User talk:Cyrus XIII/Archive 2

the pillows - Shiroi Natsu to Midori no Jitensha Akai Kami to Kuroi Gitaa

10:40, 1 July 2007 you changed the title of the single. The title is in Japanese. You will see that if you look at the obi or side of the single. I consider the English to be part of the artwork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.162.51 (talk)

The English version of the band's official website offers translations for most of song titles and since this is an English language encyclopedia, we give preference to those. - Cyrus XIII 21:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no translation for that title on the official site.--Rockman240 12:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is. - Cyrus XIII 14:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake. "white summer and green bicycle, red hair with black guiter."--Rockman240 12:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Death of Peter Lyman

Your request for a reference for the death of Peter Lyman was a correct, but it would not have been difficult for you to find the obituary. I merely followed the link to his home page and then went to the webpage of his department, and I found an announcement of his passing [1]. I think it is a gracious service to the grieving for us to perfom such verification ourselves rather than just disputing what is surely a significant loss to them. If no obituary can easily be found, we should remove the information per WP:BLP rather than tagging it as disputed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this request was geared towards Lyman's advisorship of Boyd, not his passing. I'm truly sorry if this appeared insensitive towards the grieving. - Cyrus XIII 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I misunderstood. I added references for that and for Lyman's passing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Thanks, I've now left a message for Riana about the issue. -- Renesis (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Music of Final Fantasy VII. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Kariteh 13:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the 3RR, thanks. May I direct your attention towards another guideline? During our recent disagreement you have repeatedly introduced redundant information and tags, as well as practically empty sections to several articles. In connection with certain somewhat sarcastic quips in your edit summaries and your obviously strong opinions regarding the "Redemption" dispute in general, this might be considered disruptive and subsequently point-making, which could actually get you into trouble. I'm not going to report you (provided you stay clear of WP:3RR), but take my friendly advise and try a more laid-back and collaborative approach. Right now, you are not at all improving the articles in question and nobody really needs to stress out over that kind of thing. - Cyrus XIII 14:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pong

While I agree on the lowercase format, the regulars at the PONG entry do not. Just a heads up. Just64helpin 09:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's no surprise. I'm in this kind of situation all the time and pleasing the local mob of ... maybe a tad biased fans was never one of my strong points. Let's see how it turns out. In the meantime, would you help me out editing the remaining links to the redirect? - Cyrus XIII 09:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I personally moved the article to Pong under the same rationale. You can guess what happened after that. BTW, please contact me directly for replies. I'll be notified much quicker that way. Just64helpin 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Song / single

Where is the "naming covention" page? Seems a bit strange that the D'espairsRay single "Garnet" is titled as "Garnet (song)" and the single "Gemini" is titled "Gemini (single)" (not saying you're wrong ofcourse, just would like to read about it) Cjlawrence89 14:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Usually Wikipedia articles are rather about songs than singles, even if they were released as a single and are denoted as such in the article lead. Subsequently, there is a WikiProject Songs and categories collecting musical pieces by certain artists are named "[artistname] songs". This is because a lot of songs have sufficient notability for their own Wikipedia article, even though they were never released as a single (quite a few songs by The Beatles, for example). By referring to songs in article titles and categories, we avoid having two systems. (See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Disambiguation)

The "Gemini" single is the odd one out though, since it is not named after any of its tracks but the first song, "Fuyuu Shita Risou" later appeared on the Coll:set album in a typical single/A-side fashion. Since there is no song called "Gemini", it would not be accurate to have the article at "Gemini (song)" but unlike those other releases I categorized as EPs, I'd say "Gemini" is still a single. - Cyrus XIII 17:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy X

Hello. You undid my revision on the Music of Final Fantasy X page. I believe the album titles should be on the tables because for 1: That's the way it is on all the other "Music of Final Fantasy" pages (I realize that's not rock solid argument, but argument non the less). 2: The article is about multiple albums, so the tables should be explicitly named. Even if they are in a subsection containing the album name. Right know the article has no less than 7 tables with the exact same name. Further more, being collapsed collapsibles, It is not a bit inconvenient to find out which table we are looking at without checking the section we are in. Adding the album info can only add to the article, and make it's browsing easier, even if the info is redundant. Wouldn't you agree? Happypal 14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you mean Music of Final Fantasy VII, not the one for FFX. To answer your question right away: No, I don't agree. The average Wikipedia reader certainly won't find it too challenging to correlate the (only) track listing provided in a section with the album the respective section was named after and as you said it yourself, precedents on related pages make for a weak argument, especially since these are easily superseeded by the vast majority of articles under the scope of WikiProject Albums, which regularly opt for the term "Track listing". - Cyrus XIII 15:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Music of Final Fantasy VII, sorry. "The average Wikipedia reader certainly won't find it too challenging to correlate". Of course, I wasn't saying we're idiots either! Just that it's more convenient to have the info right there on the table, rather than have to scroll up first and then find it. Anywhoo, you're probably right, according to guideline. I just wanted to say that I DO think the article DOES look better with it, and is more browser friendly, even if it goes against guidelines. bye Happypal 15:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Oshare Kei

Well, I think that a subsection to the Visual Kei page should be added about Oshare Kei, something describing the bright colours and the happier more pop-oriented styles, but not too in depth. After that, create a re-direct out of the page. I'm sure many pages on WP link to Oshare Kei, and many people will see the term and reference WP for it, so making it redirect to Visual Kei would be the best solution for now.--Jacob 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if information can't be sourced anywhere reliable, then maybe at least a redirect from Oshare to Visual? Information wouldn't be added, but at least acknowledgment that it is similar to Visual Kei, but not differing enough to get its own mention.--Jacob 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

System of a down

You might not be aware of any local or Wikpedia-wide consensus to keep horrendously cluttered infoboxes. No one is aware of this, but there's no consensus on removing refs from infoboxes yet... Now it's just an opinion... The refs are there for a long time, the refs are there for a reason. Discuss this issue instead of removing info.

You might not like horrendously cluttered infoboxes, but that's no reason to change the content. A lot of people have discussed the best way to reflect SoaD's genres, and you are destroying this work. The infobox contained references, of course if you don't like it you can edit it, but don't remove the genres. Discuss this issue instead of removing info.

And if you don't want uncited information then please search for sources instead of deleting information. The ^{[citation needed]} tags were put there a few day ago. Discuss this issue instead of removing info.

I'm reverting your edit 1 more time hoping the next time you'll discuss your concerns. Thank you Emmaneul ^(Talk) 13:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A few points you might want to consider:

• I'm not going to quote the 46 lines/3,7 KB of code the infobox had before I edited it, to illustrate the problem. The fact that the "Years_active" parameter was in it twice, as well as a HTML comment that asks why all the references need to be crammed into it already shows quite well how the box was becoming near-unmaintainable.
• As infoboxes usually just summarize data which already appears in the actual article, there is no point in having hard to maintain infobox/citation template hybrids, as any information likely to be disputed will have to come with a source in the article body anyway.
• According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, uncited information may be removed by any editor at any time. This goes double for articles that are biographical in nature. Content in need of citations may, but does not have to be tagged as such.
• I did not remove well referenced content from the article, I merely moved and re-arranged it for the convenience of my fellow editors and our readers.
• No editor has to ask for permission on a talk page, before performing good faith edits, especially if they provide a comprehensive rationale in the respective edit summary. You may always question this rationale either through a talk page post or edit summaries of your own but "you can't do that, you didn't discuss this first" is not proper reasoning, especially if these knee-jerk reverts re-introduce problematic (in this case unreferenced) material. Also note that this kind of behavior may raise ownership concerns.

All that being said, I hope you will take a more laid-back approach on this matter after your 3RR block is over. Have a nice day - Cyrus XIII 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, nice points, now I'd like to provide a few points you might want to consider:

• Please discuss matters that are controversial. I think the following links clearly show SoaD's genre is not something that had to be changed or removed without discussion: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11].

• Refs in infoboxes result in accuracy and stability in some cases. Like I said earlier, I agree that there is a need for improvement, but the refs were there for a reason. There have been a zillion edit wars, editors were changing genres daily. The addition of refs in the infobox had a positive impact on the article resulting in less unfavorable changes and less reverting. Maintainability and infobox aesthetics were less important than accuracy and stability in this case.

• Give editors a chance to provide references. Like you said WP:VER states that uncited information may be removed by any editor at any time. WP:VER also states: "but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page". I think this may apply to content with a {{fact|date=July 2007}} tag. Removing content simply because it may be removed is something that makes me think of WP:POINT.

