User talk:Rock Soldier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  --evrik (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects and cut/paste

Hi! It looks like you're trying to move one or more pages. However, please stop doing that this way - the new name of the page might be good, but Wikipedia has another procedure for moving pages. Look at Help:Renaming (moving) a page: you need to use the move tab, and not cut and paste. Cut and paste moves don't take the edit history with them and thus violate the GFDL copyright terms. Also, in some cases, when the move might be controversial, you might first want to discuss the move on the article's talk page. If a move is not possible because a page with the new name already exists, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks!

Also, it would be incorrect to move some of the pages you have for reasons of convention. For example, the article named "Leaving Here" is already a song, which would make "Leaving Here (song)" a bit of a redundant disambiguation. This is why it was at "Leaving Here (Motörhead song)" (the fact that it should really be under "Leaving Here (Motörhead single)" is currently under debate! The same goes for "Louie Louie" as well. "Motorhead (song)" and its live counterpart were thus placed for logical reasons explained on its history log by Kingboyk. Hope this clears things up for you, and keep up the good work in the field of music. Rock on! Bubba hotep 09:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Tito_&_Tarantula.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Cruzados-album.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

That's some seriously painstaking work you've been doing recently, doing those sorts of expansions usually make my eyes glaze over after a bit, it's laborious stuff and it's appreciated. Thanks.--Alf melmac 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you're going to do something ...

... learn to do it right. --evrik (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Metal Bands

I've seen you on the metallica page doing it, but this also happened on the Megadeth page. Do not set the tables on metal bands to your version. They are not as aesthetically useful. The grid form shows the longetivity and time period easier. Mobus 04:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis timeline

Hi Rock Soldier, I wanted to reach out to you to talk about the Genesis timeline. I say this with all sincereity, I truly do appreciate your edits and your attempts in trying to improve the quality of this article. However, the the initial edits made by you had affected to format and display of the timeline in the main article. The second edit, I'm sorry to say, made the timeline look rather confusing with acronyms that not everyone would/could immediately understand. Therefore I would like to revert back to the original version. My reasoning is simple — when the timeline was initially created, it was meant to document active Genesis personnel through the years and not necessarily to talk about what instruments they played. Also, the Genesis Infobox at the very top right corner of the Genesis article discusses the various instruments played by Genesis personnel in the sections "Members" and "Former Members", so this information is repetetive.

Again, I would like to say that I truly do appreciate your efforts and would like to request you to continue contributing to and monitoring this and other articles to improve their overall quality. Thanks AreJay 15:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I'm not at all being funny, but what is it with your propensity for trying to condense two articles down to one when two is just fine in a non-paper enyclopedia, considering it reads and navigates better for the common-or-garden user? Does it offend your Wiki-nature? – B.hotep u/t• 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus if you are wondering why I have been a bit short with you with your big ideas at various article talk pages and actions without consultation with peers – consider the fact that you never reply to, or even acknowledge, queries or actions contrary to your own holding. I've invested 3,000+ hours into this project, always with consultation. I can't afford much time nowadays, hence the pert input countering your proposals. – B.hotep u/t• 22:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page

Very nice new user page, it seems vaguely familiar, now where have I seen that before? :D --Alf melmac 14:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Well, I decided I was tired of seeing the red in the link to my page, so I just went to the first userpage I could find, copied what I could from there, and took it from there. Maybe I'll get around to some originality some day. :)
--Rock Soldier 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the redlink go, look forward to version two ;) Just to let you know that there is now a Wikipedia:WikiProject Motörhead.--Alf melmac 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a few editing tip

You keep making a blunder on your Deep Purple album edits. Please read WP:ALBUM#Chronology for explanation on the proper entries for 'next' and 'previous' album fields. 156.34.216.32 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It says "Only studio albums, usually excluding live albums, compilations, singles and EPs should be included in the chronology." So by that I would assume that all of the live albums and compilation albums would be left out of the chronology. But why, then, does the chronology include Made in Japan and 30: Very Best of Deep Purple?
--Rock Soldier 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It was suggested that you be made aware of WT:ALBUM#Quick question about recent edit summary. (As for chronologies, it is preferred (that's what "usually" refers to) that they don't include live albums, but that guideline is often disregarded, most likely because many editors are unfamiliar with it.) Have a nice day. --PEJL 15:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
So what should be done: should we delete all the live albums from the Deep Purple album chronology, or should we add in all the live and compilation albums, ordered by year?
--Rock Soldier 21:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] read WP:FAIR

