You've done a great job with the new material at Single (music)#In South Korea. Based on what you have found during your research, would you consider this material to be best placed where it is now, or possibly moved to a new section at Album, or perhaps even to become its own article? This matters for the links and redirects in the new Template "type" that we had implemented yesterday, just to wrap it all up. If you think it's best as-is, no problem. If you feel that one of the other options is valid, I can help out as needed. Thanks for your work on this topic and for your wise comments back in the original discussion at the Albums Project. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was an interesting (and really productive) discussion. I think it's probably best placed within Single (music). At most, I would include "single album" in the "see also" section of Album, where there is a link to extended play as well. At some point, "single album" could stand as its own article. It could even do so now, it would just be quite stubby. But I think "single albums" are better sorted onto the "single" page for the following reasons (I'm also using this as an opportunity to clear out any remaining thoughts I didn't publish on that talk page):

• The extent that single albums are "albums" relies on the Korean definition of the word, where album refers primarily to physical media. The western conception of "album" remains "a long-playing musical release, usually with multiple songs/compositions (or one very long song/composition), regardless of whether it is carried on physical or digital media".
• I don't think single albums are a subset of the western definition of "albums". Not the same way that categories like "studio album", "live album", "double album", even "mixtape", etc. are subsets of the western concept of an "album". I do think single albums are a distinct release type that happens to have "album" in its name.
• Putting aside the slippery "how is an album defined" question, a single album is an "album" with a primary purpose of promoting the single(s) it contains. The concept of a "single" is still more central than the definition of an album.
• Most importantly, there's the overlap. In the post-digital music market, "singles" and "single albums" are distinct "types" of releases; but in the analog era, my understanding is that Koreans would have called any single a "single album". Before some point in the 90s, and certainly in the era before CDs entered the music market, what westerners called "singles" and what Koreans called "single albums" would have referred to the same thing, and (from what I found) Koreans continue to use the phrase "single album" in historical/retrospective descriptions of such releases.

In my research, I found examples of pre-digital physical singles referred to as 싱글 음반 ("single album"). These uses of the phrase were from documents dated within the last 10 years or so, showing that the term is still used when describing historical singles on physical media—a time before Korea had developed a cognizable division between a "single" and "single album". "Strawberry Fields Forever" / "Penny Lane" would have been called a single album, and would still be called a single album today, as long as you're talking about the 7-inch record that was sold in 1967. The current Korean usage of "single" didn't arise until the digital music era.

So those are my reasons why it should be under the "Single" article. What's more: while I continue to believe that "single album" is best understood as its own distinct category of release, that differentiation seems like somewhat of a historical/linguistic accident or quirk. In addition to Korean Wikipedia, I consulted Namuwiki, a more freeform (but also, far more popular) Korean wiki. On that site's article 싱글(음악) ("Singles (Music)"), there is this interesting excerpt—roughly translated via Google, with some clean-ups and bracketed interventions on my part to reflect my interpretation, but you'll get the idea:

"The word 'single album' [to describe a previously mentioned release] is the wrong expression in the first place. I make a mistake of writing a single album in the media that deals with music ... This is because Koreans think of 'album' as the meaning of 'record'. There is a single in Korea because there were only regular albums without EP, there were many people who mistook 'album' for 'record', so it is wrong to say that 'single album' means 'single album'. Currently, the music market in Korea develops the concepts of singles and EPs, selling singles as digital singles and EPs as mini-albums. ...

"It is Korean music market to use the wrong term 'single album' without distinguishing genres. There is also a document called "single album" in the document about artists such as the US and Japan who use the album separately from the single. If you look at only a few representative documents that are registered on the tree wiki right now, you can clearly see that it is written as a single album.

"In Korea, a single record is often regarded as simply a record with few songs. Singles are not singles and singles, but singles are singles and albums are singles. Singles and singles are singles, singles are singles, and singles are singles. Reflect. [Though difficult to understand or translate coherently with only machine translation, I believe this paragraph is deliberately/humorously highlighting some of what the writer perceives as absurdities or inconsistencies in the Korean concept of "single album".]

"This is because there is no separate single chart in Korea. Because there are no single charts and no album charts, releasing new songs more than singing the songs in the album will be more profitable in the music charts ranking. In addition, if the same song is recorded simultaneously in a single album and a regular album, the sales volume is dispersed, and the music chart is damaged.

"Billboard and other overseas major music charts have separate charts and album charts as of 2010, both reflecting both physical and digital sales volume. This is a lot of misunderstanding because it is different from Korean music chart which is divided into 'sound source chart' and 'music chart'. It is a typical example of misinterpreting the album TOP200 as a music chart with the soundboard chart of the billboard single HOT100. [My interpretation of that somewhat garbled-in-machine-translation sentence: "A typical example of this misunderstanding by Koreans would be misinterpreting the album Top 200 chart as a 'records' chart and the Hot 100 as a 'digital sound' chart."]"

Of course, this source is an anonymous writer on a wiki, not a "reliable source", and to be taken with a grain of salt. But this anonymous editorializing, I think, suggests that even some Koreans perceive or, on the other hand, are confused by some of the same problems we were attempting to untangle in that discussion—and also the inverse, which is that Koreans often misinterpret the western/Billboard-style categorization of releases, just as we initially misunderstood the Korean perspective.

Again, this is my best understanding based on the research I was able to do. I don't speak Korean and I have little knowledge of Korean music/the Korean music marketplace. However, I did arrive at these conclusions based on the dialogue on that page with people who are much more knowledgable, and by consulting as many Korean sources (both in English and Korean) as I could find. I welcome clarification from someone with better knowledge or, especially, better sources.

Final thought: It may even be that, in the long run, WikiProject Singles takes jurisdiction of "single albums" from WikiProject Albums—even if they're not the same as "singles", even if they are still best sorted with the Album Infobox—since they are a closer cousin to "singles" than "albums" from an English-language perspective. For me, the key thing is recognizing them as their own category of release, not necessarily sorting them under a particular WikiProject. But honestly whatever people think is best is fine; either option (or even sorting "single album" releases into both projects) would be equally sensible, in my opinion. —BLZ · talk 20:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that! You have done a very impressive amount of research, especially into Korean sources. I am especially intrigued to learn that even Korean music fans find this term confusing. Concerning the next steps, I like the idea of a "see also" at the Album article. As determined in the original discussion at the Albums Project, the chart authorities in South Korea and Japan place these items in their respective "Album" charts. That justifies placing them in the jurisdiction of the Albums Project in Wikipedia, if anyone happens to object, or if they think the Singles Project would be better. When all is said and done, our recent actions were inspired by the fact that fans of Korean music are creating articles here and using the term "Single Album" which previously did not fit anywhere. We have implemented a solution for articles on these items and I believe that we have made the best of a confusing situation. Kudos all around! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'd like to email you about a proposition, if you're interested I'd like to know if there is a public email address I can contact you at. This is in regards to a topic relating to Oakland. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdpmw (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hdpmw: On the side panel on my user page, there is a link that says “Email this user”. I’ll receive the email and will be able to reply via email. —BLZ · talk 20:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BLZ. Thanks for adding the image – good call. Also for your comment about the "spectacular article". I'm going to put my hand up and take credit, because, although it made GA years ago (and Will Begone did a fine job back then), I gave the article a major overhaul/expansion early last year! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JG66: It really is quite amazing work! I've only read a fraction of your Beatles contributions but the ones I have are great. I've never felt steeped enough in Beatles history to contribute to Beatles articles much myself, but I am a big fan of their music and lore. You really should consider taking some to FA, many of them seem strong enough to qualify (including, I'd think, the Beatles in India). —BLZ · talk 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too kind, BLZ. I've never felt the need to go for FA – I put so much work into getting something up at GAN (so much, in fact, that I just haven't had the energy to nominate anything for what must be about two years now), and I figure: Well, it's there, anyone can read it. What's the benefit in going through another, long process just to get the gold star and a spot on the home page ...? Of course, each article would be improved at FAC, and I'm sure I'd enjoy the collaborative side of it, too ...

