 08:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bryansmyth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bryansmyth.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD

No, I can combine those into two, I'll let you know when I'm done (in about 5 minutes). -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I've decided it's best not to do it after the fact. However, for future reference, read How to list multiple related pages for deletion. And of course, remember to vote in the AfD debate that I put up. ;-) -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian Boru

Thanks, for your note :) Its always nice to hear work is appreciated :) - FrancisTyers · 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh the shame...

How can you show your face in public? - brenneman ^{L} 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

mayhem

I don't see really any problem with it except in some individual cases, viz. Varg and Blackthorn; the later since it is linked to a band. Spearhead 08:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Lists

This is regarding your comment in your revision to this page, "Should this be a category rather than list." Lists and categories are not interchangeable; lists have several advantages, so I see no reason why the list entry shouldn't stay. It still needs a fair amount of work though. I think the biggest problem right now is, it's really not a list (as I mentioned on the talk page).

I've left messages to Durrus several times asking him to get more familiar with the style guide, stop using sentence fragments, stop inserting empty headers, etc., but he still seems to be making a mess everywhere he goes. Seems to have lots of good information, but it looks like a team of editors need to follow him around and clean up. Dsreyn 04:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I take the points being made and perhaps the more substantial entries here should have their own page, trying to incorporate the editorial comments. Durrus 19:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The map for Durrus is in the wrong place the red blob shows Bantry Durrus 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a first cut at converting this article to more of a true list format, but it definitely needs more work. The section called "Early period" seems out of place; I don't want to just delete it, since there's good information, but perhaps it might be the start of a separate article on the history of Irish music collecting. Dsreyn 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

feel free to create a new category on hisstory of irish music collecting, there is a lot of info. out thereDurrus 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ingres

Curious as to the reason for your edit of the opening paragraph on Ingres--my rationale being that the opening is otherwise bland, and does little to explain his significance. The statements regarding his place as a neoclassicist and draftsman are, I believe, accepted currency in art readings. JNW 00:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the phrases 'greatest', 'idiosyncratic', 'unrivalled' & 'in the full possession of his mature power' per WP:APT - to describe Ingres as 'the greatest exponent of the Neoclassical style (sic)', citations are needed, although personally I believe that statement to be true. But I take you're point about leaving the lead bland, I'll expand it out a bit. Good work on the Balthus article BTY ;) Ceoil

Thank you for the explanation; I agree that I was heavy on the adjectives. Just trying to enliven a long and rather dry entry. Best wishes,

JNW 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nick Drake, Duncan Sheik

You continuously remove the info about the ties between Duncan Sheik and Nick Drake, but honestly, it benefits the page to have that reference for people of this generation who follow Duncan Sheik to further explore one of his influences and get to know the music of Nick Drake as well. By doing so, you are sending Nick Drake into obscurity to this and future generations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.129.82.143 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 19 September 2006.

Then it more properly belongs on Sheik's page, not Drake's. As for 'sending Nick Drake into obscurity'; you are joking I take it. Ceoil 12:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sex Pistols

Thats OK I wasn't particularly married to that edit :) , I just think the term HIT single sounds a bit naff, particularly as some of the songs reached about # 33 in the charts which doesn't seem very 'hit' to me... I'd be pleased to help save the article from down grading, I'll fill in some citation blanks where I can, unfortunately alot of the stuff is stuff I just know, having been steeped in UK punk history since the 70s by living through it, rather than being able to put my finger on definitive references. Loats of it is in "No Dogs" and "Englands Dreaming" though, maybe a good excuse to re-read them... quercus robur 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sex Pistols

Kudos on your work on this one. I've been going through section by section on the copy only, because I'm not particularly familiar with sources. With you adding sources, it's slowly getting to (current) FA standard. Per talk and the FAR, I think the comments on what previous "challenges to the system" consisted of, should be ditched. We either source "satire boom" and "trade unions," or we don't. Marskell 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I had sort of guessed a quote from the Queen herself ("we shall not have it!") probably didn't (verifiably) occur. I actually agree about over-contextualization—thus the dropped bit about previous challenges to the system. It seems obvious, but it's actually a subtle form of OR. Anyhow, the article is quite close to where it should be. Marskell 22:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I left one note at the talk on the Never Mind the Bollocks section. If that can be handled, I think we're good. I hate having articles 95% done kicking around at FAR for days. Marskell 13:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx. I just need to apply my standards to my own grammatically brutal posts on Wiki talk. Marskell 18:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's a sandbox, I'll place a response directly on the page. Marskell 19:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied. Hope I'm not coming down too hard :(. Marskell 20:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article as it stands should pass review (I won't personally close it, because I'm now involved in it). You've added things tonight, so I'll re-read in full before noting keep. Great work from you in response to the FAR!