Adding album covers to song articles is a violation of WP:FAIR. Covers are only fair-use in the article about the album itself. Not fair-use for the songs from the album. Songs categorized as singles can have covers but not from the album... only the actual single cover itself. Feel free to delete any/all "album" covers from song articles unless the song is designated a single... and the proper single cover is being used(that image, of course, must have fair-use rationale and proper sourcing) 156.34.228.60 01:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is also mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Single cover. --PEJL 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed your Satriani info box

209.181.219.106 15:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on For Whom the Bell Tolls (Metallica song). 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 that gains a consensus among editors. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect genre additions

Perhaps you should read Folk rock and Symphonic rock. Since you don't know what these genres really are perhaps its best that you not add them to any articles until you learn more about them. Also maybe read Hard rock as well. Again... since you don't know what that genre incorporates it would be best that you not try to remove valid placement of it from articles until you get a better understanding of what it is. Hope that helps. 156.34.218.39 19:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An editing question

How come your editing under your Rock Soldier account now. But earlier you edited anonymously as IP 69.148.69.175? And then you created a new user account called Cholmes76 even though you already have a Rock Soldier account? And previously you've edited as IP 69.148.83.96, IP 69.148.83.96, IP 68.88.71.191, IP 69.148.68.58, IP 69.148.69.125 and many more different IP #'s even though you have a very active username? And if you have this account why did you create an account called Metal Head 4 life? Why do you need to edit under different usernames? 142.166.250.54 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I only know of three user I've edited as. There's this account, obviously, there was before I created an account, when I must have been one of those IP addresses (I'm honestly not sure which one), and then my old computer crashed, and I had to get a new one, and may have edited a few times without realizing I wasn't logged in. I don't know why I was listed under so many different IP addresses before I made an account, but it was the same computer for all but one of them. As for the Cholmes76, that's not me. I don't know who that is or how people ended up thinking that that's me, but I can guarantee you that it's not. Does that answer your question?
--Rock Soldier 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting of album genres

Hi there. Please note that genres should be delimited by commas, not line breaks, in album infoboxes. See WP:ALBUM#Genre. Also, if a genre needs to be referenced, it should be referenced in the body of the article, not the infobox, which is only meant to summarize facts stated in the body of the article. Have a nice day. --PEJL 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you've started adhering to the first part. I'd like to repeat my suggestion that you consider the second part. Writing about the musical style of an album is important (see WP:ALBUM#Article body). If you feel that an album is hard rock, you could start by just stating that in the article body, and referencing it there. Once such a statement is in place, it can be included into the infobox as well, which as I noted above should summarize facts stated elsewhere in the article. I think your changes would have a higher likelihood of remaining unreverted if you were to do that. --PEJL 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help

Since you are an editor from Dallas, Texas perhaps you could take a quick look at the Texas blues article and see if you can assist in some of the cleanup there. It is a very brief article and has no citations for any content. Some of the structure could use a little work as well to bring it into line with other Wikipedia music pages. Just hoping that since you are active on many music related articles and editing from Dallas Texas, you might be able to provide some positive contribution. Thanks. 198.164.250.152 12:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You confusion over genres

You really need to take the time to read and understand different music genres before trying to edit them. And you can't use All music Guide as a source for genres either. AMG distinguishes between "Genre" and "Style"... something Wikipedia doesn't do as a practice. For example, if you look at AMG's listings for ZZ Top albums... read them closely... only 1 genre is ever listed... Rock. Everything else is placed under "Style" and NOT genre... so as a reference for genre... it can't be used since it doesn't support the text being referenced. All Music Guide does have articles about different Rock music styles. In each Style article the website lists key artists by priority in each category. Look at Southern Rock on AMG. ZZ Top is NOT listed as a "Tier 1" southern rock band. AMG loses all validity after it's first tier rankings so as a citation for content on Wikipedia... unless the artist is a Level 1... AMG doesn't apply. That being said... look at the Hard Rock article on All Music Guide and pay particular attention to their Tier 1 listing. ZZ Top is listed as a Level 1 Hard Rock artist on All Music Guide and they apply that style to all their albums. Hope that helps you with your misunderstanding of the Hard Rock genre... and ZZ Top's placement in it. Trying asking for help bwfore you try editing any genres on Wikipedia. Your batting average so far is zero and you could really use some help. 156.34.230.78 23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Tito_Larriva.jpg