One of these days perhaps. But your encouragement, and similar compliments from reviewers over the years, is much appreciated while I slum it with my green-blob GAs! JG66 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Have put "Cut the Crap" up for PR - probably against my better judgement. Seeing as how you are both forensic and astute, would appreciate input, no need to be civil. Ceoil (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have at it—probably won't get a chance for a really thorough dive until about a week from now, but I can start at the least. Following up from where we left off on Albini: he's definitely got his head in the sand a bit. I don't take much of what he says as gospel, but all the same I appreciate him being there—he's a character, like a goofy uncle set in his ways. As you said, a very insular attitude not to be emulated—but on the other hand, I can scarcely imagine how a Ramones record got to Montana in the 70s, let alone what effect that would have on a young man, and am continually fascinated to see the long-term results of this experiment.

I'll take all the techno recommendations ya got, btw. My entry point to techno of any kind (like many American hepsters of my age bracket) was thru canonized ambient techno/IDM like Aphex Twin or Boards of Canada. Then Wolfgang Voigt's albums as Gas, Richie Hawtin (Muzik and Consumed), Basic Channel. I also really like the Orb, who I got into sideways via the KLF articles on here, the latter being the peak example of a group I absolutely would never, could never have heard of without Wikipedia. Obviously Americans in general don't have as much history with electronic music as Europeans; We didn't get the memo on a second Summer of Love and rave didn't really arrive in the US (outside like Detroit, Chicago or New York) until about 2010, under the guise of "dubstep" and "EDM", right around when I went to college. Scare quotes aside, one of my favorite concert experiences was seeing Skrillex DJing til dawn for an ever-dwindling crowd at a small festival in the Arizona desert, looking up at Arcosanti (this was the exact view). When the audience thinned out to less than two dozen or so around 4 a.m.—long after Four Tet had called it quits—Skrillex invited us onstage and shared some of his liquor. —BLZ · talk 02:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, it sound like you are already deeply entrenched in electronic music, and even though we have a 20 year gap, the gist of the tunes you like sounds familiar, though I hadnt known Wolfgang Voigt or Basic Channel. Would be very interested in sharing choices, I may be somewhat out of touch these days. Yes "Consumed" is evil. A few tunes, [1] (takes a while to get going, but this converted a lot of my more dyed in the wool indie friends), definitive UK dupstep, Emerald Rush, and seeing as how you shared a really nice and evocative story, was at this Garnier gig [2] - skip to 36 mins and think of organically growing, spore-bearing fruiting bodies of a fungus that appear in the first week of October every year in Ireland. ::Thanks a bunch for you edits and suggestions on the Clash thing, looking over now; delighted. Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about this for quite some time today, going to go with this as one of the most essential listening pieces of the last god knows how many years. Albini and Hawtin aesthetics? Check. Vid's a bit silly so best listen rather than watch; its drone that slowly unwinds and evolves to a hell of a climax, so needs close listening. Ceoil (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue was huge for me, remains one of my favorite 21st-c albums. Grateful that its international acclaim happened right as I was broadening my horizons and beginning to read music press. At a time (2010–2011) just before the term "EDM" caught on in the US—meaning Americans (high-schoolers at least) would colloquially refer to any EDM with the umbrella-term "dubstep", regardless of style—arcane knowledge of UK dubstep via Burial allowed me to be That Kid who would dutifully inform my fellow American teens that Actually Skrillex or Deadmau5 or Whoever Are Not Dubstep. "Brostep" was a welcome descriptive development, but obviously my heart has softened to Skrillex over time, getting the impression of him as a sincere and good-humored musician. He got big right at the end of my high school years so his music will always be tied to that time in my life, and later tracks like "All Is Fair in Love and Brostep" (with the Ragga Twins!) are fun. Plus, I gathered over time that Burial's music, while of course stunning, is itself stylistically and emotionally distinct from most 00s dubstep, and thus doesn't serve as a good "generic" example of what "Dubstep" is. I had this idea of dubstep as a melancholy genre, which it can be, but obviously Burial's thing is his own thing. Kinda like thinking of Joy Division studio recordings as what "Punk" is.

If you're into minimal techno you will probably love Basic Channel. Deeply informed by dub. They have two compilations, BCD-1 and BCD-2, that I think span their entire recorded output. BCD-2 is perhaps the Smell the Glove of techno: "It's like, 'how much more minimal could this be?' and the answer is 'None. None more minimal.'" "Phylyps Trak II/II" does more with less than any techno I can think of. Really hypnotic arrangement; by about the nine-minute mark the few moving parts will seem to have taken the form of a synesthetic steam locomotive.

Gas's work is a bit like the immersive sound of Consumed but generally less sinister (although from time to time it does get there). His first four albums were later remastered and collected as Nah und Fern. The fourth in the series, Pop, is my favorite, although the techno elements have almost entirely melted into droney ambience by that point. The third, Königsforst, is a bit more percussive. He's made two new Gas albums in the last two years, both very good. There's some nice lighter fare from Voigt's label Kompakt.

Great vivid anecdote and imagery re: Garnier. That psychedelic/synesthetic element of post-rave music is probably my favorite part, it can go further "out there" than rock-forms are generally capable of. Listened to the Holmes set yesterday and really enjoyed it; incidentally, one of my biggest obstacle to appreciating electronic music fully may be my (rawkist??) aversion to DJ mixes. Not an aversion exactly, I enjoy them when I hear them, it's just rare that I think to seek them out—conditioned as I am by pedestaling of The Album. —BLZ · talk 00:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to unpack here and I'm not as articulate, so might take this reply in stages. Re the EDM/Dub-set revival in the US; I tried at the time to get into it, but it seemed too masculine, too aggressive, too middle-class (in the UK sense) and entitled (hence bro-step) and too hyperactive (changing beats every 20 seconds), for my taste. Felt the same way about Jungle in the 90s tbh, and have never gone back back to either tbh.

Listening to Consumed, and the like, to me (especially with the high treble tones) is like looking at Hubble vids of galaxys...unimaginably expansive and mind-bending brain food.

Re early rave, a huge amount of it is ground breaking, at the time I did think guitar was dead, until shoegazing and later Radiohead, but still I only ever hear things I din't hear before in electronic music. I love 80s Acid House, it still retained somewhat of an analogue sound and at least you could imagine the guys pressing buttons, rather than standing on stage pressing keys on a mini mac. Most of the, say, 1986-89 classic sound is minimilast, because they didn't have the technology to be anything but, and I love the way the spread out all the frequencies, in an overall warm "roomy" sound...as Albini might say. That said I' not sure that's an aesthetic preference, or just nostalgia. Either way, this is the best bridge between say Phuture and hardcore rave.

I lost interest in albums c Napster, when money fell out of the industry and it became about individual songs, touring and merch income only. Used to be that about half the songs on any decent band's LP were good, now its throw them at the wall early when they have really only matured to one or two good songs. Totally into DJ mixes; could name the techno albums I like on two hands; from a UK perspective it was always about the tune, never the artist. [3] This was my attempt at a shoegazing / acid cross over at the time. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Hollis' passing was a shock, "Spirit of Eden" is still one of those albums I listen to weekly. Its wiki article is in good health (cough). This had been rather under-looked in the last few weeks[4]. Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving this mind f??k here[5] Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been AWOL—started a new job in the last few weeks and have had no time to do wiki. I'm gonna pop back into the Cut the Crap PR sometime tonight (next few hours local time). It was shocking to hear the news about Hollis. Spirit of Eden and Laughing Stock are both all-time favorites of mine, impossible to decide between them. I've been listening to Colour of Spring a lot since he passed—mostly because it's better suited to casual listening than the other two, although I do think that record is generally overlooked. I think it's often seen as just a stepping stone on the way to the "post-rock" albums, rather than as an accomplishment in its own right; even then, it seems under-valued compared to other artists' "stepping stone" albums (The Bends, Isn't Anything, Rubber Soul). I had completely missed the new Rustin Man release, but I'll check it out soon; I listened to .O.rang's Herd of Instinct for the first time about a week ago and enjoyed it a lot. —BLZ · talk 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore the image. There is community consensus in line with our fair use policy that we wait for around 6 months after the death before uploading non-free images. And then only if efforts are made to source a free to use image. Stephen 22:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen: If that's the case, help me with a few things.