I'm happy to see you finally engaged in a discussion and the infobox is back to its previous state. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Something you might be interested in

Not very fluent in the visual kei field, sorry :P ~Ambrosia- ^talk 03:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Confused...

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't really understand it...
It's just both you and Deckiller are using pronouns. Were talking Music of FFVII right? I think Dec was complimenting me on "the previous, floating versions" (and I think by that floating=collapsible right?). The new version which I put just put in is the one I am not satisfied with. Is that what you like? I'm sorry I'm not really quite sure what you are talking about. Could you talk about it on my page or WP:FF?Happypal 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Untitled stuff

Nice job cleaning up the Untitled dab and the titles of the listed articles. Thanks for going to the trouble :) Propaniac 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I just hope I didn't step on any toes when I went around those articles to introduce that somewhat standardized approach towards (really) untitled works. I also made a new formatting template to enter a plain "Untitled album" (without italics) into album infoboxes (see here), but I'm not sure how to get rid of the quotes around the title of a single box (probably using an album box with single coloring). - Cyrus XIII 09:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to start a conflict, but...

I was just curious why you reverted Dir en grey discography back to list format? The full release dates were on the page of the album/single/remix album/compilation album. I was trying to make it more wikified, and it was a lot of hard work that you just reverted. *silver* 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As I already wrote in my edit summaries, a plain release title + release date scenario does not justify the addition of tables. They are not just a lot harder to create but also to maintain and should not come into consideration, until the per-release information has reached a certain critical mass (in other words, columns). - Cyrus XIII 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually was going to add "Record label" to the mass, and for the singles, I was going to add "Album/EP." But I see your point, and I shall stop bickering. *silver* 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Laura Dawn Myspace

". Then I got a solo record deal on extasy/warner brothers and in 1999, put out an album called "Believer". It was a bunch of songs I wrote when I was 25 or so, all about moving to New York City with $300 bucks in my pocket and living at the YMCA and then in a squat with east german artists and drug addicts in the East Village back when the East Village was actually still a rather scary and edgy (and in my mind, exciting) place to live. I co-produced the album with Ted Niceley (yes, the man who produced FUGAZI, and a genius and a teddy bear). A lot of people loved it. Reviews were good. SPIN magazine said it was a "...sweetly vicious debut, which is equal parts power pop and sugary punk, like Siouxsie Sioux meets Jewel". My record label went under while I was making my second album, which never got finished."

There, in the biography, thanks for reading it. You are tireless contributor Cyrus, but sometimes you're edits are plain stubborn.

Re: Weekend

You're welcome! I trust you enjoyed Wacken (I watched the stream online most of the day). Anything new to contribute to the Wacken Open Air page? --Jacob 01:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dir en grey genre related issues

Hello, as I'm sure you've seen and attempted to deal with, the user Iori has been adding the terms "Visual Kei" and "screamo" to many of the Dir en grey articles. He/she has been inadvertently breaking the three-revert rule (by never utilizing the undo button), and possibly has been reduced to point-making. I would like to seek your third opinion, what should be added and what should not? Are there any policies that can be cited as to why Visual Kei cannot be added, as I am sure the user in question does not accept the simple obvious responses given to him on many occasions. --Jacob 03:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your recent edits to Dir en grey related articles

I just wonder why a 25 years old guy is always there, like 24/7, to throw away my collaborations -- when I'm actually collaborating. You don't need to reply. iori

Report

I am tired of you wikistalking me. I gave up and reported you. [[12]] What you are doing to wikipedia is damaging edits, removing perfectly good sources, and constantly pushing revert wars. Denaar 12:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko (again)

Is Noroton correct to revert you on Controversies over the film Sicko, bringing that page back into use? Several criticisms and sources have been included on the main Sicko page but it's not a quote farm unlike the page Noroton created. smb 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Along with a consensus to merge the article, most editors also agreed on the piracy and Cuba issues being the only substantial controversies surrounding the film. Hence no undue expansion of the controversy section should happen before further discussion suggests otherwise, let alone re-opening the separate controversies page. - Cyrus XIII 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

sicko controversies article

The consensus of a couple of handfuls of editors to merge was defective in that it violated NPOV. We can edit war or you can let me change the article to meet some of the objections because I'm going to bring it up for reconsideration. I'm more than happy to do either route. Noroton 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Stating that something violates WP:NPOV because you happen to disagree with it - brilliant logic, once again. And yes, you will have to bring this up at Talk:Sicko (film) again, unless of course you'd like to get into trouble for disrespecting consensus. - Cyrus XIII 19:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack! Noroton 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What nerve. smb 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Music Excerpts

I noticed you were responsible for all those little pieces of music on the MoFFVII page. Since I also want to add some to other articles, I wanted some of your help. Just to double check:

• Music is the least of 30 seconds or 10% of the total track for fair use
• Tracks should be encoded in ogg, with a q0.0 quality (vbr 64kbps)

Also, what program do you use? Thanks for the help. happypal (Talk | contribs) 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I use Audacity for cutting and fading and then the "oggenc" command (from the vorbis-tools package, as I use Ubuntu Linux) to convert the *.wav. files to *.ogg files (which I probably not a clever thing to do, since Audacity might support Ogg export right away. But this way, I can make sure that the -q 0 option is used.) Shall we stick with the one-sample-per-CD formula I used for the FF7 page? - Cyrus XIII 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should use a minimum of 1 excerpt per CD. CDs with more notability should get more. I don't believe that those little promotional CDs should get any, unless they contain some special tracks. So in that regard, the FFVII article is perfect (I think) in amounts of excerpts per album. But it's definitely a per CD thing.

I'll try out Audacity, and use foobar2000 for the encoding (it uses the ogg commandline encoder, so its's the same thing I guess).

I suppose there's no standard for the tagging, as long as it's coherent? happypal (Talk | contribs) 22:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Visual Kei Articles

Cyrus, I notice there is some unrest regarding your continued editing of the Visual kei band articles. I also think you're being unreasonable in your demands for prime sources. Would you agree to mediation on this topic? Pkeets 04:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, a lot came up over the weekend. To answer your quesion, if you are referring to mediation, in the sense of WP:M, then I'd say that the recent "unrest" as you call it, does not quite qualify for this kind of procedure, neither in scope nor in its stage of dispute resolution. And while my preferred by-the-book approach towards matters of verifiability might not be too popular with certain people, it's still how things are essentially supposed to work on Wikipedia.

I am aware that articles about Japanese pop-culture present a higher challenge when it comes to locating appropriate references, due to a barrier in language and sometimes culture. But this still does not justify resorting to sources that would be shunned in connection with subjects that do not present similar obstacles. Of course, this may mean for certain articles to turn out rather brief, it's unfortunate, but also hardly the end of the world. As a certain (Japanese) pop-culture figure said, "the net is vast and infinite", in the sense that there are plenty of projects on the web (some even dedicated specifically to the topics we've been discussing), that appreciate fresh input and also take a different approach towards verifiability than Wikipedia.

In other words: People who consider fansites, YouTube or commercial pages (in a potentially self-serving context) acceptable sources for information should probably just frequent these venues and be happy with them, instead of demanding from one of the world's largest projects dedicated to the accumulation of knowledge to lower its standards for them. That would seem rather unreasonable to me. - Cyrus XIII 00:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not where the sources are coming from, the biggest source is located directly at tower records, one of the biggest music stores in Japan (along with HMV) and major Japanese music industry companies such as Barks, and Oricon. The reliable English references simply say similar things, you have no reference for your claims, only your opinion. From your comments, it is clear you do not speak Japanese, have no knowledge on Japanese music, or the history of Visual Kei genre. I am glad, that more users worked hard to find reliable English sources, to accompany Japanese sources, and the meaning of the term "Visual Kei" explained. Since you continued to remove the update (with dictionary source) that Kei means System, and has nothing to do with Style. I leave you with a quote from "The Simpsons" character Nelson "Ha Ha"

Sicko.

I reverted your redirect. For one, there has been no use of the talk page in two months, and no consensus there for the redirect. There is an active debate going on at the main sicko page, that also shows there is no consensus for a redirect.

More importantly, your redirect, without merging the information into the main article, constitutes blanking and removal of sourced information. That's entirely unacceptable.