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking track names

Hi there. Note that the track names you are linking are redirects back to the album article. As such, I've reverted them. --PEJL 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, I just though it looked a little more official to have a link for each song on the album page. But if you insist.
--Rock Soldier 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It may look official, but it is misleading to the reader, and inappropriate per WP:MUSIC#Songs. --PEJL 20:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:...And Justice For All.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:...And Justice For All.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BandB (talk•contribs) 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:After Dark.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:After Dark.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:After-Dark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:After-Dark.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Total Abandon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Total Abandon.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lemmy -> Kilmister

Every single piece of music that has been written by Lemmy that has ever been published has been published under his surname Kilmister. I have never seen any writing credits for "Lemmy". Drwhawkfan 11:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Even so, he's simply Lemmy. When you say Lemmy, people don't ask "who, Lemmy Kilmister, or...", he's the one and only, and people recognize him by just his first name. Take a look at his page, he's listed under "Lemmy". Nothing more. I don't know why he's credited as Lemmy Kilmister, but here we should keep it as Lemmy. On albums where someone is credited by a name that they are less commonly known as, they're still listed by their better-known names here, right? Take Tres Hombres for example, where Frank Beard is credited as Rube Beard on the album. On the page, he's still listed as Frank, with the alternate credit listed in parenthesis. Understand?
If you really think something should be done, take it up in the Motörhead talk page. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure "Kilmister" counts as a mis-credit.
--Rock Soldier 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Read WP:FAIR again

An editor has incorrectly added additional fair-use rationale for some cover images. Double check all covers to make sure they list only the album and not any songs contained on the album. Adding songs to the image fair-use rationale actually voids the use of the image because it introduces a copyright violation to the licensing. Fair-use rationale cannot contradict the actual WP:FAIR policy that all Wikipedia editors must follow to the letter. Remember, if you catch any images that are trying to sidestep Wikipedia policy it is up to you to correct them. If anyone knowingly violates the rules set down by WP:FAIR they place WIkipedia in a compromised postition as far as reliability is concerned. Any images that look like they are copyright infringements can be reported directly to an administrator for either correction or deletion. Hope that helps. Read the policy and try to understand it. 156.34.219.132 (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Duplicate Image:Electric-Eye.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Electric-Eye.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Electric-Eye.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Electric-Eye.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of List of Nirvana band members

A tag has been placed on List of Nirvana band members requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ScarianTalk 22:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Please stop going through articles adding unnecessary details e.g. This is your edit to the Nirvana article [1] and this is the reversion of it [2]. It is completely unnecessary, it doesn't need to be done. Thank you. ScarianTalk 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. It does no harm to the article and doesn't occupy rediculous amounts of space or anything like that, I see more of a problem in not having such details than in having them. Like in that article, it lists both Kurt Cobain and Dave Grohl under simply "vocals", when Kurt sang lead and Dave sang backup, except on the song Marigold. With them both listed under vocals, it makes it look as though they're both lead vocalists, like co-lead vocals. I amended it to specify that Kurt sings lead to avoid such confusion. Now tell me, what is wrong with that?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should take that up with the user who actually reverted it :-) - I follow his lead generally because he is right. User:ChrisB is the one you want to talk about that to. ScarianTalk 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to reiterate the above - you've added unnecessary things to a bunch of Slayer articles. They'll all be reverted, so stop please wasting people's time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
May I please know what is wrong with what I am doing? Seriously, I'm just making it more convenient. How is there a single disadvantage to it? Not to mention the fact that I'm not even adding unnecessary details to those articles, I'm just editing them to clear things up! What is the problem here?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll be brief - keep adding those damn personnel sections to the Slayer articles, I will report you to WP:ANI. You are not clearing things up at all, but being a complete nuisance. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh what, now we're not supposed to have personnel sections in album articles?
I seriously can not understand why you're reverting my edits. I was clearing things up, and if anyone's being a nuisance, it's you for reverting them. It seems like you have some mortal rivalry against personnel sections in articles, and you keep on reverting my edits when I edit a track listing section to include the full names of the people who wrote the songs. I can understand why you would do that if I were to list the full names of the people who wrote every song on the album every time their name showed up on the track listing, but I only added it the first time so that later on down the track listing, the reader would know who the hell it's talking about! I mean seriously, what's the point of listing the songwriting credits if the only things listed are the last names? How is that helpful?
Now, until you can give me one good reason why you are reverting my edits (and no "it was unnecessary" crap, real reasons) and putting less clear revisions in the articles, I plan to go on with my edits, thank you very much.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM has no bearing on Wikipedia's official policy - it's clear you don't seem to understand, so I am reporting you to ANI. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What "official policy"? An official policy about what? And why are you reporting me? You still have yet to identify a single thing I have done wrong!
--Rock Soldier (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet to identify? How about;

a) Not consulting other contributors before making changes. b) Adding content which does nothing whatsoever to improve an article, as you've done in the past as noted above. c) Trying invoke WikiProject guidelines as though they are official policy.