I'm not familiar with this supposed community consensus to wait six months after death before allowing a fair-use copyrighted image of the person. I'm not saying consensus about a six-month waiting period doesn't exist, necessarily. I would understand why such a rule would be established for most notable figures, for whom we'd presume to be able to find free-license photos. But this waiting-period "policy" doesn't seem to have been formalized into any Wikipedia policy pages and I've never encountered it elsewhere on the site. I'm familiar with WP:FAIR USE rules on Wikipedia and I understand the rule about avoiding the use of copyrighted images of living persons, but I have never seen any policies or guidelines on this six-month rule. I've searched for this rule after you mentioned it, and still haven't found it. It doesn't seem to appear in the Wikipedia namespace for any policy articles mentioning "six months" or "6 months", and interestingly the rule almost never pops up in archived file deletion discussions. The only place I found the rule invoked was in this discussion—where it was cited as a 3-to-6-month waiting period—and the discussion resulted in keeping this image anyway. I would appreciate any links you can provide about this consensus, so I can better understand this apparent rule. But to the extent that such a policy or consensus exists, nothing indicates it's an absolute rule.

The six-month waiting period seems to me a little dubious or arbitrary, but the requirement to show some "efforts ... to source a free to use image" makes sense. I can tell you what I've done so far—and I hope this should suffice to show I've done my homework.

• First, I've removed a phony image from the page, which I have nominated for deletion at Commons because it was falsely claimed as free license. A user claimed a photo as their own work when the photo had been previously published elsewhere. It would have been especially bad to have a fake free-license image at the time of his death, when many fans and journalists are turning to his Wikipedia page and would be liable to take that image's false license at face value and reuse the copyrighted image elsewhere.
• No free-licensed images of Hollis currently exist online. Several fansites dedicated to Hollis's band Talk Talk and his solo career have existed on the internet over the last 20 years, some of which are now defunct (but archived via Internet Archive); in searching through these sites, I have never once come across a fansite that used a photo of Hollis or the band that wasn't sourced from promotional material or press. There are virtually no "unofficial" photos of the band available, let alone free-licensed images.
• The reason there are so few available images of Hollis and Talk Talk is that Hollis was a famously reclusive man (you'll find roughly half his obits use the word "reclusive" if you google that word and his name). His period of fame, public exposure and touring was limited to roughly 1982–1986. The band retired from touring in 1986, continuing to record privately until 1991 but never making another live appearance. He released a solo album in 1998 and appeared for photo shoots with the press—but again, no live performances, no public appearances. No opportunities for photos. He has been completely retired from music and out of the public eye since 1998, and has been retired since 1986 from any activity that would provide an opportunity for members of the public to photograph him.
• While I can't absolutely rule out the possibility that someone, somewhere has a photo of Mark Hollis that they would be willing to freely license, it's unusually unlikely that such an image exists (as compared to other celebrities of Hollis's stature). There's no way to reach out to such a person. We would only know such a person exists after they make the decision to upload this hypothetical image, not before. It makes sense to delete a copyrighted image of him after a free-license image surfaces, but not before, especially because that is just so unlikely in his case (due to reclusiveness etc.).

All of this is to say: no free-license image of Hollis currently exists, and the likelihood that one will appear at any point in the future is slim-to-none. It's a bit like expecting a free-license image of J. D. Salinger to turn up.

Lastly: each time you've removed the image, you've simply removed it from the page and left it orphaned. It's more contrary to Wikipedia's fair-use policy to carelessly leave a copyrighted image uploaded but unused than it is to use it under a fair-use rationale. I've reinstated the image at the article. If you still do not believe the image should be used there, I advise you take the image to Wikipedia:Files for discussion before taking any further action. —BLZ · talk 21:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that anyone has searched for a free to use image. The community consensus is to wait for a period after death to see if one eventuates, after potentially reaching out to agents or family. There is a process that will delete unused non-free images, that's why the image is not immediately deleted. If you replace the image again you will be blocked. Stephen 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen: While I appreciate that you've elaborated a little more about the standard for use of copyrighted images of recently deceased persons, you still have not provided any resources establishing the existence of this rule as a matter of policy. I'm asking because I want to understand this policy, I really do. But understand my position here: I'm coming at this as an editor who contributes to subject matter that I'm knowledgeable about, not as an editor who deals with generalized issues across the whole encyclopedia (like handling deaths of public figures) on a frequent basis (as an administrator might). The only guidance I have access to is WP:FAIR USE, which doesn't describe this waiting-period consensus. I've made good-faith efforts to find out more about this rule and how it is applied, as detailed above, but that search frankly turns up very little, and what little I found seemed to differ somewhat from the rule as you first described it.

I want to know more about what kind of standards are in place so I can better understand what I can or should do, as a contributor, going forward. I'm not the bad guy here, really. Like I said above: I personally took the time to research a suspicious image and removed it when I determined its supposed free license was a lie—and I did so in a high-pressure moment right after this person had died and the potential for Wikipedia to inadvertently spread misuse of the image was very high. It's not like I don't care about policy or want to let copyright violations run rampant. I do care.

But again, consider my position: I had no way to understand how or why my action was wrong at the time I first uploaded the image, because this rule is almost nowhere to be found, even for someone with a general knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Even after I was corrected and told of this rule, you told me very little about it and cited no actual policy, other than reference to a vague consensus that I was apparently expected to take your word for. I was left without a clear standard to follow. I appreciate that you've now told me that a proper action to take before uploading again would be to reach out to family or an agent—I will do that before I make any future attempt to upload a copyrighted image of Hollis. But that's an example of something I had not been told before, and would have had no way to know was part of the standard without you telling me. And because this policy isn't spelled out—except as much as you see fit to inform me in a given reply—I still don't know how I'd have to prove that I had reached out and gotten a response. From where I'm sitting, I'm given enough of the policy at a time to continue being told I made a mistake, but not enough to empower me to avoid the mistake in the future.

One last thing: I feel it was disrespectful to outright delete the image as you did, without taking the image to a deletion discussion. In your deletion summary, you said it was an "unambiguous copyright violation" and cited the speedy deletion criterion F9. Well, by its own terms, F9 "applies to obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use." In other words, it's for situations when a user has uploaded a copyrighted file without even attempting to make a fair-use claim. But I did claim it was fair use! The image had a fair-use rationale, and I have made what I feel to be a good-faith claim that the image was fair use. I even found, and shared with you, a similar instance (Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_May_21#File:Reg_Grundy_20_September_2010.jpg) where a copyrighted image of a recently deceased public figure was permitted to remain in similar circumstances. Whether you personally felt my claim for fair use was adequate or not, I had still made a claim and there was room for reasonable disagreement on either side. I don't feel this was a blatant case of copyright violation and, respectfully, I don't feel that was a fair exercise of your administrative power. I'm not going to replace the image again, don't worry—I got the message. But please consider that I'm trying my best here, I meant well, and I feel a little bullied. —BLZ · talk 23:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1980 (Gil Scott-Heron and Brian Jackson album), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dan56 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst. Legobot (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BLZ, how're things? I hope you're well. As for me, the Pod FAC is done, and I've finished a couple of reviews I was working on including my Cut the Crap review, so now I'm ready to start the PB collaboration we discussed, assuming you're still into it. I'll probably start by cleaning up the formatting, etc. in the existing refs, and read them to get a scope of the initial source info that's already there before doing any digging. One thing, I looked at some of your recent GAs just now and I think your referencing style is different from me. I wildly prefer Harvard referencing, but if it happens you're anti-Harvard, I can be flexible and try another way. One reason I'm not crazy about inline referencing is that it really breaks up the text and makes it harder to edit. But anyway, let me know what your thoughts are and we'll figure something out. Cheers, looking forward to working on the article. Moisejp (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Hey! Sorry for the delay, I just started a new job and have had less time for wiki stuff lately. I'm very down to collab on Paul's Boutique. I'm also very OK with Harvard formatting, I'm coming around to it more and more. On several projects I've used it in part (at least for books, journal articles, virtually anything with page numbers), and more recently on the article The California Field Atlas I used Harvard formatting for everything. It definitely makes it easier to build a library of references, plus as you said it makes the text more navigable/editable. —BLZ · talk 03:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi BLZ, how are you doing? I hope you've had a nice Easter weekend. I've been tinkering away at Paul's Boutique, slowly moving the refs over to Harvard style and trying to find replacements for refs that are obviously unusable (fan sites, etc.). I'm still working on this. Once I finish that stage, I'll start looking at the content. Ceoil has also done some edits, thanks Ceoil! Today I ordered that For Whom the Cowbell Tolls book we talked about a bit, so between your 33 1/3 book and my 66 2/3, we should have lots covered. Also there's some good bits in Beastie Boys Book (pp. 263–265, pp. 272–277, pp. 294–295)—some pages that are not available in Google Books I was able to find in the Amazon Look inside! feature. BTW, I know you subscribe the Rock's Back Pages, and I just recently signed up too (via Wikipedia Library) and found some reviews and stuff in there. (Incidentally, I also applied and was approved for the NewspaperARCHIVE.com, which I haven't gotten access to yet but am hoping will be useful for my music article editing in the future, like your Westlaw resource was useful for Pod.) From my reading so far, I've gotten quite excited about the possibilities of the article, because it looks like there are lots of interesting tidbits and anecdotes in various sources that will hopefully add up to a meaty, spicy whole. Take care, and talk again soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding HotNewHipHop should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Harry Potter influences and analogues. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for the extremely helpful edits, additions, and expansions made to the All Money Is Legal article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Jackson. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