I don't edit the articles, and couldn't care less either way about Michael Moore. If you want to redirect the controversy page, you have to merge the material into the main Sicko article first before redirecting. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Luna sea promo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Luna sea promo.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Luna Sea visual kei

I'd like to know why you changed the genre of Luna Sea in their article page, since I puted a relieble source that states their music style is visual kei and explains why and you have no source that their music style is hard rock or progressive rock. iori —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.29.110.96 (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The infoboxes for musical artists or albums/singles are supposed to contain music genres. In the absence of any verifiable, defining musical characteristics of visual kei, it would be inappropriate to use the term in those boxes. (Subsequently, the phrasing "visual kei band", like one would write "punk rock band" or "euro beat musician", is probably similarly misguiding.) There have been disputes among editors on this issue before, but the reliable sources that have been brought forward either describe visual kei with visual characteristics alone or even explicitly point out, that artists associated with visual kei may pertain to any music genre. In that light, still calling it a music genre of its own would be quite a contradiction, which is obviously not in the best interest of our readers. Also note that the band you messaged me about regularly performed songs from its entire back catalog even after opting for a more casual look, without any significant changes in instrumentation or arrangement.

As for the JRock Revolution blog as a source, I must admit that I have not too much confidence in its reliability, give that the people who post on it only stand for their writing through obvious nick names and the event the page was initially meant to promote lies months back. Even if ties to the festival's artists, or the respective management are still strong, the Yoshiki-Skin-Sugizo-Luna Sea connection is already quite a stretch and that affiliation would still make those blog posts vanity press. This renders a lot of information coming from the site potentially self-serving and we should rather opt for professional and independent third party references.

Lastly, should you sincerely disagree with the assertion, that the music performed by Luna Sea can be categorized as hard or progressive rock, feel free to reduce it to "rock", if you consider this a necessary improvement of the article. - Cyrus XIII 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I desagree with you. Yes, visual kei is first a moviment that includes many rock music styles. But once there are many bands in this moviment that play centain sonorities that share a few specific musical characteristics it is correct to say that there are a few visual kei musical styles. One that truly know the early works of LUNA SEA, D'ERLANGER, Kuroyume, Dir en grey, Due'le quartz, Madeth Gray'll and many others must be neglecter to say there wasn't some new sounds going on this moviment or to say all these bands did can just be labeled with Western labels. I don't have enough English language knowlage to explain it in words, but that Jrock Revolution article says something about it.

I also think that it's arbitrary of you to say Jrock Revolution isn't a relieble source. It's not a blog, it's an official site linked to famous and important artists from j-rock and visual kei. Who's your superior in Wikipedia?

Finally, I'll remove the terms "hard rock" and "progressive rock" from LUNA SEA's page becuse I think it improves the article once what they did is very different from the sounds linked to those labels. I'll remove it specially because there's no source on that. You have re-added the terms without any source. iori —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iori (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus XIII has already been proven wrong about Visual Kei, Luna Sea should be mentioned as Visual Kei. As they are one of the big names from the genre. There are sources for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.183.23 (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jun Kaneko, if you are not too busy "touring Japan", kindly take the time to log in with your Wikipedia account, before you post on my talk page. And (as always) sign your comments. - Cyrus XIII 10:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

NiGHTS

Hello. I was just curious, why are you editing the name in the article from 'NiGHTS' to 'Nights'? If I am not mistaken, I believe the Wikipedia guideline only falls for title, not character names. 'NiGHTS' is the official name for the character, not 'Nights', so at least in the article 'NiGHTS' should be spelled as so. A little confusing to newbies to NiGHTS who do not know that 'NiGHTS' is proper, I'm afraid. NNR07 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSCAPS#Mixed_or_non-capitalization, the stylized capitalization should be mentioned in the opening line of the article, but everywhere else, it should follow normal English rules for capitalization. For names, this means an initial capital letter, followed by lowercase letters. Neier 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright. That is still rather confusing, but it is official. However, I have another question to ask.: Why are you removing the fan-sites? It's really pissing a good amount of people off, especially do to the fact that fansites are allowed to be linked in an article, and NiD.com is very well known to practically all NiGHTS fans who have an internet access. The site also contains much more information on the game than wikipedia has, or is allowed to offer because people will request citation, and a good amount of the Japanese Translations came from there as well. Also, according to the W:EL.: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. . Nightsintodreams.com does in-fact give a lot of that said information, in particular, in the 'NiD for Newbies' section. NNR07 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, we link to fansites, if they clearly serve an immediate purpose for our readers, such as providing content relevant to the article's subject, they would not be able to find on official sites or in magazines. That might include original interviews or translations of articles/interviews into English from another language (i.e. stuff from Famitsu). The brief description of the external link should reflect that purpose. Just linking to a fansite on a nice-to-have basis immediately raises concerns in regards to WP:NPOV and WP:NOT (those bits about Wikipedia not being a repository/soapbox). - Cyrus XIII 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I still see Nightsintodreams.com as being probably the most relevant site for information on the game, bypassing the actual article by far. Would it be alright, however, to link to the 'NiD for Newbies' section, because the section goes into more depth about the game, and the site itself has a real lot of interviews that are hard to find and not in the article at the moment. The 'article' section goes into more depth about this, with several interviews from magazines that are defunct. NNR07 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I put in a request for semiprot [13] for both of the game pages. Neier 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Free Will

The recent arrests are relevant to all the bands signed under the label, use the talk page before editing, as there are two reliable sources from major news companies. No other information has been added, apart from what the news states, including the recent confessions.. You don't like what has happended, but it does not give you the right to remove information with reliable sources. Further removal of this information, will result in you being reported for edit warring. This information is directly related to Dir en grey, and all other bands signed under the label. 122.49.137.61 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hydra

As far as I can tell, there hasn't been anything mentioned about the US release, although I'm sure one will be available. I added some information on the European releases obtained here, and I don't know if I would include the missing track just yet, as it could be, and most likely is simply an error. That seems a little odd to cut a track like that out from a non-domestic release. --Jacob ^Talk 12:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: too many in one edit to see what was done

Got your message and I understand your point.

In general, I agree with you and I don't mind large bold edits when they are well supported. The thing that caused me to write that edit summary... was that as part of your bold changes, you removed a couple references. If you would be willing to separate your edits that remove references from your other bold edits, that would help me (and maybe others) to respond more clearly to your work, and would make it easier not to revert other elements you add that may well be just fine.

I have no desire to interfere with your editing, and I recognize that some or maybe all of what you added could be good for the article. But when combined with the removing of references, it caused a concern for me. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding on the edit summary. --Parsifal _Hello 20:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus, I just happened to follow this from Parsifal's talk out of curiosity, and thought I'd add a comment. I, too, like to make large amounts of minor copy-edits in one go, for vairous reasons. However, I've found that it helps a lot to be careful about certain things - like references or cites that might get removed, or info that might get a slight change in meaning. When I feel that an edit like that is required, I always save it for a separate edit, so I can justify it separately, and so it can be reverted more easily. You've prolly come up with this obvious idea yourself, but I just want to say: it really really helps on some articles! :) Eaglizard 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess a few more point-by-point rationales on the respective talk pages won't hurt. How does that sound? - Cyrus XIII 03:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good plan, but the extra work might not be needed every time. My main concern with the particular edit I mentioned was that references were removed. That makes it really confusing to see if there was a problem with a reference, or if it was an unintended side-effect of changing some text.

Maybe it would work better to just separate out edits that remove footnotes, that way, the edit summary can explain why the reference was removed - for example if it's an unreliable source, self-published, or a commercial link, etc...

I'm not trying to make extra work for you, or for anyone. It's just that finding good references is pretty much the hardest part of editing, so once they are in an article, unless there's a problem with them, they're valuable and deserve some extra attention.

Just a suggestion, I'm sure we can work it out as we go. Thanks for considering my comments. --Parsifal _Hello 06:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jun Kaneko

Hey, getting back to you on the issue on the Dir en grey page over the semantics of "world fame". I think what he has done is vandalism at this point. While at the first offense, it's an understandable edit, he has very nearly (and possibly will) pushed a revert war. If it were mentioned on the talk page, that may draw him from breaking the 3RR. --Jacob ^Talk 19:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an insult, but you need to learn more about Japanese music, and discover musicians which you evidently do not know about. 122.49.157.149 12:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Symbol (Prince).svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Symbol (Prince).svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 17Drew 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 17Drew 02:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deus (band)

I do have it watchlisted. I've recently been accused of reverting too much without discussion, so I'm trying to avoid doing too much of that. I was hoping we'd be able to convince User:Elice that the current guideline applies to the article.