"The more brutal, the more beneficial, to be honest." Excellent—we're on the same wavelength :). As suggested above, despite talk page lapses of my own, I can do a good copyedit when I sit down to focus on it. Tell me about anything you want read over and, if I have time, I'll comment. Cheers, Marskell 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you note keep in the review if you haven't already. I'd almost suggest no more major revisions until it's closed, lest some typo introduced lead to a remove comment. Marskell 11:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this is my nightly Sex Pistols comment to you... I'll assume you saw the long notes on the review. If sources are mis-matched with points, as Punctured has suggested, some fixing does obviously remain.

I want to add one more paragraph to the influences, which would go something like this:

Topic sentence (hard to say what historical accident propelled them to the level they achieved, etc.)
Stooges, McLaren --> New York scene, whatever else (you know better than I), were influences.
Rotten did have charisma but McLaren's manipulation as much as anything else got them on-stage.
A quote or two on their rejecting the pop-rock/sixties culture/music press/big labels etc.

I think this can be done in one paragraph. With that, a few of the last major concerns of Punctured will have been taken care of. Marskell 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re "direct response," we need to be careful. McLaren (in my brief reading of things) may have had some "direct" intent, but Lydon walked in off the street, right?

Re prose, it's very difficult once you get heavily involved. I looked at an FAC the other day, and it occured to me, comparing my comments to this one, how much easier it is to judge when you haven't already edited the article. Once you read it five times, you've mentally checked "that'll do" beside various sentences that are only competent, rather than well-written. But in IMHO opinion, this is within criteria; the prose is vastly better and there isn't (despite all the posts) any particular examples outstanding. I don't think it vague, and boring is within the eye of the beholder (to use the two adjectives suggested on the review). Marskell 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Erk. I have "direct" in my head because a ref I added today said the Pistols formed in "direct response" to complacent mid-70s music.

FAR is very opened-ended but can't drag too long. I'd say a week, OK, but maybe not two. I'll leave a note there. Marskell 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary new sex pistols thread

Did you not like the Rolling Stone source to describe live play, or was removing it accidental? There quotes and things it can be used for. Also don't change Brit to American usage. It should be behaviour, not behavior. It continues to improve, anyhow. Marskell 09:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries :). Think it's almost there (though I've said that repeatedly). Marskell 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Bertin

Thank you for the note on Bertin. Best wishes, JNW 00:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Assistance

Would you like to lend a hand to Public Image Ltd. on a larger scale after you're finished tidying up the Sex Pistols article? I can cover a lot of info up until The Flowers of Romance due to handy copy of Rip it Up and Start Again, but if you could fill out everything afterwards and possibly add some soundclips that would be valuable. Also let me know if there's any articles under the scope of the Alternative Music Wikiproject that you might be particularly able to contribute to and enhance. WesleyDodds 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sasha (DJ)

Thanks for helping out with Sasha. It really needed another set of eyes. If you ever need a second set of eyes for something you're working on, just drop me a message. Wickethewok 21:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I just put this up for a second peer review if you have any feedback on the article. Wickethewok 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sparks

Nice work cleaning up/sorting out the lead. Its looking much better now. Cheers--KaptKos 09:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Infoboxes

We are not about to clash. That's just my personal opinion, and it in no way affects what you or anyone else wants to do with the infobox colors. I just wish more energy went into the articles themselves, verses relatively smaller issues such as this. I'd love a pretty Wikipedia too, but I'd want an accurate one first. That's all. Remember, that's just my opinion, 'cuz you're going to do what you're going to do anyways. --FuriousFreddy 02:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Randysrodeo.com, Sex Pistols etc