“Today” is one of my favourite songs, and you’ve more than done it justice. I usually avoid reading about songs and musicians I care about - what I learn tends to disappoint - but that was not the case here. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kafka Liz: Ahh thank you so much! It's been so long since I wrote that, high school for me. Unfortunately, things Billy Corgan has said since then have dulled my enthusiasm for his music—plus I got into Pavement shortly thereafter and felt an inexplicable need to take sides in an already years-old beef—but those first four Pumpkins albums are still great. And I discovered Loveless thanks to Billy, so he'll always have that. —BLZ · talk 21:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s disappointing to hear about Billy Corgan. Sort of proves my point about why I don’t like to read about people whose art I admire. They can go completely bonkers in their old age (not sure that article accurately reflects all the horrid things he’s said), or even return to some hideously cynical pseudo-religion as comfort for their grief. Distressing, and colours all that has gone before.

On a marginally happier note, I have fond memories of seeing Built to Spill doing a cover of “This Night Has Opened My Eyes” on 12 September 2001. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another favourite. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey is another sad example of a great artist gone rotten, except both significantly greater to start, and even slightly more rotten now, than Corgan imo. What a conspicuous date for that concert, btw! Doug Martsch seems like a very gentle, kind, reassuring person, probably ideal for getting thru that moment. Pavement Ist Rad 4eva. —BLZ · talk 23:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say much more rotten, in part since I can’t even be sure he believes what he’s saying, which makes it worse, in my opinion. The 12 September show was a godsend, honestly, as we were all feeling so rotten and sad, and Doug M. showed amazing empathy. He didn’t make us happy, exactly, but he did help us feel that the burden was shared, that we weren’t alone. And it was nice to have something to do other than sit around and feel weird/depressed/frightened/angry. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke prematurely - can’t see link here :/ Kafka Liz (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go [6], eh sort of :) Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[7] time doesn’t seem to have touched them, although I suppose that happens when half of you move to LA. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope you are having a great week! I was wondering if you would be willing to provide feedback for an article that I’m eyeing for an FA nomination in the future (no exact timeline, as work and other commitments have limited my activity on Wikipedia). A peer review has been open since mid-January to little commentary, and given the inactivity of WP:PR, I doubt it’ll inspire a more enthusiastic response than that. If you are not able to take up the task, I completely understand. Otherwise, whatever you can do would be greatly appreciated! DAP 💅 4:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@DAP388: I'd be happy to help! I'll probably get to it this weekend. Waiting since January is a long time to wait for PR without much response. I enjoyed Baby Driver and I'm a fan of Wright's films in general, especially the Simon Pegg collabs. I've also been told I look like Ansel Elgort a lot, which I have, eh, mixed feelings about. —BLZ · talk 23:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like Ansel well enough. Obnoxious, but a capable actor. I can do without him as a musician though. No bueno! An thank you so much! I love Wright’s work and Baby Driver in particular, and hopefully the Wiki article will do the film justice! DAP 💅 01:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foss (band) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Audrey's Dance you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Audrey's Dance you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Audrey's Dance for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Athens News. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the random message. I have a question about the All Money Is Legal article.

I currently use this source to support the release date for "4 da Fam" as a single. While it is published by a major publisher, I have noticed some red flags upon further research. These sources (1234) indicate the song charted on Billboard in July and August of 2000 before the supposed September release. Should I remove the current source and say that the song was released sometime in 2000 (with a footnote that it first appeared on a Billboard chart on July 29, 2000)?

I have unfortunately run into this issue. It seems that the exact release dates for singles around this time, particularly for the more obscure and less successful songs, are rarely documented. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: – Good q, and good find. I think it was reasonable to rely on the Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English as a reference for the release date, since you'd hope they'd be diligent and rigorous in their documenting of slang words. But those Billboard charts clearly contradict a September release date. If it had appeared on an airplay-based chart, I wouldn't change anything—the label may have released the tune to stations before releasing it to consumers. But by its own terms, the Hot Rap Singles chart is "compiled from a national sample of retail store sales reports" from SoundScan, so the single was commercially available in stores as of those dates.

I think I would use the month of the earliest documented charting on a Billboard retail chart. Although it's theoretically possible a single could have come out in the month before the week it first charted, especially if that week was early in a month, it's highly unlikely that a major-label single would altogether fail to chart in its first week of release. —BLZ · talk 23:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the answer. I will change the article and leave a footnote that it charted at that time, but the source mentions the specific September date. I think it would best to be as clear as possible there to avoid confusion. I would not be surprised if the song was originally intended for a compilation album, similar Young Money Entertainment's We Are Young Money, due to the amount of features and then given to Amil for her album later, but that is just speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you could probably drop the Routledge source. I think it was OK to cite in the absence of any other info, but with the contrary info from Billboard there are some other issues. The main one is that we don't know why they cited the September date. It's reasonable to assume it was a release date since it's just the song title and a date, but they don't actually specify. It's a dictionary attesting to real-world use of a word, so they're not necessarily saying that the song was released on that date. They're just citing the usage of the word in the song title—maybe an utterance on a verifiable date, like a day that they know for sure that the music video aired on a network. —BLZ · talk 04:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes sense to me. Thank you for the message. Aoba47 (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bond 25. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Audrey's Dance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Audrey's Dance for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The California Field Atlas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceoil -- Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I just wanted to let you know that I have updated and expanded the When You Get a Little Lonely article. I found several helpful sources on Newspapers.com so I had fun learning more about the album. I am currently taking a wikibreak, but I would like to try again for an FAC with the article as I feel that it is much more fleshed out. I just thought that you might be interested in the progress with that. I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Postmodern art. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this automatic shitpot stirring msg. I know certain admins types need oxygen to breath, DO NOT FEED. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like you to revisit this; I think I have met most of your demands except maybe I can't find anymore 1985 reviews. So there. All the ways through I have been asking myself "what would Wesleydodds think", and suppose its as best as I can do for that much missed dude. Obv your opinion means a lot also. Separately, am drawn to The California Field Atlas; its alien geography to me, but hear a lot about the area's climate from my parents in law; a lot of people have lost a lot of things. le meas. Ceoil (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I need to unsubscribe from that RfC list. It is too bad that WesleyDodds is gone, his stuff was so good. If only we could put up a Bat Signal for him—I think he'd appreciate the reference, at the least. I checked the WestLaw news database and found some more sources that could be useful. I'll take another look at Cut the Crap soon, even at a glance it's clear you've done a ton of new work on it.