While I have you, I'm not sure I agree with your change to the MUSTARD page. We have discussed this previously, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Archive 1#Capitalization 2. --PEJL 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I did not quite remember that the two of us previously discussed this (albeit briefly but on the very same talk page nonetheless), my apologies. Yet, my current foray into making WP:MUSTARD more explicit largely stems from more recent changes to WP:MOS-CL#Mixed or non-capitalization, which now very generally mentions proper names, hence it covers both kinds of personal names, birth names and stage names (addressing the concerns you mentioned in June, regarding the conflation of standards). Just like the bit of WP:MUSTARD that I modified accordingly, that section also links to WP:MOS-TM. By the way, I am still considering a proposal to turn WP:MOS-TM into a more generally themed entity (something like "Manual of Style (names and titles)"), what's your opinion on that? - Cyrus XIII 01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't aware that WP:MOS-CL had changed since June. A general guideline on titles sounds like a very good idea, it's something I've been also thinking we should have. --PEJL 02:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Biblical

I am in agreement with your comments of Oct. 17 at #[14] where you state that you felt capitalization of Biblical (on a par with Vedic, Talmudic, Quranic, Avestan, etc.) was appropriate, and even called for by the style guide. You may have noticed that this has since blown up into an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, causing a proactive editor to revise the policy at MOSCAPS to actualyl allow tolerance for the almost-never-seen forms "vedic" and "talmudic", as optional to "Vedic" and "Talmudic", while at the same time insisting that the only allowable adjectival form of "Bible" is "biblical", contary to some prominent dictionaries and style guides. This seems flagrantly non-neutral, even biased, to me, and I was wondering if you could clarify your opinion at that RfC. It was also just hinted that I am the only one who feels this way, but as I said, I did agree with your earlier take on it. Thanks Til Eulenspiegel 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My 'rationale'

My rationale was that its fucking annoying grow some balls eh leave it alone-what your gonna block me for that? you are so pathetic with your warnings-im just trying to make it look normal aight dont bother Ash48GotdaLife 02:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

what

gotdalife means i 'got da life' even though it is one of my favorite korn songs its not titled after it, and yeh im supportive of their desicions-my dad went to school wit them but it should be italicized —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash48GotdaLife (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Album titles

For my purposes, what part of WP:MUSTARD#Formatting states the album should not be in italics. I saw your report over at ANI and I want to be clear in case I need to add an album or such in the future. Thanks! spryde | talk 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually on Wikipedia, albums go into italics and songs into quotes but a distinction needs still to be made between works with actual titles and those that have none and are thus referred to by generic monikers. For example, if an album was actually titled Untitled, it should receive the regular italics, but if it was simply an untitled album, such formatting would be misleading. - Cyrus XIII 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You may want to get WP:MUSTARD to clearly enumerate that. The wording is a bit ambiguous right now and could loosely be interpreted the wrong way. spryde | talk 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Creem/CREEM

Hey, Cyrus XIII. I don't know how else to contact you, so I hope you see this. Would you PLEASE quit changing the CREEM name to lower-cased Creem in that entry? I was an editor at CREEM for seven years. Upper-cased is the way it's supposed to be. Every editor and every writer who ever worked there would tell you this. It was an edict from publisher Barry Kramer and writers/editors were very conscious of this from the magazine's origins through to its demise. It's annoying that you keep changing it because it's wrong. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.2.26 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see were you are coming from, but the use of all-caps typesetting (or for that matter any kind of stylized typography) is discouraged by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. As a seasoned editor, you certainly know about the significance of a consistent presentation, readability and so forth. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#All caps for details. - Cyrus XIII 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As an editor, I also know what is right and what is wrong. This was always the most important element in the CREEM style book, dating back to 1969 and continuing to the book that is in bookstores as of this week. Ask any CREEM writer and they will tell you. Factually, historically and stylistically, what I'm telling you is correct.. PLEASE leave it the way it is. Keep changing it and I will keep changing it back. Even the New York Times has exceptions to rules. For instance, they refer to everyone as Mr. -- but when Mr. The Edge and Mr. Bono started to look ridiculous in print, they made an exception. This is a matter of pride and heart with CREEM staffers. IT IS INCORRECT FOR CREEM TO BE IN LOWER CASE LETTERS. It never, ever has appeared in the magazine or the book (or anywhere written or edited by folks who actually READ the magazine -- which, if your profille is correct -- began years before you were even born). I worked there and edited the magazine for 7 years. I know what I'm talking about. Please leave it the way it is!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.2.26 (talk) 16:35, November 5, 2007 (UTC)

Look, there is no conflict of interest here. I am not a 25-year-old IT student. I am a 51-year-old longtime music editor and journalist who worked at CREEM for close to seven years, wrote for them longer than that and knows what the CORRECT style was and is supposed to be. You can continue to be anal about it...but it was being written EVERYWHERE as "CREEM" and not "Creem" LONG BEFORE YOU WERE EVEN BORN. I have no interest in this aside from having it appear correctly. There's a rock magazine called BAM. It has a listing on Wikipedia as well. It is listed as "BAM" -- because that's what it was! If it was changed to "Bam," it would not only look stupid (it stands for "BAY AREA MUSIC"), but it would be wrong. Please listen to the people who were actually there. They would all agree that it is rightfully supposed to be "CREEM," not "Creem." If it's good enough for Harper-Collins, Amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, etc., then it definitely should be good enough for wikipedia and a 25-year-old IT student who wasn't even there (but, as a music fan, certainly would have been if he were around). Thank you. Please go to this link to see what I'm talking about:

http://www.amazon.com/CREEM-Americas-Only-Rock-Magazine/dp/0061374563/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194633321&sr=8-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.2.26 (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already informed you, that Wikipedia's own Manual of Style advises against emulating stylized typography, in favor of standard English text formatting (again, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)). This includes rendering a text in all-caps, unless it is an acronym, such as Bay Area Music. As a seasoned professional, you can be expected to heed the formatting guidelines of the respective publication you are working on. Note that the Wikipedia community puts a strong emphasis on consensus (see Wikipedia:Consensus), from which most of its policies and guidelines are derived (including its Manual of Style). Subsequently, continuous editing against guidelines may be regarded as disruptive (see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing), especially in a clear-cut case like this. But also note that due to the open nature of Wikipedia, consensus and guidelines can always change. If you would like to make suggestions, feel free to post them on the talk page of one of the guidelines I have pointed out to you. - Cyrus XIII 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

given the many examples here where people feel the correct form (i.e. the non standard rules of capitalisation form) should be used and where those forms are continuously reverted back to what you think is correct, it should be clear there is no consensus over the capitalisation guidelines. representing it as such (and saying people who disagree are disruptive (or to use someone else's words whine)) is a clear misrepresentaion of reality. --L!nus 12:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, given that the response to that RfC of yours caused such an overwhelming outrage. Sarcasm aside, please refrain from posting random bad faith insinuations like this on my talk page, alright? Discussions on policy/guideline or article talk pages, even if they seemingly go on forever without going anywhere are all good and well, but here I prefer things to the limited to the editors the respective matter at hand actually concerns, especially when it comes to unfriendly quips. - Cyrus XIII 14:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This is a friendly warning for your recent comment directed at me in the article for Dir en grey. Please treat other editors with civility. — Preceding comment signed as by 122.49.135.245 (talk • contribs) actually added by Jun kaneko (talk • contribs) 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Your edits to my posts are of bad faith, and contain ill-considered accusations WP:ICA. I do not appreciate your behaviour towards me, and I have already requested that you please behave in a civil manner. The Wikipedia is a open community for everyone to edit and feel welcomed,, however your uncivil edits to my posts are becoming quite serious. — Preceding comment signed as by 122.49.135.245 (talk • contribs) actually added by Jun kaneko (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You'll probably want to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_behaviour. Thanks, William Pietri 04:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cyrus, additional content on AN/I. I'm short on time today, will be around but intermittently. Good luck. --Parsifal _Hello 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

checkuser

I just replied to your ANI posting. I had a similar case and spent months trying to convince the community of it. In this situation I'd strongly recommend going to checkuser and asking for a code B or a code F, you could also add code C if you can prove your case using diffs--Cailil ^talk 00:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, thanks for your suggestion, but checkuser I don't believe can help with this. All they can do is confirm when multiple users use the same IP address. We already know all the listed IP's have been used by one or the other of the accounts, that's not in question. Some of the IP edits are even signed by Jun kaneko. Since they're dynamic IP's in the same range, in the same ISP, checkuser can't make that determination. It would still come down to someone making a decision based on editing patterns.