Yes, I had a very strong feeling we were being spammed there. It's alwaysd a judgement call. I was very unimpressed that the first two entries of the site that I looked at both contained significant errors. Thanks for telling me, --Guinnog 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Years in art

Yes, you're right. I'll have to be more careful. Not many people seem to contribute to these pages, so the conventions can be changed if we all discuss and agree on it. Deb 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nick Drake

I will try to go over this over the next 48 hours. Do you want a list of potential prose problems or do you want me to edit the article directly? Marskell 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I read it yesterday and there isn't much ce work that needs doing. It's quite good! Marskell 04:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock

Like Sex Pistols was a few months ago, punk rock is currently a Featured Article with few citations. I'd like to preempt any future hassles, so if you could provide citations for anything you see there (I imagine that some of the cites in the Sex Pistols article could also be used for this page), that would be a great help. WesleyDodds 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Christinasworld.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Christinasworld.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting on colors for infobox musical artist

Hi, voting seems to have started on new colors for the musical infobox artist. Since you seemed to be quite interested in the earlier discussions, I thought you might want to express your opinions. Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Proposed colour selections (The voting section is down below the proposals.) Xtifr _tälk 10:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Soundclips

I'm not sure what you're into and have available, but here's some artists I've noticed that need soundclips (either key ones, more than one, or any at all):

~~Led Zeppelin - Rock & Roll,~~
~~Morrissey - Everyday is like Sunday, Suedehead, You Have Killed Me~~
~~Manic Street Preachers~~ - Motorcycle Empliness, Small Black Flowers, Design for life
~~Hüsker Dü - Celebrated Summer (already has two from zen archade)~~
Pulp - Babies, Common People, Disco 2000,
~~Happy Mondays - Hallelujah, Country Song, WFL, Kinky Afro/Gods Cop?~~
Queen - Liar , Killer Queen, I'm in Love with My Car, Somebody to Love, We Are the Champions, Fat Bottomed Girls, It's a Hard Life, Who Wants to Live Forever
R.E.M., The Smiths, Blur, Foo Fighters, Suede, Elvis Costello, The Police, Siouxsie & the Banshees, , Guns N' Roses, Nine Inch Nails, AC/DC.

Let me knwo what you can do and then we can discuss which would be the best clips to upload. WesleyDodds 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

- Ceoil 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's three from Zen Arcade (the first three tracks, no less) uploaded, which is kind of annoying. "Celebrated Summer" is a no-brainer, demonstrating their shift to alternative rock and their use of dynamics. For their major label career, their singles "Don't Want to Know if you Are Lonely" and "Could You Be the One?" are sound choices.

When it comes to Zeppelin, I think there are four essential songs: "Dazed and Confused", "Whole Lotta Love", "Stairway to Heaven", and "Kashmir". I especially would like a clip of "Whole Lotta Love" for the heavy metal music page. Any other songs would be great, but those are the essential ones. I can imagine deciding what section of "Stairway" to use could be difficult.

All the other choices are pretty right-on. I'd suggest also throwing in "Sorted for E's and Whizz" and "24 Hour Party People" for Pulp and the Mondays, respectively, as well. WesleyDodds 21:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought you didn't like Morrissey though ;) - Ceoil 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't, and watching his videos has MST3K comedic value. I also think the Mondays are overrated. Still, studying music is fascinating to me. WesleyDodds 23:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A newbie writes ...

Hi Ceoil. Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. Today I took the big step and put up my first article. I think I've formatted it sort of okay, but one thing I can't work out for the life of me. As you left a sweet note asking me to contact you if I had any questions - here goes!

I've written about a guy called K. A. C. Creswell. If I type it in to the search box exactly as I've made the title of the article, I can link to it. If I type in KAC (no spaces) Creswell, or any other sort of variations that I think people looking for my man might use, nothing pops up. How can I add the ?disambiguations to the search facility so that variations on spelling, punctuation etc of KAC Creswell lead to my man? Sorry if this is a bit garbled: Fri night and I've had a few ... Cheers Jasper33 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta muchly for your comments Coil - most appreciated. I'll tackle the redirect thing when I'm sober ... Jasper33 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted out the redirects - thanks for your help. I wouldn't have known where to start looking for the info! And how mad is that 1,500,000 thing? To think, if I had pressed 'save page' instead of wandering off to get another glass of wine ... Jasper33 19:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Coil - thanks for taking the trouble to standardise my refs on Raymond Firth. Now I know where to crib the format for my next batch from. Cheers Jasper33 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the pic! Jasper33 13:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Microfiche

Microfiche (see Microform), by its nature, won't be online. And I don't know if libraries in Ireland would have microfiche of Rolling Stone. But any good public library in the U.S. should either have it or be able to borrow it on interlibrary loan, if someone can be bothered to go get hold of it.