Thank you for the review! I was on a 10-hour road trip from San Diego back home to the bay on Sunday and I had limited Wikipedia time. But as thanks, here's a selection of California's geography as seen through my car window on that drive. I strongly recommend listening to Dear Nora's "The Freeway" as you look at those photos because its lyrics describe the exact same conditions: a northbound trip on the I-5. As for climate: the fires of the last two years have been truly devastating. I don't live close enough that my home was ever remotely in peril, but the smoke was awful. My lungs are sorta sensitive so I wore a N95 face mask for weeks and still felt terrible. This photo does a pretty good job of capturing how oppressive it was. —BLZ · talk 23:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the near ec tonight on this one - was following your contribs and had thought the recent edits were from yesterday - these things happen in old age. Bty, agree with this edit summ. I find the article very absorbing. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Not a problem! Per usual your edits have been insightful and tremendously helpful. And speaking of the naming (and renaming) of mountains: the (possibly apocryphal) story of how Mount Diablo got its name, and one man's quixotic campaign to change that name, are both pretty amusing. See Mount Diablo#Current name and just below, #Attempts to rename —BLZ · talk 23:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Quixotic" is too kind; try again. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

😈 —BLZ · talk 00:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is also [8], though the title is more apt the the lyrics. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shakespeare on the Saskatchewan. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Foss (band) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Foss (band) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the FA nomination for Almost There (album) got archived due to inactivity but I was wondering it you'd still be willing to look at it? I'm going to renominate the 17th and I'll ping you then if you'd prefer that, or if you just don't want to that's fine. I did fix the specific issue you noted in the featured article nom. Toa Nidhiki05 16:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Slowly I am getting there. A bass line for you [9]. About half ways in the whole thing sort of melts in on itself. Ceoil (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julian Assange. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MiniDiscs (Hacked), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RT (TV network). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Wire (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BLZ, I want to review your two nominations at Template:Did you know nominations/The California Field Atlas. Please look for comments at that page now, and in the near future. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completed a review for both articles, and noted some minor quick fixes. Overall, both articles are very well written! I look forward to seeing these on the main page soon. Flibirigit (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Sometimes when reviewing/cleanup I can get into a zone. I was looking for .jpg tags, and missed the .svg. Again, thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Obi Kaufmann. However, please note we do not use primary public records such as birth records per WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY. If biographical information of living people can't be found in reliable, secondary sources, we simply don't add it to Wikipedia. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T. Rex (band). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror (poetry collection), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple Crown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was scrolling his timeline tonight and found this, about Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies. You think it'd be appropriate to include, citing Twitter, in a featured article? Dan56 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan56: Whoa! That's so cool—his praise is very sincere. Is he right, have you written in to Xgau Sez before? I copyedited what you added a little, mostly to make the language less self-referential, but imo it absolutely should be in there. This bit—"I'm proud of all my books, but this convinces me that the '70s guide is the most influential"—pushes it over the edge and makes it clearly worth including in the article (per guidance at WP:SUBJECT). I think that takes it beyond merely a nice comment about the Wikipedia article to a new, noteworthy reflection from the author about the article subject. —BLZ · talk 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did submit a question once, and mentioned I often cite him here and had started an article on the book. Thanks :) Dan56 (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this guy serious? Dan56 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know for sure that you have a connection to the subject of Wayne Hsiung. See here. Your actions at Wayne Hsiung are highly inappropriate. Do not remove any warning tags from that article again. This issue is far from being resolved and is still under active investigation. 112.119.86.128 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Ngo. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Joe Biden (The Onion) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit surprised "public image of Joe Biden" does not have an article, as you suggested my edit to The Onion's version of him would be better served in one. I think it fit where it was, but I won't dispute it. Do you think it's worth it to create an article of Biden's public image, especially since he's still leading in the polls? Sirkh1 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirkh1: I definitely think he's notable enough for that. I pitched it recently at Talk:Joe Biden#Joe Biden (The Onion)—I assume there are other editors more active on monitoring Biden's page than I am. The main reason I took it out is that I've really tried to limit the scope of the "Onion Biden" article so that I only use sources that explicitly mention the Onion character. Otherwise it would grow rapidly with other "meme Bidens" that are related, but would be better treated as their own subject elsewhere. —BLZ · talk 18:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I hope you are having a good end to your week. I was wondering if you could do a source review for my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or would prefer not to, but I thought that I might as well ask. I am not in a rush with the FAC as it is always good to have as many editors look over it as possible. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Just thanks
	...for Nick Cave’s post about Morrissey. It’s what I’ve been telling myself, but it helps to hear it put so eloquently. Sorry about the delayed response: I only just saw it! Kafka Liz (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: See the talk page. Willbb234 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Theatre Royal Drury Lane 8th September 1974 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Willbb234 -- Willbb234 (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion regarding this website, if you interested in joining in and explain to another editors why this website should be reliable. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I am currently trying a new citation while working on The Toy Wife article in my sandbox. I was wondering if you had the time to see if I am doing the citation style correctly? I understand if you are too busy. Either way, I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: No problem! Looks good for the most part. I'm glad I switched to the Harvard style, once I got used to it I prefer it immensely, it feels a lot less clunky. Other than the small corrections I already made, I have two other recommendations:

• #1: Based on Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template (and what I've personally found to be convenient), I would probably recommend switching from using the title for unattributed sources to using the publication name. So instead of:

• Luise Rainer - obituary 2014
• {{harvnb|Luise Rainer - obituary|2014}} & {{SfnRef|Luise Rainer - obituary|2014}})

... I would use...

• The Daily Telegraph 2014
• {{harvnb|''The Daily Telegraph''|2014}} & {{SfnRef|''The Daily Telegraph''|2014}}

(^Notice you have to put in the italics yourself both times.}

You can use titles if you'd like to, but if you do want to use them I'd recommend manually adding quotation marks so it looks like...

• "Luise Rainer" - obituary 2014
• {{harvnb|"Luise Rainer - obituary"|2014}} & {{SfnRef|"Luise Rainer - obituary"|2014}}

• #2: Something I really like about this citation style is that you don't even have to use ref tags (unless you want to). Instead of using Template:harvnb inside of ref tags, you can just use Template:Sfn. It looks a lot less cluttered and it frees you from having to manage and remember which refs you've named.

This is especially handy when you have to cite the same page from a book multiple times. So rather than defining a ref name and then using the tag, like...

• Something from page 38.<ref name="Whittaker p. 38"></ref> [...]

Something else from page 38.<ref name="Whittaker p. 38" />

... instead, you can just use...

• Something from page 38.{{sfn|Whittaker|1938|p=38}} [...]

Something else from page 38.{{sfn|Whittaker|1938|p=38}}

The only time I use ref tags now is if I want to use multiple sources. You can still just pile a few Sfn templates back to back, but it looks neater to have one footnote at the end of a line. The only tip I have there is that the Sfn template automatically adds a period, while harvnb doesn't, so you have to put it there yourself. Two ways of doing it, both work:

• Something from two sources.{{Sfn|Smith|2017}}{{Sfn|Jones|1979}}
• Something from two sources.<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2017}}; {{harvnb|Jones|1979}}.</ref>