The only question is if the new account is the same person. So far, he's shown by his aggressive actions to be the same. The AN/I report could be copied over to WP:SSP, but I don't have the time to do it. It might be ignored there too. There are too many details and no-one wants to read them because there is no good solution. Allowing anon IP editing from dynamic IP's is a serious flaw in Wikipedia and eventually I bet that will need to be changed. --Parsifal _Hello 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus, as I said, I don't have time to format a WP:SSP report. It might not be worth your time either, but if you decide to proceed, let me know and I will enter a short note supporting your evidence. --Parsifal _Hello 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Involvement in WP:ANI

Hello Cyrus XIII. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

EoL talk 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR and BLP

I would like to point out that WP:3RR refers specifically to three reverts made in a twenty-four hour period. You gave Mbe320 a 3RR warning for two reverts in a longer than twenty-four hour period. The first edit of his, which I believe you mistakenly took for a revert, was a completely good faith edit. I ask merely on my own behalf that you please use caution before giving out a warning, especially for brand new users, so as not to discourage them. I feel very guilty, because it was with me that he engaged in a potential revert war, but that war never blossomed. Worse, you and I were both incorrect to revert his edits in the first place, as per Wikipolicy on the birthdays of Living People. I have changed the page to comply with that policy, removing Yoshiki's birthday but preserving the year of his birth. 春Harukaze風 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, here are my thoughts on this matter:

• The two reverts on Mbe320's part did in fact happen within a 24 hour period. [15] [16]
• WP:3RR is breached with more than three reverts in such a period of time. I am not aware of any guideline regarding the number of reverts, after which a warning may be placed, but given that Mbe320 has so far been a single-purpose account,[17] that kind of scrutiny seems entirely appropriate to me.
• Don't feel guilty. You acted with WP:CENSOR in mind and for that bit on birth dates in WP:BLP to apply, Mbe320 would have to provide a reliable source that the artist in question really does not want this information to be publicly known. The only reason I am currently refraining from reverted the removal again, is that we presently have no source on the exact birth date either, so it is the WP:V part of WP:BLP that applies after all.

Hope this helps to clear things up. - Cyrus XIII 01:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the NiGHTS series pages...

The official stance is that, no matter how trivial, the character is called "NiGHTS", not "Nights". In-game cutscene subtitles reveal this, and I just felt like I should point this out as you are the most recent person with an account that revised the page and used the incorrect spelling.

Sorry to bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared Sol (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Ah, after reading up on the CREEM debate, I understand your stance on the matter, but if an official stance on the spelling of any word was partial or complete capitilisation is the correct form, why would that be discouraged on an online encyclopedia?

I am well aware of the official typeset of the Nights series (as I was in the case of "Creem"/"CREEM"), yet the Wikipedia Manual of Style (specifically on its sub-pages about capital letters and trademarks) favors standard English text formatting over stylized typography, hence save for a simple note in the article lead, "Nights" is the way to go here. This notion has been confirmed by a move request and a related discussion on the talk pages of Nights into Dreams... and Nights: Journey of Dreams respectively. Other example would be our relatively consistent use of "Sega" (as opposed to "SEGA"), "PlayStation" (not "PLAYSTATION") and so for. Since you are new, I should probably also point out, that persistent editing against consensus on guideline or talk page level could be considered disruptive. That being said, your message did not bother me; I would have contacted you myself, given that the links in my earlier edit summaries did not provide sufficient insight into Wikipedia's formatting standards. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

If you've got a problem with verifiability (cf, Led Zeppelin IV, you could just pop a "citation needed" sticker on it, rather than just deleting straight away. If we delete everything that doesn't have a citation attached there won't be much of Wikipedia left. Patrick Neylan (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Logo removals

Would you kindly refrain from removing content while citing a policy as broad as WP:FAIR (without offering more specific reasons for concern) and a supposed talk page consensus (which is questionable at best)? Your intention to improve Wikipedia is appreciated, but please consider the time and effort spent by many other editors on obtaining, preparing and uploading these images, of which several are undoubtedly notable and hence worth of inclusion. Without any article linking to them, they will soon be tagged as orphaned fair use content and quickly removed, leaving very little time to consider alternative methods of inclusion (should aforementioned talk page discussion deem them necessary). - Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like consensus to me. I talked to an admin friend who agreed with the rationale that "free-use always wins out over fair-use"... and there's nothing more free-use than plain text. Even if there wasn't consensus... by Wikipedia's own mandate... Free-use always wins. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus-building on Wikipedia is not about simply getting a majority of editors to agree on something, especially not without allowing due time and consideration for the points otherwise inclined editors might raise (see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Also, we have guidelines regarding the use of graphical logos (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos. Wikipedia:Logos), so the whole line of thought that we should rather use plain text because it is more free kind of falls apart. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The consensus, which stretches across numerous talk pages not just the template page (where nothing constructive ever gets done), did not seem to care about WP:LOGOS in their arguements (and rightly so) instead consistently maintained that Wiki was global, Wiki was free, Wiki should not discriminate against users who do not have high speed connections (with is a great lump of the planet). It's a bigger picture then just fair-use trademarks and article "shock and awe". Rainbow colours do not always make an article look better. And, as already mentioned, make some portions of the article unreadable to many who haven't the speed to load all the superfluity. The simple notion "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" must always over-ride Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos, Wikipedia:Logos or any other WP:FOOLISHNESS. If it doesn't... then you are ignoring what the project was created for in the first place. 156.34.213.216 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It hardly matters if the discussion stretched across several talk pages, as it was the template talk page that was provided as a rationale for said content removal. Some links to related discussions on that page could in turn have helped to provide more transparency but it would still have been reckless (as opposed to bold) not to thoroughly consider obviously related guidelines or at least wait for a change to the template manual to happen before implementing such wide-reaching changes. Also, why is this suddenly about bandwidth concerns? If these were so central to the issue, they would been brought up earlier and given that notable logos will invariably find their way into an article, via the infobox or not, the resulting amount of data going out to our readers will remain the same. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Our mission is to provide free content and these nonfree logos always were just decoration. I speak as someone who has uploaded a couple myself in my time. The project moves on, and as it does so, we need to seriously review our use of nonfree material. --John (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is keeping you guys from putting in for changes on the talk pages of the relevant policies and guidelines. At the same time, it is important to respect the rules currently in effect and upon considering modifications to them, keeping an eye out for related rules and/or accepted practices that might be affected or even contradicted by the proposed changes, given that consistency among guidelines and their general application is so essential. As for this case: If all of a sudden graphic logos of one type of organization have insufficient encyclopedic merit for inclusion under fair use, what about those of other organizations in general? Are you actively suggesting special treatment for a particular kind of subject here? If so, what would be the rationale of that (keeping WP:NPOV in mind)? - Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you make some good points. I have been contributing to that thread at the template talk page for a good while. Currently the problem is that there are effectively no "rules currently in effect" and that we consequently have a proliferation of nonfree logos, many of which are highly questionable as to whether they are even logos or not. You have to remember that the onus is on those wishing to retain or restore them that there is a consensus for doing so. Failing that, I firmly believe that the free mission argument trumps their decorative or identification use on articles. As to your other questions, I think it is only this use of logos in band infoboxes that we have a consensus to remove at present. That would be an argument for another day. Were that to be raised, I think I would support the nonfree logo fair use argument for companies on the stock exchanges. This is because companies' logos seem far more intrinsically encyclopedic than some artwork cropped out from an album cover, which is all that most of these supposed "logos" for bands were. Of course others may disagree. Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

NiGHTS to Nights

Thanks for changing NiGHTS to Nights (the correct Wikipedian form), as I missed it. Much appreciated. (ApJ (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

My pleasure. :) - Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

U-ka saegusa IN db

Hello Cyrus. I have seen that you moved the article about the J-pop group to its current title. The reason you stated was "moved U-ka saegusa IN db to U-ka Saegusa in dB: moved per naming conventions/Manual of Style". I'm not very familiar with naming conventions on en.wiki but the former title was the group's official name. Could you please explain why this was necessary? Thanks! Kazu89 ^ノート 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. As per WP:MUSTARD#Capitalization and WP:MOSTM, band names are to be subjected to standard English text formatting, with relatively little concern for official capitalization choices. This goes especially for articles about Japan-related subjects (see WP:MOSJP#Capitalization of words in Roman script), due to the high amount of stylized typography found Japanese media. We do this in pursuit of a more unified presentation of the encyclopedia in general and to avoid having certain subjects stand out more for the reader than others (per WP:SOAP/WP:NPOV). Hope that helps. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Template Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		Awarded to Cyrus XIII for creating Template:Tracklist ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I felt obliged to share that honor with the co-creator of the template. He's pretty new on the Wiki, the rather erratic design (and subsequently readability) of our usual track listings being something that actually kept him from contributing. This might strike you as odd, but given that I used to experiment with tables (see the current articles on most L'Arc-en-Ciel albums) before we started work on the template, I can certainly relate. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