Anyway, I suppose you are technocally right to remove the link to a copyright-infringing site (though I wouldn't have bothered), but when you do this to a citation, you should be careful to preserve the essential information. It's basically the same issue as What to do when a reference link "goes dead". - Jmabel | Talk 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Whole Lotta Love sample

Whole Lotta love sample is wrong. It's Black Dog. Gall0ws it 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed - Ceoil 22:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock FAR

I can definitley take care of the lead. WesleyDodds 07:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Romanov biographies

Thanks for your help in editing the various Romanov bios. I think they look considerably better now with the references the right way.--Bookworm857158367 04:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Punk Rock FAR

I'm not offended, although I was a bit miffed, but I will advance the suggestion that it should fail FAR if editors can't get their acts together. It's an important and culturally relevant topic that I would personally like to see have FA status. And, yes, comments could be readily referenced without resorting to pure crap like "self-evident." There are significantly more underground venues that simply don't have the readily available resources for references, but punk ain't one of them, anymore.

You know, from a personal perspective, the biggest thing offered by punk rock, when it first came out, was a broad sense of community--we supported everyone who tried to do something original and creative, without reference to societal expectations, because we'd seen what the mainstream did and still does to great music: it made it impossible for unique recording artists to have careers that weren't packaged by a record label. It's a much later generation of punks that argues whether or not the Ramones and Blondie were punk--and the man loves that: compartmentalized factions are much easier to market to, among other things. Punks didn't own labels back then. Thanks for the note, the article is actually rather good, in spite of needing critical work on references and POV. KP Botany 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"I think people forget how marganilised Alt. music (or whatever) was at the time, and how difficult it was to get access to thoes records." Yeah, and it's a shame, which reminds me how much fun it was, because the musicians themselves were in the same boat the fans were in, couldn't buy the records, listen to the bands, or get any access to the great music of the time, and the musicians really appreciated their fan base. The article also fails to mention that it was partially what ya'll call the protopunks who got many of the punk groups on tours, and also supported the punk fans 100%. Like no mention of Iggy Pop, who fully supported the entire New York scene? Well, I guess there is a difference between living history and reporting it, and there are too many points-of-view already.

"Problem seems to be people are seeking out sources to back up their view, rather than building up the article from the sources themselves. Ah well, I suppose." Yes, this is precisely what happens with many articles on Wikipedia. You should look at the edit histories at Afghanistan for a good laugh, though--Punk Rock has a long way to go for that one. NY, LA and SF was where it was at in the US, initially, Boston came later, and has interesting connections with the Seattle scene that are wrongly reported all over the Internet. The big punk bands also did the NW tour: some combination of Vancouver/Seattle/Portland, and Cincinnati, too. I probably won't edit it any, as there are already too many cooks, and I've never really studied the scene--just cause you were part of it, doesn't mean you know enough to write about it (so many more Wiki editors need to appreciate distance). Oh, and the focus was seriously British, even for American punks, no matter how important the Ramones are to the American scene. Right now, the only music article I work on is the The Mentors, and watch Eldon's page, and the Dead Kennedys, as I'm more interested in how deeply underground culture gets depicted on the web. I'm glad to see that there are editors who take these subjects seriously, though. KP Botany 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's another problem with Wikipedia, it's all about examples, some people edit solely, it seems, to make certain their example, their part of the scene gets mentioned. I have a hard time getting this point across in reviews, that an article isn't a series of sound quotes and examples. A basic article on Punk Rock doesn't have room for all the early examples, it started in Britain, sorta, and in the US played out in NY/LA/SF--then cover the next 30 years. Good luck convincing folks the article isn't their private blog--one reason I won't edit an article I'm real close to, or try not to.