Also, to add to that, you just deleted an introductory paragraph to the "Track listing" of Christ Illusion which explained that a special edition version of the album was issued. These edits haven't improved the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're exaggerating. The content I added was helpful, I was clarifying who wrote what songs using more than just a last name, but somehow you prefer it the confusing way, where we're expected to know who the listed name is referring to just from the last name. I added personnel sections, which I think are a useful part of the article so that the reader doesn't have to go digging through details to find out who played what on the album, but you didn't like that either. It's not vandalism, these are helpful edits! I don't see how you can only see it as unnecessary changes, but then again, you've never explained a single way that my edits are unnecessary, you just keep on saying that they are and seem to expect me to be convinced by that.
As for invoking Wikiproject guidelines as though they are official policy, I do that to try to get things the way wikipedia intended them. I know they're not official policy, but it does say that personnel sections belong in articles, and songwriters should be credited by their full names. However, you simply ignore that too and act as if you are the rules. You have yet to give one rationale for reverting my additions of personnel sections and formatting the track listings so that only last names are given. Like I said, I know it's only guidelines, but name we one place where it says that articles are strictly not supposed to have personnel sections? No? Didn't think so.
And stop looking at only what I deleted and take a look at what I contributed. Yes, I deleted that first paragraph in the Christ Illusion track listing, but I then listed the tracks that the paragraph talked about in the track listing. Why would you rather have a paragraph telling what tracks there are than an actual track listing that lists the tracks? Try seeing a little more than the fact that I cleared the paragraph, and think twice before you say that these edits haven't improved the article.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is not resolved in any way whatsoever - I wrote those FAs, not you. They were passed too in their state, without a personnel section. Do not try enforcing them on everyone else, as I will not stand for it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And why not? What is so terrible about having a personnel section in an article? It's not vandalism, it's a necessity!
--Rock Soldier (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Rock Soldier, it's probably time to stop with the revert wars and move on to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. —Zeagler (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Electric Eye.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Electric Eye.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Through the Night

I'm reverting your recent edit of On Through the Night for the following reasons:

1. You rearranged the names in the writing credits, and I can't figure out why. When I changed the order, I referenced SRM 1-3828. The only version that would take precedence over that is 910 204-0. If that's what you were going from (but I doubt it's any different), go ahead and change it back, but update the reference, as well.
2. You added links to songs that only point back to On Through the Night. Song links should only be added "if a track has an article of its own." (see WP:ALBUM#Track listing)
3. You added a link to Andrew Smith, but it points to a disambiguation page where this particular Andrew Smith almost certainly isn't listed. If he has his own article, point directly to it. If he doesn't, the link is unnecessary.
4. You rearranged the personnel and changed/added to their forms of participation. Again, the list I used comes from SRM 1-3828. (You also changed the formatting of the Personnel section - that's no skin off my back.) —Zeagler (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, let's figure this out. You say the changes to Def Leppard's part of the Personnel section should be made. Can you explain 1) why your order is better than the order given on the back of SRM 1-3828 and 2) why your credits are better than those given on the same? —Zeagler (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize that the way they were listed was the actual version listed on the album. Now that I know, they can stay that way. Just to clarify, though, is Joe Elliott really listed as "throat"?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah...I remember thinking as a kid how "rock 'n' roll" that was. If I'm not mistaken, it's listed that way on the CD version, as well. By the way, I appreciate the work you're putting into the Def Leppard articles here. And I support your revision to Christ Illusion, and I think it'll stand up if you go about it the right way. LuciferMorgan doesn't have an argument. —Zeagler (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we're both on the same page then.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because some other editor above, Zeagler, who didn't wrote those FAs, says you can add personnel sections, doesn't mean you can. And Zeagler, if you have something to say then say it on my page - it won't stand at all, and I won't let it stand. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what ANI said at all, and I am 110% reverting you. I'm fully aware you're a sockpuppet of an abusive editor anyway, so go and annoy someone else. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And leave it you say? I am not leaving it at all. Before I leave it, I will have to be banned permanently. I don't tolerate bullshit from abusive idiots like you, or anyone else. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Leave him alone, he was just telling me that he supported me in the case, he wasn't saying anything directed at you.
You were the one who reported me to the ANI, and seemed to think that they would agree with your unjustified case, but they didn't (surprise, surprise). They pointed out that my edits are no more disruptive than yours, and that your reverting of my edits is more disruptive than my edits in the first place. But no, you refused to hear them. All you seem to be able to see is you own way, and any time another user points out some error in your ways you get all furious, start calling them disruptive, and institing that you're right no matter what. That's what people did when you reported me to the ANI, they tried to point out your mistakes, but once again you became all defensive. They ruled in favor of me though, so what are you going to do now? Just keep reverting. And I'm no sockpuppet, you're just saying that to accuse me of something else.
And why do you have such a problem with having the pages that way? I'm not vandalizing the page with some stupid middle school lingo, I'm adding a requirement listed in WP:ALBUM. I don't see why you are so strongly against that, it's just a damn personnel section! People shouldn't have to read through entire articles to find out who played what on it! And just because you're the main contributor of the article doesn't make a difference either. You seem to think that because of your contributions, you're somehow "superior" to others and get to decide which edits get passed and which don't. WAKE UP! THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING PERSONNEL SECTIONS IN ARTICLES DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE THEM!
--Rock Soldier (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not a requirement, so stop lying. WP:ALBUM has that as a guideline, and that guideline wasn't voted on by the community as a whole. Furthermore, it's a guideline - stop trying to enforce guidelines on others. Until it is actually mandatory, go and annoy someone else. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Requirement or not, it's more just to make a decision based on WP:ALBUM than to do one just based on whatever the hell it is you're basing your edits on, you've still yet to identify a single reason why the addition of personnel sections is so disruptive. Seriously, you have no argument, all you've done is bicker at me about things I do, but you still have yet to go past the vague and unsupported description saying "your edits were vague" in terms of self-explanation. There's no guideline, requirement, or unspoken rule of any sort that says that album articles should not have personnel sections. So rather than tell me to "go annoy someone else", why don't you consider not deleting useful information from articles for a change?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't whatsoever. You're trying to enforce a guideline as mandatory onto others, so this is wrong. The reason why this is disruptive is due to the fact while others are trying to improve articles, you're adding useless (yes, useless) information to the articles without consulting anyone. As concerns the WP:ALBUM guideline, this wasn't even voted on - that's a virtually dead project that just discusses things now and again. They haven't written a single FA since their existence, but merely collect FAs from other projects and claim credit. By right, WP:ALBUM should be tagged as inactive until others can prove otherwise.