L'Arc-en-Ciel

Hello, you have recently undone my edit to L'Arc-en-Ciel article. You did no indicate any reasons for doing so. Please be sure to indicate your reasons when undoing other people's edits, since otherwise it looks like a vandalism and unmotivated move. For now I'm going to re-introduce my changes, as I insist that the name of the band is L'Arc~en~Ciel, not L'Arc-en-Ciel. Netrat_msk (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:L'Arc-en-Ciel. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Insult Kiss Me

I see you removed the {{notability}} tag on Insult Kiss Me, saying that notability is inherited as per WP:MUSIC. If you read WP:MUSIC carefully, it does not say that albums by notable groups are inherently notable; it says that such albums may be notable. Notability is not automatically inherited. --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The exact wording may be "may", but you will probably agree that a widely available release by a notable group would be fairly unlikely to fail WP:MUSIC's criteria. But given that the article on the group itself fails to assert its notability entirely, it is probably unwise to fragment efforts on pointing this out across several pages. I must say, it strikes me as odd, that one would take a special interest in the notability of this particular record, instead of ensuring that it is not merely part of a larger group of articles entirely at odds with our notability guidelines. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

brian d foy

Three months ago you moved this article without participating in the talk page, and I reverted your changes. I see that you just did it again. Accordingly, I have reverted the changes once again.

There has been a considerable amount of discussion regarding the correct capitalization of brian d foy. If you have an opinion on the matter, please participate in the process. — Hex (❝?!❞) 04:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that the treatment of the article you repeatedly reverted has become common practice for articles about subjects with formatting eccentricities in their names and is well in line with our Manual of Style, aren't you? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 04:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think that's the case, bring it up on the talk page. That's the point here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Album naming guideline

Ooops, I meant WP:UE. Thanks for the catch. I should know to check all my links in preview. Oh, and I was leaving it as an abbreviation to save space. But that's fine. -Freekee (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

X Japan

Hello Cyrus! How are you? May I ask you why you removed information about the indie era of X Japan when it comes from official sites and in English? Thank you! Have a nice day! Darkcat21 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a more detailed version of my earlier edit summary on the article's talk page. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 16:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Brilliant Green

Instead of just moving the articles.. why don't you ever fix what's in the article. Fix the same problem inside the article itself.. --staka (Talk ・ Contributions) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, you did not "fix" the capitalization yourself in one of your follow-up edits. Then again, how about we just refrain from pissing each other off for no good reason? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm actually pissed off.. just notifying you. --staka (T ・C) 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for an Administrator position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cyrus_XIII Alexdrake6000 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on that page. Thanks again, but no thanks. :) – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 09:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Opeth logo

Hey there, just wanted to let you know I undid your edit to Opeth which replaced the logo. As part of the Opeth FAC, it was suggested that the logo be removed. I am kinda neutral on the subject (as I think all band articles should use logos, especially heavy metal ones, where the logo is almost always an important identifier for the band) but in this instance, I understand the editor who had issues with the logo's inclusion. Anyway, if you wanna fight for it, check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth. (its under ЭLСОВВОLД's concerns) Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The logo-related concern on the FAC was the file-format (SVG), which is understandable, given that a scalable image can be used for high-quality reproduction. I will do a PNG conversion later today, which should address the issue. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question

It kinda bugs me as to why you always feel the need to edit other people's contributions stylistically, such as you do in the X Japan article. I don't see how your style and tone of writing is better than that of anyone else; and I'm also sure that if somebody else re-worded everything you contributed you would also feel a little angry. What gives you the right to elect yourself as the chief editor of an article? JinecouO.N.E (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look then at that contribution of yours I had the insolence to edit:

• A stray </ref> tag.
• Typography ("schedualled").
• The use of "th" within dates.
• Unnecessarily airy phrases ("it has since transpired", "will see the light of day").

A simple "Thank you, for correcting these mistakes for the benefit of our readers." would have sufficed. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 09:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Granted that the "ref" tag wasn't fleshed out like the others, but that is hardly the point I made. Could you simply have not corrected that and the spelling and then walked away? That would have been fine. I don't see how those are "airy phrases" at all, they merely deal with the situation in a none-generic way and make the article sound like it isn't repeating itself. Maybe I will give you a simple "thank you" when you decide to stop assuming control of everything you touch, or better yet, leave. From the looks of it, many other users have encountered the same kind of gripes with you that I have, that says something to me about your attitude and the kind of person that you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JinecouO.N.E (talk • contribs) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't "leave" anytime soon (in whatever scope you consider that to be desirable). This is Wikipedia, if you do a poor job at editing, someone else will pick up the slack and given our coinciding fields of activity, it is not unlikely that this will again be me.

Furthermore, I honestly don't care what kind of person you think I am. I'm quite tired of your ongoing harassment[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] and if you consider my editorial work detrimental to this project, stop by WP:ANI and knock yourself out. You are certainly no longer welcome on this talk page, as you either don't seem to respect or understand the few simple, behavioral guidelines listed in that box on top of it. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Taskforce for BEMANI

I have created a taskforce, and I hope you express interest on it (: Fireblaster lyz (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Opeth logo

The logo was explicitly asked not to be in the article in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth. I don't own the article, however, if somebody needs help with a certain edit, they should probably come to me because I rewrote the article and am the FAC nominator. Please look at the discussion on the FAC page. The logo should not be there. Burningclean _[speak] 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there. The "closed" FAC discussion wasn't a failure, therefor all comments must stay and be aplied, otherwise it could be demoted. Even though it is so simple, if that discussion had one oppose still standing, it would not have been promoted. Burningclean _[speak] 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, your funny. And no, it was three days ago. Burningclean _[speak] 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bought the timezone thing, I realised that right afterwards. Why do you move all my comments to my talk page? The general consensus and rule is that it does not belong there. Burningclean _[speak] 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I must really fit in...

Is being labeled ethnocentric as a gaijin a compliment???? :-) Neier (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm not sure. But getting that kind of talk for applying English language text-formatting rules to the English Wikipedia is ... something. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have more time than me to fight the good fight. I guess I should put Talk:M*A*S*H on my watch list pre-emptively.  :-) Neier (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

LOTR/SW

Hi Cyrus, re the LOTR/Star Wars link discussion. If the decision is made to remove this material from The Star Wars article, please can you also delete the 'same same but different' material in the 'empire strikes back' article. Thanks Col —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.243.10.13 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually somewhat reluctant to actively join in on disputes for which I have only provided my two cents via WP:3O but given that my evaluation of the source for said content has not been disputed, it seems that you would certainly be at the liberty to remove the respective paragraph and likewise unreferenced content in related articles. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar award, Cyrus XIII! It was my pleasure to help out with the Legs and Boots article. I see you created the track list template? Awesome job! Keep up the good work! =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Template

While your attempts to standardize it with other things across Wiki is appreciated, please discuss drastic changes like that. In this case, dicuss it with the members of WP:SM. Such large changes generally require a consenus amoung other wikipeidans. On a more specific note, the reason we had things sorted the way we did is to seperate the the Royal Trio, the Guardian, the Outers, and the other heros. On the villan side it was to seperate them by Story Arc. If you had already dicussed this and I didn't see it, feel free to revert it. PS: If you are interested in Sailor Moon, please join the wikiproject. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Band logos