A new album lasted a week? We could spend the whole summer listening to a new album. I remember things like the winter of Another Green World. There were ways to get the music, but it really wasn't until punk rock that you cold go into a record store and expect to find or order even something like the Velvet Underground. Now you can walk into a non-chain record store and buy The Mentors out of the bins--what has the world come to? Cheers, KP Botany 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Punk rock

And? Adding the tag in the first place was not helpful; if something is evident enough that no one would question it, it does not require a citation. I'm sorry, but if you think that the punk subculture's connection with the punk rock movement needs a citation, you are being overzealous; if you want citations for the fundamental tenets of the punk subculture, that's an issue for the punk subculture article itself. There are/were other parts of the article that could use more citations; that, however, was not one of them. Edit summaries are not part of the article, and mine fully expressed the intent of the edit. -Switch ^t 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then edit the sentence so it only says "punk subculture." "The punk rock movement also encompasses a punk subculture, involving youthful aggression, specific clothing styles, ideologies, and a DIY (do it yourself) attitude." Who says, "youthful aggression, specific clothing styles, ideologies, and a DIY attitude," are "fundamental tenets of punk subculture?" You say it. But who are you, an expert who studied punk? Then quote your report on the "fundamental tenets of punk subculture." I'll say this, punk has certainly changed a lot from its roots, betrayed them, if it now has "fundamental tenets" required to be a punk, that is tenets outside of being a unique individual in a prepackaged world--that and the music being what really brought early punks together, and it says this in much of the literature, if you read it, and quote it. Early punks were more likely to get beat up, by the way, then to exemplify "youthful aggression." Dancing was energy, not aggression. "Specific clothing styles?" Next thing I'll hear today's punks buy their "specific clothing styles" in the mall. "Ideologies?" Ted Nugent fans had "ideologies," Eric Clapton fans had "ideologies," but punk fans had great music. "DIY attitude?" Well, we had to do it ourselves, but modern punks go to the tattoo parlor and get body piercings, and get their hair done at the salon--even my little town has a punk and goth stylist. These are all your point of view, and biased, and very obviously so, on modern punk subculture, not on the punk rock movement as a whole, and bear no relationship to its roots and development over the decades. The article is about punk rock, not your modern experience in it. Citing sources removes your personal bias of putting the entire punk movement in the modern era, and allows it to be explained to an unfamiliar outsider. POV is misleading. KP Botany 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

KP, its fair to say that the punk has been commodified, co-opted and commercialised to a point where many current participants are unaware of the origional spirit and intentions of the movement, and are merely participating in a trend. But its also fair to sat that a lot of modern day punk bands are far removed from the mall and mtv pop punk adhered by the likes that would go to - and i like the phrase, but in a strange kind of way - a 'punk stylist'. (I really don't like Greenday, but to my ears I hear more NOFX in pop-punk, that that band, and there's no doubting their intentions.) However, maybe laying responsibility for 30 years dilution on the shoulders of Switch ^t because of 1 revert, is a little, um... and I see he has since added a cite to the article on its origions.

What you say in general rings true though, to the point where I was almost reaching for my (bass) guitar, to howl in protest ;)

Anyway, sorry if this is a little incorehent, I'm tapping this with a toothache, more concerned with that than this, and I'm very much scared of my dentist. + Ceoil 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what the article is about: Punk Rock, and punk has been around for 30+ years, so that's what the article should be about, the story of punk, not just its current incarnation. I'm not too worried, in spite of some serious problems, editors have done a good job on the article overall, and it will get better. Yeah, many punks and punkers are pretty commercial these days, but, the movement has many adherents who still just want great music in intimate venues. I admit I liked it better when nobody cared if you looked like a punk or not (except the press), and although I did, and all anybody cared was you were there to support the music--but it's still really more about the music than almost every other genre of popular music, which is what keeps it a rather small subculture. KP Botany 00:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe we're getting slightly confused and heated here. Even in the 70s liking the Sex Pistols didn't mean you were "a punk"; I wasn't there myself, but according to the testimonies of my parents, a lot of people involved believed in the media more than the music. There is constantly the possibility, and all too often the probability, that I'm wrong, but Ian Curtis and Morrissey aren't generally considered punk, even though they have at least as much of a claim as some of the later "punks". My parents were a hippie and a Mod Revivalist, not "punks", but they still snuck in to see The Clash. I have always felt there was a bit of "good old days" revisionism going on amongst the older punks.