As concerns deleting useful information, I haven't. I have deleted useless information added by a disruptive sockpuppet. I even had an anonymous editor warn me that you're a sockpuppet, and a comparison of the edit patterns support this. While we're on the subject of useful information, what useful information have you contributed in your entire history as an editor? Care to tell everyone? Or do you want me to state it in black and white? None. Nothing. Just spamming articles with useless lists. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory or not, at least I have something to back up my argument. And you're talking about improving articles? You're saying that others are, while I'm adding useless information? Well, I'll tell you something, deleting information is not improving articles. Adding a personnel section is not harmful to an article at all, and deleting it is. Just because the information is stated in the body paragraph doesn't mean it should not, by any means, be listed in a clear format at the bottom. And if so, why don't we just forget about the track listing too while we're at it, since just about all the information about that is covered in the body paragraph as well! What's the difference? Honestly, it's a wonder that I'm the one who's getting in trouble here, as I have, in reality, been the one contributing useful information to articles, while you are the one who has been relentlessly deleting it over and over again. This makes it all the more ironic that you're the one saying that I'm a sockpuppet, and that I'm the one who's contributed nothing in my entire history. Take a look at my contributions! Pages of painstaking work for you! I've even been personally thanked by other users for taking the time to do the work that I do! So get your fucking facts straight before you go accusing me of having contributed "None. Nothing. Just spamming articles with useless lists". I have just as much of a right to say "While we're on the subject of useful information, what useful information have you contributed in your entire history as an editor? Care to tell everyone? Or do you want me to state it in black and white? Just spamming articles by deleting useful lists".
Honestly, all personal arguments aside, would it really kill you to have a personnel section in the article? Would it keep you up at night, just picturing that list (that, mind you, is in just about all other articles) glaring at you from the bottom of the page? It's not vandalism, it's not blanking the page, it's not even something that anyone else actually has a problem with. Hell, it's something that other users encourage, it's something that other users add when they're writing an album article! So bash the WP:Album guidelines all you like, the fact remains that personnel sections are here to stay, and you can erase it from those two articles all you like, but that's not going to change anything. If you like, I could make a list of every album article I know on wikipedia that has a personnel section. I wouldn't be surprised if you go on a deleting rampage and clear every personnel section out from each article, only to be confronted by the editors of those articles. Then you'll have a bit of explaining to do, won't you?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I noticed you reverted the changes I made to the order of the names in the writing credits and personnel sections of Hysteria (album). I should have explained this in the edit summary, but those are based on the orders that appear on the inner sleeve of HYSLP 1 (which I referenced), and so I've changed it back. I'm just curious: where your preferred order is coming from? I've made similar changes to Pyromania (album), Adrenalize and Retro Active, so please don't try to fix those, either. They're correct. Thanks, man. —Zeagler (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually only did it for Hysteria, and after that I was going to do it for the others, but then I realized that you're probably doing it based on the actual order in the liner notes, so I left it for Adrenalize and Retro Active. Up till that point, I was just arranging it based on your typical line-up order: singer, guitarist, guitarist, bassist, drummer. The singer is usually the main songwriter, so it makes the most sense anyway to list his name first so that that'll usually be the one constant name. I figure it makes more sense to have it in the order listed in the album, though, so I'll leave it.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
"as I have, in reality, been the one contributing useful information to articles, while you are the one who has been relentlessly deleting it over and over again." Let me remind you that Lucifer was the one who rewrote those articles from scratch, not you. So without Lucifer, those articles would not have any content. Feel free to rewrite an article sometime M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring and consensus

Per this thread on WP:ANI, please do not edit war over article content. Instead, seek consensus on the article talk page, or the talk pages of those who have reverted you. Revert warring over edits that don't obviously violate official policy is never an acceptable behavior (even in such cases where you feel it is appropriate, you should make an attempt to discuss with those reverting you, if only to clarify the issues). If you can't a dispute through discussion, please seek dispute resolution. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Van Halen

I specified lead AND backing vocals for the singers, since not all bands function that way. Oh, and Sammy Hagar did play lead guitar, just less often than Eddie. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hush '88.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hush '88.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Def Leppard. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ScarianTalk 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Def Leppard, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [3] ScarianTalk 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "Don't be so fucking quick..." [4] - I don't there are any users that appreciate being sworn at. Please cool your temper down. If you're not a sockpuppet then you have nothing to worry about. ScarianTalk 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm just annoyed because a lot of people have been accusing me of being a sockpuppet, and now, when someone finally comes along to side with me in this debate, someone has to show up and accuse me there too! So I couldn't help but be pissed off about the fact that this user was accusing me of being a sockpuppet of the first user to finally express a similar viewpoint to mine. And any legitimate user who's been accused of being a sockpuppet when they really aren't can understand how frustrating it is to be accused like that.
I just don't get why I got reported after that last warning, I put my comment back in, but without the "personal attack". What did I do wrong?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Be that as it may, it doesn't excuse uncivil behaviour. Why don't you both take a week's vacation from the dispute and come back with cool heads and try the discussion again. The article isn't going anywhere in the meantime.--Crossmr (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet tag