Sourced commentary is not 'desirable', it is absolutely essential. Why should logos be treated any different to any other image? We can't just add random non-free images; they should be added only if they add significantly to a reader's understanding of the text. When the logo isn't even mentioned, how can it? We're Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, not Wikipedia, the pretty encyclopedia that doesn't care about copyright. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you might want to take this to the talk page of WP:LOGOS and challenge the bit about "reasonable familiarity" – the images you recently removed conform to that guideline as they have all been associated with the respected article subjects for several years. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOGO is a guideline, and I would even argue that it shouldn't be. If, however, you review our non free content criteria- a well established policy- you will see that the logos' usages are in violation of said policy. Review our featured articles on bands- there's a list of decent heavy metal articles here- you will see that the logos are only included when the prose discusses them. If we include the logo without discussing it, what's to stop us including every non-free image ever associated with the band? Logos should not be treated any differently from any other non-free image- the law doesn't treat them any differently, and neither do Wikipedia's policies. It is undeniable that logos often do meet our criteria, but that doesn't mean that they always do. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that that WP:LOGOS is at odds with our central policies and subsequently needs adjustment or does not deserve its guideline status altogether, again, go to Wikipedia talk:Logos and start a discussion. As long as it remains a guideine or contains the respective passages, I will continue to edit on behalf of that page (and the wider consensus that shaped it) and I will also have to ask you to respect that. Repeated opposition to the application of a guideline on the grounds of disagreement with the guideline alone is not productive. I see that all the time when applying WP:MOSTM to articles with strong fanbases around them and it is a profound waste of energy. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no. To put it overly bluntly, my policy trumps your guideline. End of conversation. There is no way that you can sit there and assert that we should have a non-free image sitting in an article when it is not even discussed in the text. I will review WP:LOGO a little more in-depth now. J Milburn (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed WP:LOGO, I see nothing in it that disagrees with anything I have said. I dislike the wording, and that's why I would dispute it as a solid guideline, but that is neither here nor there. No where does it, and no where should it, go against our non-free content criteria. Also, those are guidelines for corporate logos, I think a strong argument could be made that band logos should be treated differently. In any case, you reinsert logos citing that guideline- can I ask, exactly which part of that guideline are you citing? 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So the conversation has not ended after all – good. The respective passage would be: "Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar" If a subject has chosen to strongly associate itself with an image over an extended period of time, the image becomes noteworthy in the context of said subject. Also the guideline does not limit the scope of the term "owner" (of a logo) to companies, hence bands, as just another type of organization and also solo artists are well covered by it, which in turn conforms with WP:NPOV. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my comment there was overly blunt, as I made clear. As for "If a subject has chosen to strongly associate itself with an image over an extended period of time, the image becomes noteworthy in the context of said subject." I disagree- usually, yes, but not always. I absolutely agree that noteworthy logos should be included, but I disagree that we are able to decide when a logo has become noteworthy by arbitarily judging how long a band has been associated with it- instead, we should base whether the logo is noteworthy by whether the band members, or, even better, third party sources discuss it in writing, and include said commentary in the article. Then we can include an image of the logo, to show what we are talking about. If the logo has never been discussed by the band members or other sources, then who are we to say it's noteworthy? J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are proposing a level of scrutiny we are obviously not applying at this project, not even by a long shot. Are you prepared to challenge the use of every fair use logo on Wikipedia that lacks a referenced discussion? Because anything else would be promoting a double-standard. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 01:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Using that logic, whenever I edit a metal-related page, I should edit a rap-related page. I'll edit what I want to edit/what I come across, and will apply higher levels of scrutiny in the areas I am familiar with, confident that my counterparts with other hobbies, tastes, interests and areas of knowledge/familiarity are doing the same. Every article, file, guideline or whatever should be treated on its own merits, and Wikipedia isn't perfect, I don't think anyone would say it is, but we can all try to do our bit to get it there. Basically- yes, I wish to apply the same standards everywhere, (or, I wish the same stadards were applied everywhere) but no, I won't be the one to do it, because I'm not the only person on this project, and I don't want to devote my on-Wiki time to something that is going to turn established and decent editors against me; there are lots of things that I do and want to do on Wikipedia, and this is just one of them. J Milburn (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is why I suggested a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Logos in pursuit of clarification (and if consensus supports it, adjustment) in the first place. Taking a dispute that concerns multiple articles to guideline-level is the sensible thing to do, if we (within the scope of effort we can muster as individuals) want to improve Wikipedia as a whole. Which is something we both obviously want, we merely differ on the threshold for inclusion of a type of image. For you, referenced discussion is a requirement, while for me association over an extended period of time suffices. And I do realize that my criteria remains rather vague, but if WP:LOGOS, with its reasonable familiarity won't be anymore specific neither will I. As I noticed, you already posted the guideline talk page, I'm eager to see what will come of it. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Deliberate undent) Just to let you know, I'm not watching this page, and I am heading off for the evening now. Any further discussion you wish to have, drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop changing SuperS

Please stop changing all instances of SuperS to Supers across the Sailor Moon pages - the actual name of the SuperS series has not changed, just its name on Wikipedia. Changing the links would be fine, changing all instances of SuperS to Supers is uncalled for. -Malkinann (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is, as the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia Manual of Style calls for consistent application of its style and formatting guidelines. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case MOS doesn't apply. The capitalization of SuperS is not only the reasult of Engrish, Its also the offical capitalzaion. Due to the latter, It would be the same as going to iPod and Replaceing them all with Ipod or eBay with Ebay. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The circumstances that "SuperS" is an incorrect variation of English or the official typeset have no bearing on how we render them here. If you read WP:MOSTM carefully, you will also realize that the iPod/eBay examples are a different story entirely, since the guideline specifically addresses such cases of separable, one-letter-prefixes. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 16:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:The pillows logo.png

Eh, its a close one. I'd say leave it fairuse, since the angle at the end and the rounded corners at the beginning are an integral and separate part of the logo from the text itself. MBisanz ^talk 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Teruzane Utada

1. There's an article on the Japanese Wikipedia so translation is a possibility. 2. I got some newspaper articles who briefly state who Teruzane Utada is. I'll find more.. 3. If you want to challenge its notability why not use AFD? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also since the Washington Post article states "famed music producer who oversaw his wife's career" perhaps archives from the 1980s and/or 1970s may refer to him... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are pretty solid sources, though the scope of his own professional career still needs to be fleshed out, if anything, to make this article of any interest to our readers that goes beyond "the record producer who is the father of Hikaru Utada". – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian D Foy

While I agree with the stance you're taking, please don't change the titles of the references to match the article title. The links are actually titled with "brian d foy". — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just applying the MOS consistently, but since I'm not aware of any guideline for or against the normalization of citation titles, I'll just leave it like that now. After all, I still have to unearth reputable sources on the capitalization of proper nouns... – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 18:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

dEUS videos

Dear Cyrus XIII,

if you require confirmation that dEUS has given permission to add links to their official videos on YouTube on the dEUS Band page on Wikipedia, send me an email and I will ask the dEUS management to send you a reply.

Elice (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, as the band's website already links to the YouTube channel, which confirm its authenticity. But even with, or should I say especially with official backing, such an exhaustive list of external links (potentially promotional in nature) collides with certain parts of the WP:NOT guideline (see the soapbox and repository bits). As a compromise, I have added the YouTube channel to the article's External links section. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 22:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:X Japan

I'll take another look and leave my comments on the talk page for the article. But first, I've got a couple things that I noticed at the first look:

I've got no problem with first-party sources, WP:SELFPUB says that's okay. As long as it's relevant and the article doesn't fully rely on them, it's ok. If you've fixed the linking problem for every source that I had the first time I looked, then you should be fine. I know finding sources might be difficult, but I've done it before with another article that seemed even more impossible (read Crush 40, that was nearly impossible to source the style section). Also, I seriously doubt you'll get enough out of the article for four samples, cut it down to one or two and you should be fine as long as you write good fair use rationales and connections to the text. You could work the samples into the history section, but you'd need to explain in the text how that particular song is relevant and the sample is used in an encyclopedic manner.

Best of luck, I'll take another look later tonight, I've got some work I have to take care of first. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit to Crush 40, but I've got just one issue: Can you set it so the track listings are showing to start instead of hidden? Otherwise, I may just have to revert it, but it really is a cool feature if I can get it to show when the article first opens. Anyway, the hold period is up for X Japan, and I plan on taking another look later today. If you need more time, just ask, and I'll be more than happy to let you have it. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rossz csillag alatt született

Please do not change capitalization in this article. The album and song titles are in Hungarian and follow Hungarian capitalization rules (refer to this page for a short summary). KovacsUr (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to revert most of your recent edit, as it contradicted the Wikipedia Manual of Style, our guidelines for music related articles as well as every outside source (both first-party and third-party) and review we have on the album. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will have to revert your edit as often as the 3RR allows. I am positive your intentions are good, but you are in effect vandalizing the article by reverting it to a broken state. I advise you to read the lengthy discussion about this topic on the article's talk page, 5thEye's talk page and the relevant section on the WikiProject Albums talk page. KovacsUr (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just adding this because, as far as I know, it has not been mentioned elsewhere. In contrast with English, capitalization rules in Hungarian are not a question of style. We have a system of rules regulating written Hungarian laid down and governed by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. There is only one clearly defined way of capitalizing song and album titles. KovacsUr (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all good and well (while uncited) but this is not the Hungarian Wikipedia. When it comes to style, we follow the lead of reputable English sources (lest we pertain to original research) and when there is as clear a preference for a particular typeset as this among such sources (including the label that published the album we are discussing) we cannot just ignore that, especially when our own style guides do not accommodate your desired approach. Also, in order to advance your position, you might want to refrain from outright declaring an edit war ("will have to revert your edit as often as the 3RR allows") or dismissing editing done with the WP:MOS and WP:OR/WP:V in mind as vandalism. We have proper means of dispute resolution, so lets use them. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I appeared aggressive, it's only that I am a bit tired of having to come back to this article and fix it again whenever someone new comes along who is not familiar with the rules of capitalization in Hungarian (or thinks foreign titles should be capitalized according to English rules). Naturally I am all for resolving this issue amicably, but since you apparently ignored all previous conversation on this topic and went ahead and changed capitalization, it seemed to me that you would be unwilling to become involved in a debate.