And of course if you have to use that pair multiple times, you would name the ref. Totally comes down to preference. There are a couple of other random tips at the page for Template:Sfn that are helpful, like what to do if you have two sources with the same author and the same year. —BLZ · talk 23:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the advice and the links! I only recently noticed the Harvard style, and I was interested in exploring it further. I prefer it to my older citation style; it will take some time to learn, but it is nice to try something new. I also prefer using the publication title over the article name so I made the recommended changes there. I am just so used to using reference tags, but I agree that the sfn templates are a lot neater. I will probably keep the same citation style on my previous projects, but I will be switching over to the Harvard style in the future. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion regarding this issue, if you interested in joining in and explain to another editor. 2402:1980:250:8411:78CB:7BF9:A978:4834 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joe Biden (The Onion) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hunter Kahn -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 in film. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of music considered the worst. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joe Biden (The Onion) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joe Biden (The Onion) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hunter Kahn -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Propaganda. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This cheeseburger is for your enthusiasm with helping the DYK submission on Roar, and also for cheering me on for my work! Wikipedia just becomes so much better when people like you are here to help improve and be awesome at the same time! Looking forward to seeing your name again sometime in an article's contribution page. Cheers, buddy! NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 00:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Normani. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trap Back you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Morgan695 -- Morgan695 (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Trap Back you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trap Back for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Morgan695 -- Morgan695 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Siouxsie Sioux. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of List of honors received by John Ashbery at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Fram (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:How It's Done. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lana Del Rey. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Idles (band). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Trap Back at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Arrowverse. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Coddling of the American Mind. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I hope you are having a wonderful December so far. This year has been flying by far too quickly for my liking lol. Apologies for the randomness of this request, but I was wondering (if you have the time and interesting) if you could provide any commentary for my current FAC? It has already received a fair bit of commentary and reviews, but it is always helpful to get as many perspectives as possible. Either way, I hope you are doing well, and good luck with everything! Aoba47 (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out! Happy to give it a look. I'm sure I must have passively watched the show at some point. I remember liking the movie—Kitt, Warburton and Goodman were very memorable and honestly must rank among the best comic performances in any Disney feature. I've started a copyedit and will leave some comments soon. —BLZ · talk 03:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! I completely agree that they provided absolutely wonderful comedic performances. I actually only saw bits and pieces of the show before working on the article, even though The Emperor's New Groove is one of my favorite Disney films. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought about Emperor's New Groove in a while but in retrospect it does feel somewhat under-appreciated, and now you've got me reminiscing about Disney movies in general. New Groove is definitely the best of the 00s Disney films I've seen, though that turns out to be fewer than I thought. Looking back, I haven't watched a new mainline Disney movie since, of all things, Home on the Range, which I even saw in theaters (!) making me one of the very few who did. Not that I wouldn't watch some of their recent ones; I abandoned them in the deepest nadir of their slump and have completely missed the return to form. I came close to seeing Zootopia! I've more or less kept up with Pixar and have only missed the dinosaur one, the Dory one, and Cars 3. —BLZ · talk 06:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 00's was certainly a strange time for Disney, although I do respect how they experimented with genre and ideas. I have mostly enjoyed Disney's latest output of films. I enjoyed Zootopia, but I can understand the criticism that its social commentary was too on the nose. The only recent Disney film that I was disappointed in was Moana, but I think it is because I went in with very high expectations. I actually just saw Frozen II, and I was pleasantly surprised as I am not the biggest Frozen fan. I would be interested to see what original animated features they develop next because it seems like only one is currently being developed. Pixar has always been pretty great with their features. Since I was very passionate about animation when I was younger, I used to follow all of these things pretty close. I never did get an animation job or career, but I still enjoy it as a consumer. Aoba47 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Top Gear (1977 TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BLZ, I recently replied to your FA review of the article Begotten. I was not able to get the information from JSTOR as it is pay-to-view. Just thought I'd give you a heads up.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BLZ, Though my article on Begotten failed to pass FA status, I am still determined to get it to that point. As such, I had a couple of questions in regards to the issues you have pointed out in your review. I will list them down below in the order they were addressed so as to keep with continuity:

• In terms of Susan Sontag's "review" of the film, I heard a brief mention somewhere that it was on The New Yorker though I cannot seem to find it.
• In regards to Jstor, it seems to be a pay-to-view which really doesn't help me much. Any suggestions?
• I was thinking of rewriting the Time Magazine info to the following in response to what you said about it not being there. Here is a rough outline of what it would say: Several media outlets have mistakenly reported that Time ranked the film in the Top 10 of their Best Films of 1990,[references](Note: An alternate source listed the date as 1991[reference]) which was found on the film's DVD packaging.[reference] However, the film is not listed in any of these dates.[Time Magazines 1990 and 1991].

My only question is how would I cite the DVD?

• How should the citation in the sources section should the James Wood reference look like?
• The reason I included Din of Celestial Birds in the article was because of a consensus was reached that the original article on it needed to be merged with this one as it did not have enough reliable sources and sources in general. Just wondering if it still needs to be its own thing.

--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of a branch off of my original questions in regards to the JSTOR sources you recommended. I have been thinking about that and I was wondering if you could provide me the text or sources from those articles as I am unable to acquire them without buying the entire line of magazines they are in. If not that's fine too.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: Hey there! Sorry for the delay, I've been busy IRL and with some other projects. Bummer about the FAC but I'm glad to see you're sticking with it. I just emailed you the three Time sources (Corliss, best of 1990, best of 1991). If you reply via email, I'll be able to attach pdf copies of the articles from JSTOR (fyi, the JSTOR pdfs are timestamped with my IP address so be sure not to post them elsewhere or I could lose my account). I've formatted the Time and JSTOR citations for your convenience, just copy and paste as you please:

• Atkinson, Michael (November–December 2000). "Vampire Variations". Film Comment. Vol. 36, no. 6. pp. 27–29. JSTOR 43455859. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Corliss, Richard (May 13, 1991). "A Happy Birthday for the Kids of Kane". Time. Vol. 137, no. 19. p. 69 – via the Time Magazine Vault (subscription required). {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• DiMatteo, Robert (January–February 1991). "Future Primeval". Film Comment. Vol. 27, no. 1. p. 2. JSTOR 43453866. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Smith, Gavin (January–February 2001). "Vidi Vidi Vidi". Film Comment. Vol. 37, no. 1. pp. 78–79. JSTOR 43824819. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Sterritt, David (2000). "Film Reviews: Shadow of the Vampire". Cinéaste. Vol. 25, no. 4. pp. 34–35. JSTOR 41689288. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Time staff (December 31, 1990). "Best of '90: Movies". Time. Vol. 136, no. 28. p. 43 – via the Time Magazine Vault (subscription required). {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• ——— (January 6, 1992). "Best of 1991: Cinema". Time. Vol. 139, no. 1. p. 79 – via the Time Magazine Vault (subscription required). {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

As for your other questions/comments:

• The New Yorker website lists its contributions from Sontag, which do not appear to include a review of Begotten. This annotated bibliography of Sontag's writings from 1948–1992 does not appear to include a review of Begotten, either. I still get the feeling that the existence of a written review by Sontag is apocryphal. It's either a misremembering or a (not unreasonable) assumption, given Sontag's status as a writer (and sophisticated film critic), her vocal praise of Begotten, and the blurb on the VHS/DVD (which tends to imply a written review, but does not require one).
• I think you generally have the right idea about how to incorporate the widely reported inaccuracy regarding the Time best-of lists. I'd suggest this revision: Several sources have mistakenly reported that Time ranked Begotten in its top-ten list of either 1990 or 1991, but the film was not included either year.(Note: [w, x, y] claimed that Time listed Begotten among the best films of 1990.[refs] [Z] and the film's own DVD packaging claimed it had been listed in 1991.[refs] However, the Time staff's best-of lists for 1990 and 1991 both omitted Begotten.[source] The most consequential changes would be (1) naming the sources in the text of the footnote itself and (2) moving all references into the footnote, which is permitted and I think preferable here since there would be so many refs stacked on top of one statement and it could be confusing. Putting them all in the footnote makes it clearer for the reader which references are connected to which piece of information, separating the "right" original Time sources from the "wrong" sources (further divided into two distinct groups based on the year stated).
• If an earlier consensus preferred merging Din of Celestial Birds, then the current arrangement is probably OK. The spun-off article would be small in any case, and there may just not be much more that could be said about it (or would be worth saying). I think the new choice of a screenshot from the film rather than a poster is good and more defensible from a fair-use perspective, since the visual similarity is a subject of critical commentary about the film and its thematic/aesthetic interrelation with Begotten. Just brainstorming: do you think there's a single screenshot from Din that succinctly conveys not only the visual similarity, but also the short's evolutionary/scientific theme? That would kill two birds with one stone and have an even more solid fair-use basis. I'm getting the aspect of visual similarity from the current image (grainy black-and-white morbidity) but not necessarily the evolutionary theme (although I haven't seen the short and perhaps can't judge that; I could see how the image of a dying figure in the mud might connote a mood of Darwinian fatalism in context). —BLZ · talk 00:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help. In regards to the new image for Din of Celestial Birds, I was trying to find a proper image that conveyed a similar visual style with Begotten. You do bring a valid point though, Looking over the video (I found it here There is a strobe warning though: Din of Celestial Birds FULL VIDEO) I gathered several more screenshots from the video that I am going to send you via email.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun at WT:ALBUMS#RfC on producer entries in infobox album regarding the |producer= parameter used in this infobox. Please add your comments there. – TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will apologize for deleting unused files (for fair use, when copyright is expired) with these public domain files read here, or, manually to Commons and tag with {{subst:Ncd}} or {{subst:Ncd|File:New filename.png}} on Wikipedia file associated with the original upload log. --Ni3Xposite (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Adore (The Smashing Pumpkins album)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and today for your share to Loveless (album), "about a very influential and critically-acclaimed album by alt-rock band My Bloody Valentine"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mia Khalifa (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mia Khalifa (song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mia Khalifa (song) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mia Khalifa (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mia Khalifa (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brandt, A while back you gave me some additional sources to add for my continued expansion of the article Begotten (film), which as been very helpful. I replied to you soon afterward in regards to the other sources you listed, as well as possible images to have for the Din of Celestial Birds section. I just wanted to be sure if you were either busy or didn't receive my message.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will suggest you and your files while tagging this file to Commons. But we recommend you, using FileImporter and CommonsHelper. To transfer your files are in the public domain in Wikimedia Commons. For more information, read these guidelines on Commons, and on Wikipedia. --Ni3Xposite (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your orphaned files are deleted, so I will move to Commons using CommonsHelper. --Ni3Xposite (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been missing part of the template when you added it to orphaned files. You need to put date=18 February 2020 instead of 18 February 2020. When you do this it places it the correct category and if the file is still orphaned in seven days, it will be deleted. If you only enter the date, it is placed in Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of unknown date 2020 and will stay there until someone fixes the date, which will restart the seven day count at that time. Hopefully this advice helps you out, Aspects (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article William Rose (illustrator) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:William Rose (illustrator) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William Rose (illustrator) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Karoly Grosz (illustrator) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BLZ, just a note to see if you are doing ok in these strange times. You article work as always very impressive, I see you have branched out significantly. Here is a nice tune for monging out to during these long stay at home days.[10]. Best. 10:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil—good to hear from you, and I hope you're doing all right. Sorry to be a month late on this reply; time flies when you're laid off and have nowhere to go, I guess. If you can believe it, I am currently lodged in the hometown of the Flaming Lips and have been here for nearly two months. Almost certainly as far from an ocean as I've ever been outside of an airplane. My girlfriend's mom lives here alone and we figured we would quarantine with her, especially as she'd already come into contact with several people infected with COVID at her "essential" workplace and we were worried about what would happen if she became seriously ill. I drove a total of 24 hours in about a 40-hour span to get here. My worst fear was to be a Typhoid Mary, so didn't get out of the car without a mask the whole way, didn't so much as directly touch a surface or object outside the car without gloves, constant disinfecting. Sounds crazy, is a little crazy, but here I am. Still infection-free as far as I know, but several friends and extended family have had it—all manageable cases, thankfully.

Greatly appreciate the tune and its very organic, hypnotic vibe. I've been listening to a lot of (what I would consider) "alt"-country [11] [12] lately in a concession to the locale. Also lots and lots of Can... regret leaving All Gates Open: The Story of Can at home. —BLZ · talk 20:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we talked about newspapers.com, but I also wanted to mention newspaperarchive.com. The Wikipedia Library has subscriptions to both, and—as you've undoubtedly seen with the former—they're tremendously useful. I tend to prefer newspapers.com (mostly because its substantially easier to search), but each has lots of newspapers which the other does not. If you haven't already, I would consider applying for a subscription to both. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Thanks for the tip! I've just applied for Wikipedia Library Card access to both. I'm planning to get access to LAMP and/or their Movie Poster Artists books (which certainly includes Grosz, not sure about Rose) prior to taking either illustrator article to FAC. Double thanks for the GA reviews, both highly enjoyable and constructive. —BLZ · talk 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article William Rose (illustrator) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Rose (illustrator) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Karoly Grosz (illustrator) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Karoly Grosz (illustrator) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are doing well and staying safe during these times. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any input on the "Candy" (Foxy Brown song) article. I have heavily revised the article earlier in the year and nominated it for two FACs. I was unable to proceed with the first due to an illness, but I requested the second one to be archived since it did not receive any commentary after two weeks.

I would like to put it up for another FAC in the future, but I want to make sure it is in the best possible shape first. Hopefully, it will get more attention the next time around, but it appears that certain topics attract reviews more than others. I understand if you do not have the time or would just prefer not to. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47! I hope you're doing well and staying healthy under quarantine. Sorry for the delay—I'd be happy to help out with "Candy", and I've now given the lead a once-over. I'll get a chance to work on it a little more in-depth sometime in the next week or so. Incidentally, Kelis's "Bossy" def ranks as one of my favorite pop songs from the 00s. —BLZ · talk 19:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits to the lead. It looks awesome, and breaking up the information into three paragraphs is a good idea. There's no need to apologize. Take as much time as you need as I would still like to go over the article a few times myself before putting it up for another FAC. I'm a pretty big fan of Kelis, and "Bossy", particularly the music video, is a lot of silly fun. That would be a fun article to work on in the future so I will be adding it to my never-ending list lol. I am doing well, thank you. I am just glad everyone in family is safe and healthy. Can't ask for much more than that. I hope you and your loved ones are staying healthy and sane during the quarantine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brandt Luke Zorn, Congrats on the GA for Karoly Grosz, I know you worked very hard on it and it shows, keep up the good work! Anyways, I have his something of a snag while trying to fix all of the addressed issues on my Begotten article so that it can pass FA status. Namely, the issue I have is the whole paraphrasing issue, which was pointed out by one of the reviewers. I still have no clue where the issues of paraphrasing were since the "issues" they said were improperly phrased information in the article that plagiarized the quotes from the sources which seem rather interesting as the only things that are taken from those articles directly are in quotations. I was just wondering if you could help me sort out this whole issue so I can get this up to FA.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paleface Jack! I'd be happy to help. I've been pretty inactive on Wikipedia in the last month or so but I'll have a chance to take a look sometime within the next week. Hope you've been doing well and staying healthy. Appreciate the kudos on the Karoly Grosz article, it was a fun topic to tackle; this may sound odd but I've actually seen next to none of the Universal Horror films, only Bride of Frankenstein. —BLZ · talk 20:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just let me know when you are able to help since I have a couple of other tasks I want to get done on the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Brandt, I saw your recent edits to Begotten and I like what you are doing. Anyways I have a question in regards to a sources that I want to add. They are audio interviews with the director that I think are insightful enough to.warrent inclusion. There is an interview of Merhige on Jason Louv's Ultraculture podcast that gives some fascinating information on both Merhige himself and Begotten. (https://ultraculture.org/blog/2015/12/20/e-elias-merhige/). I don't know how to cite audio in an sfn format, and I also wanted to run the source by you before anything else happens.---Paleface Jack (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ILoveFriday - Mia Khalifa cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Adore (The Smashing Pumpkins album) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 2, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2, 2020.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are doing well and staying safe with everything going on in the world right now. I recently rewrote the "Pussy Fairy (OTW)" article for a GAN, and I used the Harvard citation style. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look through the article to make sure the citations are correct. I believe that I have gotten a more solid understanding of the style, but it would be nice to get another perspective. If you do not have the time or interest, I completely understand. It was a little strange how I received some pushback for using this citation style in this article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I noticed you recently edited a little bit of the reception section of the In the Aeroplane Over the Sea article (nice edits btw, the opening sentence does a good job explaining how it was just another album to critics at the time). Would you be able to take a look at the rest of the article? Just a once over really. I nominated for FAC about a month ago but some personal issue meant I couldn't edit for a few weeks so it failed. I want to try and renominate it, and I just wanted some possible feedback, in case I'm missing anything glaring. The only thing I'm working on right now that I didn't address from the FAC comments was the FUR regarding the postcard image (I have no idea how to further prove the author's lack of identity, so that'll be fun to figure out). Famous Hobo (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Famous Hobo! Sorry for the delay in responding. I'd be happy to take a look at the article. It was a huge album for me in high school and I caught a Jeff Mangum solo show back in 2013. I've got a copy of the 33⅓ book on hand for reference, too. The article has long been on my watchlist and I'd always thought of it as a "maybe one day" project so, needless to say, I was psyched to watch you work to expand it from the sad near-stub it once was into an article covering the album with the scope and depth it deserves.