Then there's the issue of whether or not one has to participate in all aspects of a subculture to be a part of it. Ian MacKaye never had torn clothing or green hair, but he's still considered punk. Ian Stuart Donaldson was a neo-Nazi, which goes against the more popular apolitical or progressive views. The Sex Pistols themselves, and many other bands of the time (excepting the anarcho-punks) were hardly DIY. They had record contracts and sponsors and played to big crowds in halls and ampitheatres. But despite not adhering to some aspects of the subculture, they are stil seen as important parts of it.

As for what I said - well, if you don't think the punk subculture has those fundamental tenets, then bring it up at the punk subculture article. The small passage in the punk rock article is intended to give an overview of the punk subculture article only, so if you wish to rectify it, take it up with the main article on the subculture, not its more prominent sister on the music genre. That's what I was saying, and I still think it's fair. Hell, the punk subculture article could do with the work. -Switch ^t 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: cites and create vs. creates

Hehe, thanks for the speed compliment.

As far as create vs. creates: I could be wrong on this, but here was my reasoning behind using creates.

In contrast to the violent nature of the verses, the emergence of major chords serve to create...

The subject of the clause following the comma is emergence, which is singular, so a corresponding singular verb (serves or creates) should be used. Of major chords is a prepositional phrase and shouldn't affect the verb. I think. :)

Thanks for your help on the article—the prose is much improved! McMillin24 _contribs^talk 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Alla Pavlova

Alla Pavlova is a new composer article that you may be interested in contributing to per your stated interests. -- Jreferee 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

List of years in art

Hi and thanks for your note. I appreciate it. Modernist 23:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Lillian Board

Hi C. Thanks for the comments. I'll use them for my next edit. mg291 01:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Aw shucks. Warm and fuzzy hugs all 'round!! ;-) (that's a non-sarcastic wink) Happy editing. cheers Merbabu 05:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC

A chance for you to weigh in - I found a copyedit problem in the lead, and stopped reading. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AC/DC Maybe you can so something with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Brief comments

I'll have more to offer on your proposed restructuring of punk rock, but here's a few for now. It's probably best we structure the subgenres section as you proposed, since similiar genre articles often work along those lines in order to direct to main article topics. Separate the New Wave and post-punk genre sections, or title the section "New Wave and post-punk". Love the CBGB's picture; it should have been there sooner. Cut down on the amount of album covers or else we run into fair use problems. The section on pop-punk should be more about pop punk bands instead of the bands that influenced them. Possibly list Screeching Weasel, Bad Religion, and the Descendants; I would add Green Day et al, but they're best discussed in the context of the following section. Replace the Sonic Youth picture with one of Green Day or the Offspring. WesleyDodds 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have mostly the same thoughts as Wesley. I love the CBGB picture, and I can't believe no one added it sooner. I personally am in favour of separating the "New Wave and post-punk" section in two, with some expansion of post-punk in particular. "Pop punk" does need to mention the Descendents and Screeching Weasel, who were the biggest things for the genre for a long time, and a little expansion on Bad Religion. On the other hand, be careful of expanding the "Subgenres and derivative forms" section too much; User:Deathrocker has already expressed concerns about giving undue weight to hardcore et al in the article, and arguments would only get worse if that actually happened.

I also think a sound sample from some of the early 90s alternative bands who aligned themselves with punk (especially Nirvana) would be appropriate in the following section, and for chronological reasons, I think they should be mentioned before the skate/pop punk bands like NOFX and Green Day that came to prominence only after grunge and alternative rock had begun their decline.