The language of a wiki is of little relevance when it comes to article titles in a foreign language, at least as long as both languages use the Latin writing system (see the examples of article names in German and French on enwiki I have given earlier). You cannot expect a poor reviewer at Rolling Stone or NME to know anything about Hungarian grammar (or to even know what language the album title is in), therefore the "reputable English sources" you cited are not all that reputable when it comes to the question of correct capitalization. KovacsUr (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As for your comment about WP:OR, capitalization rules in Hungarian can hardly be deemed original research. The full text of A magyar helyesírás szabályai is available on Wikisource. The relevant section is the following: A címek. A rough translation is provided on the MusicBrainz page linked earlier. KovacsUr (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is very similar to the debate about Japanese romanization of words. The Japanese government has a preferred system (Romanization of Japanese, which conflicts with most academics, and which we have rejected here at WP. We don't have Itirô Suzuki, even though that is the Japanese legal spelling of his name. We have the article at the name which is reported by most reputable sources, even if those sources aren't aware of the laws pertaining to romanization of Japanese names. And, just as we cannot expect that the Rolling Stone reviewer is aware of the language of a title, we should not expect or enforce a country's system for titling outside that country, just because their language matches the piece's name which otherwise is not related to the laws of the country at all. If Hungarian law prohibited singing about mimes, and I created a song "Suppression of the mimes" translated into Hungarian, how would the Hungarian title be presented? Neier (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no similarity whatsoever as Japanese is not written in Latin. It has more to do with titles in French or German like Der Luftpirat und sein Lenkbares Luftschiff, Voyage autour du monde or Tentative d'épuisement d'un lieu parisien. It would be silly to enforce English capitalization rules on these. KovacsUr (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You keep reverting capitalization in the article to a broken state. Please stop and take the time to explain why you believe foreign titles in general should be capitalized according to English capitalization standards, or if you think Rossz csillag alatt született is an exception, please explain what you think makes it different from Ohne dich, for example. I suggest you read WP:CAPS again, look at existing articles about works having foreign titles and, most importantly, use common sense. KovacsUr (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

your changes to the DearS article

I have reverted your changes to DearS article. I'm guessing you probably think "DearS" is the single word "dears", the plural form of the noun "dear". In actuality, the "S" is pronounced separately, and the "dear" is an adjective. If anything about "DearS" is stylistic, it is the lack of a space. Thus, a completely non-stylized form would be "Dear S". The version without a space is known as CamelCase, and Wikipedia's style guide explicitly allows it. The CamelCase article has many examples of articles with CamelCase titles. The form "Dear S" would also work, but "Dears" is just wrong. "DearS" means "dear friends", not "dears". The term is pronounced like "dear ess" in the anime. Herorev (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Columns in Template:Tracklist

I have posted my thoughts regarding your proposal on columns in Template:Tracklist over at my talk page. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright controversy - title

Hi Cyrus XIII, There is currently a proposal to change the existing title "Jeremiah Wright controversy" that we supported last month. If you could "Oppose title change" on the talk page [[23]], it would be appreciated. Thanks, IP 75 75.25.30.215 (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tracklist - Newcolumn

Sweet. Nice work. Thanks for the effort of putting it in. Do you plan on updating the template use too?happypal (Talk | contribs) 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but I'd like to throw a few more tests at it first and find a good "use it, but sparingly" wording for the documentation. So far, the new code does not seem to break any of the previous template instances and I really wanted to get the improved column spacing out of the door, as the overall look benefits from that quite a bit. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 06:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. If the documentation isn't great, or if the template isn't perfect when it "ships", it'll attract negative attention. The new Column spacing looks good btw.happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

K. D. Lang

If you're going to move pages against talk-page consensus, the least you can do is fix the double redirects you caused. —Angr 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Album credits

Hi you've made numerous changes to album pages referencing WP:LISTS#Tables. The page itself discourages the use of tables. For the proper nomenclature for album credits, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. WP:LISTS#Tables deems table-based lists useful "when three columns and more are required" which strictly speaking applies to all album track listings (number, title, length) and most certainly as soon as additional information, such as per-track notes or songwriting credits crop up.

I am not going to bore you with a lengthy argument on how table-based track listings are more readable or how every other large venue on that web has them (unless of course you'd like to discuss those points). Just let me tell you that as a member of WikiProject Music I am aware of WP:ALBUMS, as well as WP:MUSTARD (and also fairly active on the respective talk pages) and probably because of that I usually try to go beyond what has already been codifyed in hallowed guideline scripture when working to make our music related articles more approachable and visually appealing for our readers.

One last thing, when you undo an edit, please confine that to the changes you actually disagree with. I have no reason to doubt your good intentions but I also cannot think of a sensible reason to revert [[Allmusic]] back to [[All Music Guide]], among other things. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You've failed to tell me why you are insistent on going against what is stated on WP:ALBUMS. Just because album credits fit nicely into the idea of WP:LISTS#Tables it still goes against standard practice. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Then tell me, if my editing is unacceptable because it "goes against standard practice", how do you reckon are new practices and methods supposed to come about at all? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 16:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

By bringing them up in talk pages (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums), not by bulldozing them onto pages and forcing the issue. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Template:Tracklist

I replied to your reply on Template talk:Tracklist and, hopefully, fixed the remaining issues. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 21:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merged Infoboxes

Hey Cyrus XIII, thanks for the merged info boxes that you implemented into the To Venus and Back and Live at Montreux 1991/1992 articles. I didn't know how to do such a thing, otherwise I would have done so myself. It's good to see people like you out there who positively contribute to the Wikipedia. =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's always nice to have bits of information fall into place that nicely. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 02:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the barnstar! --PresN (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

From Jerzy, regarding the page we both recently edited

I'm making a point to mention this to you without a lk, lest i seem at first glance to be urging you to action, even in the low-key form of "following the action".

I'm not going to presume to counsel you unless you so request, but in the role of an admin who is already trying to moderate to some extent on that page, i do want to inform you that:

In response to the last matter you raised and the response that got, i have also expressed my concern.

The issue is serious and far from resolved.

If you should choose to concentrate your attention on keeping your cool, that would not be neglectful.

Thank you for your attention.
--Jerzy•t 06:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not aware of any precedents or policy bits that would warrant such a suspension, I also don't have any reason to doubt your best intentions. Still, if you will have a word of advice from me on this matter: Moderation and discussion don't mix very well. If you suspend a discussion in which you have actively participated and voiced your own opinion, it may suggest a conflict of interest, unwarranted or not. Put into your position, I'd opt for presenting the case to other admins and leave it to their discretion to decide what needs to be done to keep the peace.

Regarding that peace (at Talk:Bell Hooks), Godheval's open disregard for WP:CIVIL obviously does not help matters but beyond cautioning him in that respect, I'm really not interested in giving it further attention. That would be rather unproductive on my end and if he is bent on weakening his own position in that discussion, it's regrettable but ultimately fine by me too. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 12:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for all of that feedback and input. And please specifically say so, if any of it needs soon the response beyond this perfunctory note that it eventually deserves.
  --Jerzy•t 00:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  

Question regarding Template:Cite music release notes

Hi Cyrus XIII, you created this template a while ago and over at its talk page we are a few people who wonder if it's not redundant with another more widespread template. A comment would be appreciated. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

track listing change

You replaced the track listing table at "Weird Al" Yankovic; there's currently an in-depth discussion being the article's talk page, and it seems moreso that consensus is to follow WP:ALBUMS' MoS and use the numbered track listing standard. If you'd like to contribute your input to the discussion though, we'd be more than happy to hear you out! Cheers. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)