Who first added the tag to this page? There really is no point in keeping it on here for a couple reasons. 1, it belongs on the user page, not the talk page. And 2, if the user, or another user doesn't want to file a request for checkuser or file a SSP report, there is really reason to leave it on there indefinitely. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been there so long now that I had to check, but it's 156.34.215.110. It's an IP user who seems to make a lot of contributions but never makes an account, and is frequently changing IP addresses, seeing as that one hasn't been used for anything since the first tagging of this page. But if the tag is valid to be removed, I'd be more than glad to take it away. I'm sick of being called a sockpuppet, even though it seems like at this point, removing the tag won't change that.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. I've removed it, and explained in the edit summaries. See the page history. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You've removed it Rjd0060, but this doesn't excuse the fact this user is an abusive sockpuppet. The only reason why I haven't filed a request for checkuser or a report is because the process is so complicated, and I will be accused of alterior motives (despite the fact an anon even warned me on my page this is a sockpuppet). if you had actually bothered to compare the edit histories Rjd0060, you would know this yourself. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I like to stick with policies, such as AGF. You should try it sometime. If you, or anybody else is willing to go through the proper channels here, then please do. Otherwise, did you honestly expect to leave that sockpuppet tag up there forever? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, please stop harassing the user, by calling him an "abusive sockpuppet". Like I said before, I may be wrong here, but you have no irrefutable proof that this user is a sockpuppet. Again, you are welcome to make a sockpuppet report or file a request for checkuser. Until then, you do not know, for a fact, that this account is a sockpuppet. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's put an end to this sockpuppet discussion. Here I have actual proof that I'm not a sockpuppet, as I have uncovered my formed IP address account for you to see that I'm not a banned user. If you look on the page Talk:Cruzados, you'll see a discussion between another user and me as an IP address before I registered. At a certain point, you'll see the user recommended me to register for an account, which I did, and after that, I return to the discussion as a registered user. The IP was 68.33.186.60. See for yourself. It's not banned. It's plain to see on that talk page that that was my IP account, and this is the user account that I created from that IP. End of discussion.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aerosmith articles

Could you guys discuss some issues on Wikipedia talk:AERO. The edit war on the Aerosmith articles ain't nice. Janadore (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello Rock Soldier, I was wondering if you could help me edit a page I'm working on about a guitarist. I have links with the info i'm writing about.....Thank You, Alistern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistern (talk • contribs) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Rock Soldier! I have the page on my user page that I'm working on, let me know if it is ok when you get time......Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistern (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Okay, you've broken 3RR on numerous different articles within the last 24 hours, specifically Tejas (album). This is your final warning. If you continue to edit war across ZZ Top articles you will be reported and, possibly, blocked. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. ScarianCall me Pat 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss this issue of genres. You and that other user seem to think that it doesn't matter the least as to what the musical content of an album is, and that the classification of the album's genre only depends on the classification of the band's genre, even when there's not a single song of that genre on the album. I've everything I can to get the genre on those pages as accurate as possible, yet you both seem to continuously be disregarding that, and reverting it so that it says the say genre as it does on the band's page. To be honest, I'm really getting sick of people on wikipedia thinking that because a band or album is one genre in general, therefore every album by them or every song on it has to be that genre. I think it should be pretty clear to see that Afterburner is pop rock, or that Antenna isn't blues rock - it's clearly shown in the musical elements. I've tried citing references to prove it, but that gets reverted to, because it says the genre under "style" rather than "genre" (though in this case "style" basically means "sub-genre"). I'm willing to accept that as a valid point, but in that case, "blues-rock" should be removed from genre for the Antenna page, as the user used the same reference to "prove" that it is. But references put aside, just think about what I said before: just because the band is one genre in general doesn't mean that everything by them is that genre. In the '70s, Genesis were progressive rock, but does that mean that because of that, Abacab was a progressive rock album? I should hope not.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, honestly, I do. Take a look at Skin and Bones... it's a live acoustic album, ja? But hey! It's genre says "Alternative rock". It's consensus to use the band's genre as the over-riding genre on their CD's. We can't prove that Tejas is a "Southern Rock" album because we have no reliable source with us atm. You're welcome to find one, friend. Your other points, if used, would violate WP:POV. We simply cannot add our own opinions in. I hope this clears up any confusion. If you have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact me. ScarianCall me Pat 19:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That's very frustrating, but I'll accept it for what it is. Is there anything we can do to change that rule at all?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're serious about wanting to change a policy/consensus you could always take it up at WP:PUMP. The best way to get something done down there is to make your proposal concise, even and clear. Hope that helps. ScarianCall me Pat 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know, I'll consider it. But I'd just like to point out that the idea of having the genre of the infobox of every one of a band's albums say the same thing as the band's page pretty much negates the purpose of listing the genre. If it's gonna say the same thing as the artist page, you might as well just look at the artist page to find out the genre of any album.
---Rock Soldier (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Am the Law