Given that and a copyedit, I think it'll be a great improvement. Nice work -Switch ^t 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see all four subgenre sections (and I think those are enough) to have an equal amount of text, one picture each and two samples. At a later date we should definitely split new wave and post punk, but to get past the FAR, I think its ok as it stands. Maybe the Greenday/NOFX sample box should be moved to the pop punk section, after it has been expanded - replaced by samples from Sonic Youth/Nirvana?. I'd like to see the Sonic Youth pic stay however, as its free and a great image. SwitCh, if you want to copy edit, that would be just fine. If there are no objections, I'll move this to mainspace in a few hours. + Ceoil 02:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We need a New Wave soundclip. Keep the Joy Division one and replace PIL with one of the following (mere suggestions, of course): Elvis Costello "Radio Radio", The Police "Message in a Bottle", or Blondie "Call Me". If you really want to throw in an alternative rock soundclip, go with Husker Du's "Celebrated Summer", since Azerrad's book credits them with bridging the gap between hardcore and "college rock". WesleyDodds 12:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a general knowledge of pop punk, and for years Green Day was my favorite band, but I don't have a handle on it the way I do on hardcore, post-punk, or alternative rock. I have a general sense of what should be included (Descendants, Bad Religion's Suffer album, Screeching Weasel, late 80's/early 90's East bay punk, etc.). It's certainly one of the most notable punk rock subgenres; the problem is it really becomes notable from 1994 onwards, and that's pretty well covered by the Legacy section. So I'm kind of torn: as a subgenre it deserves its own section, but in the greater context of punk rock is significance is covered in the Legacy section. WesleyDodds 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative rock's too expansive to be a subgenre of punk rock and isn't considered as such except by 80s American alt-rock musicians who hate to be called "alternative" (conversely, those in the music industry, particularly in commercial radio, tend to label punk rock and everything after as "alternative"). For example, in the UK alt/indie rock is seen as a clear break from punk in the UK, while still being clearly descended from it and its subgenres like post-punk. No one would ever call The Smiths or the Stone Roses punk rock. I've spent a lot of work on the alternative rock if you want more insight. So yes, alternative rock does deserve to be described as punk rock's legacy, because that's what books and articles on rock music treat it as. But with bands such as R.E.M., the Smiths, Smashing Pumpkins, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, My Bloody Valentine, and so many more consisting the genre, it's inaccurate to designate it a mere subgenre of punk. WesleyDodds 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Something I find pretty amusing is that the use of "alternative" to describe a genre of music has very American origins (and I know over in the UK, while "alternative rock" is used these days, "indie" is still the preferred term), and judging from the research I've done, the first bands properly tagged "alternative" were British bands in the mid-80s like Love and Rockets, the Banshess, and The Cure who were slightly confused and had no idea what it meant when they came to tour the US. WesleyDodds 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like the House of Love. Certainly not as good as other British stuff going on at the time (Stone Roses, MBV), but they have some decent songs. I visited London last month and was excited to get the Creation Records comp with the original recording of "Shine On". Still that didn't make up for the fact that I already had half of the material on the set, or that Alan McGee thought there should be three tracks from Screamadelica on it . . . WesleyDodds 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

You did a great job on List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, providing the notes. Thanks. Modernist 03:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sasha (DJ) FAC

A ton of comments, but in general, nice work, major concerns addressed, it stands alone as an article, fizzled a bit towards the end, lots of little details, I actually enjoyed reading the article and want to listen to some of the music, although it's not my area of popular music (still addicted to my lifetime diet of punk, folk, opera, and Afghan/Iranian pop) Better than quite a few FAs, even some of the more current ones, imo. I will change to support and post a note asap, however I work and have less time than other editors, so be patient. I also have to check some of the references, however I note the editors of this one actually used quotes when using another author's individual word choices (as is required but often ignored in even the better Wikipedia articles), and look at the pages with the links, as I downloaded and read text-only. KP Botany 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark E Smith

Sorry, I don't understand why you removed the bibliography link from Mark E. Smith in your last edit, but I though I'd ask before restoring it. Thanks. CiaranG 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

University College

Cheers, I appreciate the time you've put into looking into this. --Robdurbar 11:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Drake FAC

No problem Ceoil, consider it a massive complement for your work and I look forward to seeing the improved version. All the best - Vaughan 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Drake redux

I left a {{facfailed}} tag on the talk page, so that the archive wouldn't get lost. I have messaged Sandy to see if that was appropriate (I am still learning my tagging job). Please continue the great work on the article. I was the first to vote Support. I think it's a brilliant article, and highly deserving FA status. Cheers, Jeffpw 23:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed--I should have left it to Sandy. She's always on top of things. Jeffpw 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Female punk vocalists

Not clear on the value of this line. It's clearly incorrect, to begin with--a female perspective wasn't "previously absent in rock music," it was just relatively rare. After all: Grace Slick, Janis Joplin... And despite the Slits and The Nuns and Siouxsie Sioux (does Lydia Lunch really warrant two mentions in the article?), it remained relatively rare in punk before riot grrrl. Thoughts?—DCGeist 23:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We're thinking on exactly the same lines: (a) UK first wave clearly needs a bit more--a good little definition of what the Sex Pistols did musically would be nice; (b) I absolutely see the Saints as a prime first wave band--they just happen to be one of the oldest, maybe even in a sense the first, but without the Ramones' good fortune to have a substantial scene around them; (c) I'll put my adjective thinking cap on (PS--don't really have a sense of this Lydus...) (PPS--certainly there are more...I guess the way to state it is, "less rare but still relatively rare")—DCGeist 00:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an organizational idea to make sure each scene gets its proper proportion at the due point in time, while rationalizing the chronology. "Early history" could be organized something like this:

1974–75: The emergence of punk
- The New York scene
- Around the world
1976: Punk breaks
- Anarchy in the UK
- Around the world
1977: The second wave (or Year Zero) (or, hell, Year Zero and the second wave)
- United States [and Canada? Was there Canadian punk in 1977?]
- United Kingdom and Ireland [or UK/Ireland first; we can flip a coin]
- Australia
- Rest of the world

—DCGeist 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. A thought on the Sex Pistols musicality (ugly word...I know). "Anarchy in the U.K." is not only definitive punk, but it's unquestionably an anthem. Had the Ramones or the Heartbreakers done anything like that yet? Is what the Queens boys and Thunders & Hell came up with truly so much more innovative than that? I'm not certain here. Devil's advocating.—DCGeist 10:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting copyedit for Brian Joo

The article has now expanded, but the references stuff is still tricky. Help would be much appreciated. mirageinred 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RE AC/DC FAC

Thanks, I'm working on those issues you've mentioned in the FAC page, I couldn't find a reliable source for an artist like Def Leppard or Iron Maiden citing ac/dc as an influence. I only found those lists in AMG ([1]) and musicmatch ([2]). BTW, is my english so bad? haha :P Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, part of the story is related here and here. He was paranoid, "On the 'Cannon and Bell' tour, he was hallucinating about finding strangers in his room" and the fight was physical with Macolm Young. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

U2

I agree whole-heartedly this is a premature FAC (I've said this both times publicly and to the 'offending' nominators. Although the comments are useful for the article. You will see I have spent some time addressing these issues from peer review and previous FAC. Also, the last view days I've been working up a new Unforgettable Fire section in my sandbox. I wish there was someway to stop the thing being nominated every second week. Merbabu 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ha ha - your message on my talk page is much appreciated. And don't misunderstand me, i agree with 99% of the comments on the current FAC including yours. yes, i am passionate about the article, but have mostly been in a reviewing mode. I will now try and contribute. I have been researching a bit and developing ideas. The cold hard facts vs significance and context is difficult. But i will slowly chip away at it.

I like your comment about biting tongues. too true. thanks again. Merbabu 02:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank Black copyedit

I'm afraid I reverted your edits to Frank Black - the copyedit of the Pixies section had several grammatical errors for example, and you changed the reference format in some refs, from the standard cite web format, to a custom one. However, I'm incorporating changes from the 'Songwriting and lyrics' section. CloudNine 23:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm being too picky; the copyedit was indeed thorough. I'll incorporate your changes (as I've reverted to an earlier version, without the ref style change). One question however, why did you change the ref format? CloudNine 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on CloudNine's talk. This was the revert. This incident is refective of a general concern I have that articles are being nominated for FA by editors that have not read WP:WIAFA, and are merely hoping for the best. + Ceoil 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My deepest apologies. I did not mean to offend. My revert was the last thing at night - (the additions make the article much better by the way) was because I was confused as to why the cite format had changed (which in hindsight, I shouldn't have done - it's not a big deal). I agree, I don't own the article. However, I brought Pixies through to GA and FA status, so I'm well aware of the process :) CloudNine 08:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)