Hi there. I've moved the I Am the Law article to I Am the Law (film) and created a disambiguation page at I Am the Law. I searched for "I Am the Law" looking for information about the Anthrax song of that title, and was surprised to find the film's article (I wasn't even aware of its existence). I've given the film "top billing" (as it were) on the disambiguation page. I hope this meets with approval. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I was searching for the same song too, actually, and found that there was no page for it. Then, in my search results, I found the page for I Am the Law (film), and, seeing as how there was now other page called "I am the Law", I decided to remove the parenthesis from the article's title and leave it as the only "I am the Law" page. Your way works fine too, though the film could have stayed the only page, and you could have just added a For the song by Anthrax, see Among the Living at the top. Oh well, will do.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought about that, but then discovered that there was a song by The Human League with the same title (also about Judge Dredd), at which point I decided to DAB it! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Johnny B. Good.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Johnny B. Good.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't undo project consensus edits

Shortening template length has already gone through numerous discussions and agreements that band boxes with lengthy former member sections... that have a detailed member listing found either in the article, or in an article all to its own... will use the cleaner, more encyclopedic section link. Do not undo project guidelines. Take the time to read previous discussion/consensus before making anymore blunders. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that. What was the reasoning behind the conclusion that the infinite space in an infobox should be limited to usage in a designated amount?
--Rock Soldier (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Mainly that the boxes are starting to sponge up more and more info and many users insist on using breaks instead of the preferred comma spacing delimiters. When a band has a dozen or more former members the infobox... combined with the usual lengthy TOC ends up resulting in a large glowing whitespace between the article lead-in and the main article body sections. For bands with only 3 -4 former members it makes no real difference. But for bands Like Iron Maiden and Deep Purple... it shortens up the box a lot and makes for a cleaner/neater overall article layout. Most of these articles contain a nice neat member section so it is just using the embedded links efficiently. Hope that helps. 156.34.225.77 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Just two questions: Isn't that "large glowing whitespace between the article lead-in and the main article body sections" there regardless of the length of the infobox? I thought that that was because of the table of contents. As far as I can see, when it comes to the main article body sections, the infobox merely subsides the text to the left to make room for it, and I don't really see what the problem is with that.
And you said that bands with a dozen or more former members shouldn't have them listed in the infobox, well Deep Purple only has nine former members, so shouldn't that be few enough to have them listed there?

[edit] Your editing skills required

If you have some spare time. You are good at doing band line-up tables. Take a look at the Iron Butterfly article... specifically the band line-up section. It could use your expertise. That being said the whole article looks bad. But a line-up table would probably be the easiest first fix. As one of the first heavy metal bands, Iron Butterfly should have a decent article. Right now its just uncited original research. 156.34.228.106 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My god, that is one awfully written article. Particularly the members section indeed. It looks like one of those unheard-of bands with their own article with only one editor who didn't even know how to write the article right. I generally prefer to edit articles with bands that I know well, and I'm only familiar with Iron Butterfly, but when it's that out of order, I don't think I can allow myself to let it be. I haven't been getting on as much or editing as much lately, but I'll try to get around to doing this.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That section is right up your alley. 156.34.228.106 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PS If you want even more Wiki editing to do... IP 88.89.166.156 (talk · contribs) is making a mess out of formatting for the Rolling Stones albums. I don't think he knows what WP:ALBUM is. A while back I went through all those albums and corrected the "Rock and roll" link to the proper "Rock music" link. And I turfed some of the more blatant POV and crufting that leaped out at me. After that I moved on and never got time to go back and check project formatting. This IP and making improperly formatted pages even more 'unformatted'. Perhaps, if you want a good project, you can tackle some of them. Have a nice day. 156.34.228.106 (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tito & Tarantula.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tito & Tarantula.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah! track listing

You're on the right track with the tables, but there's a template for track listings that would probably work better. The most noticeable improvement would be the consistent width of the tables.

# Title Writer(s) Length
1. "20th Century Boy" (T. Rex) Marc Bolan 3:41
2. "Rock On" (David Essex) David Essex 2:53
3. "Hanging on the Telephone" (The Nerves) Jack Lee 2:23
4. "Waterloo Sunset" (The Kinks) Ray Davies 3:38

This isn't standard yet, but it's acceptable when there's too much information for the usual track listing method. —Zeagler (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about that, I didn't know about it. It looks pretty good, but is there a way to make a column for the original artist? I understand that it's meant to be used on regular album articles too, so it wouldn't work very well to have that, but I dislike having to have any of the information in parenthesis.
--Rock Soldier (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:That One Night.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Diamonds & Rust.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Diamonds & Rust.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)