Copyright law and researching sources of obscure images have become particular interests of mine, so last week I started investigating the postcard and improving the image description. At this point I'd be happy to vouch for its public domain status. Imo, it should be considered an anonymous US work. Even if someone discovers that it had been published in Europe earlier than 1907–08 or simultaneously (but not later than that), it would still be public domain due to its anonymity. And that's a big "if" anyway, because—other than the common (but speculative) descriptions of the illustration as "European" in origin—I've been unable to find any hard evidence indicating it was ever actually published (i.e. distributed for sale) in Europe. Additionally, if someone ever does manage to unearth and prove the identity of the artist someday, and assuming that artist was European/Russian, it's almost certain it would remain public domain anyway. Given that it was published in 1908 I tend to doubt that the artist, whoever they were, would have lived later than 1950 (EU) or even 1942 (Russia). —BLZ · talk 21:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the FUR for the postcard is amazing! Thank you so much! As for the album itself, it's definitely one of my favorites. It was one of those albums you listen to for the first time and realize "now I know why everyone calls this album the next coming of Jesus, it's great!" It's been fun to work on the article that surprisingly hadn't been edited too much, considering it's the eleventh highest rated album on RateYourMusic. The one concern I have about the article is the 33⅓ book. I own the digital copy through Google Play Books, and while it has the exact same content, the page numbers drastically differ from the physical version. For example, in page 61 of the psychical version, it talks about how "Oh Comely" was recorded in one take. In the digital version, the same information is on page 48. Should I make a note in the 33⅓ reference that all page numbers were taken from the digital version? Famous Hobo (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh you know what, I was wondering about that because I noticed a page you'd cited (about the postcard) was way off from what I had in my print copy of the book. Your ebook copy is probably in EPUB format, which is called "reflowable" as it doesn't have fixed pagination (like PDF), instead the text adjusts dynamically based on the device and the user's custom settings (font size, etc.) It could be in a format like PDF using consistent pagination, maybe, but in that case I don't know why the numbering would be so radically different from the already existing physical book. You should probably use the physical book's numbering (I assume you're relying on the Google Books preview for that), since your edition either doesn't have real numbering at all or the numbering so hyper-specific to the Google Play version that it's not especially useful to cite those page numbers anyway. If you want I can help out with that, since it's kinda tedious and I have a real paper copy on hand. —BLZ · talk 20:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Google Books preview only covers some of the first few chapters and nothing from the second half of the book, so I wouldn't be able to rely on that. I know you said you wouldn't mind helping out with changing the page numbers, but since I cite the 33⅓ quite a bit, that would be a lot of work. If you want, I can provide you with the quote that I used for each reference. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found a full physical copy with page numbers. I'll update the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Now I have a new question. Would you be able to help with expanding the purpose of use for the In the Aeroplane Over the Sea audio sample? A user in the Feature article candidate page for the album said the audio sample has a weak purpose of use and that it needs to be expanded. I'm not sure what else to add, and since you uploaded the file, I figured I could ask you. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all of the images you added to the Great American Novel. Personally, I'm really bad with copyright licenses. ~ HAL333 20:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Thanks HAL! No problem, it was a fun project. Practically speaking almost all US dust jacket covers before 1978 (and a few from '78–'89) are in the public domain, the main thing is to find a full scan of the dust jacket to make sure it didn't have some iteration of "[Copyright/©] + [Year] + [Name of the Publisher/Designer/etc]". Sadly, back when I uploaded the McCarthy covers/photos I determined the Blood Meridian jacket is still copyrighted. The cover image is a Dalí painting copyrighted until like 2060, plus there's a copyright notice protecting the portrait of McCarthy on the back. (The Child of God portrait is by far the most bad-ass photo of him anyway, so no great loss there imo.)

Speaking of, great work on McCarthy's bio. I was stunned when I looped back around to his page and saw how much it had improved since the time I added a photo to the infobox last August.

Feel free to ask if there are any specific books or authors you'd like to have high-res covers for, I'm happy to take requests. I'm working on adding some Faulkner and Steinbeck covers at the moment, and I could probably tack on some Fitzgerald covers next (since it looks like that's been a project of yours) or whatever else. Looks like we're pretty simpático in our cultural interests and political outlook, based on your userpage. —BLZ · talk 22:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry I didn't respond to this; I don't remember seeing the notification. ~ HAL333 06:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Taxi Driver (1976 film poster).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brandt Luke Zorn, I just want to display your original uploads to Commons right here.

As a reminder, FileInfo is very important to display your original uploads from Wikipedia to Commons. But be careful, do not tag as deletion and make sure this file is being reviewed by an administrator. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ZmeytheDragon16: What is this message in reference to, exactly? —BLZ · talk 04:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, it is essential if you need to remember to display your old file history, before tagging {{Now Commons}}. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing images on Commons is essentially my kryptonite. I was amazed by the images you pulled up at Great American Novel. I don't know if this is possible, but I would appreciate if you could help save an image of Frank Sinatra from deletion. No worries if you can't or don't have the time. Thanks! ~ HAL333 15:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: hey there! Sorry about the extremely long delay before getting back to you on this (and for pinging you in a million places all at once). At some point well over a week ago now I had just about finished writing up a comment for the Commons deletion discussion but I lost all my work when my computer crashed as a result of having PhotoShop and a million tabs of Sinatra photos open all at once. I'm bummed to come down on the "delete" side of the Commons discussion. I spent hours trying to track down some shred of evidence that the photo had been published in some form that would have rendered it public domain, but ultimately I came up short. It's a terrific photo and, imho, it would be clearly superior to the current lede image under different circumstances. Still, I'm glad you brought that discussion to my attention. I completely agree with you that the Sinatra page could use a better lede image, so when I couldn't prove your pic was free I went down a rabbithole seeking out other alternative photos. Lmk what you think of the new batch of photos, and if there are any other vintage pics out there that you suspect might be public domain I'd be happy to check 'em out and/or retouch them. —BLZ · talk 00:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot - I really appreciate it. Those are all some great photos and hopefully they'll carry the conversation forward. ~ HAL333 06:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brandt, It has been a while since we last talked and I was finally able to get the Billy article up to GA status. As such I wanted to talk to you again on the Begotten article and get your honest opinion on whether or not it is ready for FA status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: I'll take another look at it today and let you know where I think it's at. —BLZ · talk 22:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edits you did to the article and I just wanted to say thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandt Luke Zorn: I have one last question before I start the FA Nomination process. There are two interviews with Merhige that I have found that I do not know if they warrant inclusion. One is a podcast interview with Merhige by Jason Louv, and in it, Merhige talks a little bit about Begotten (Link: https://ultraculture.org/blog/2015/12/20/e-elias-merhige/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVmX4KqcV6s&list=PLcFWVqrZJT2Bc8AA1EgjBoeb5KMm-0ijW&index=51&t=0s). The other interview is actually from this month. It is a brief interview with Merhige from Fine Books Magazine.

I just wanted your thoughts on them and how I would go about citing an audio source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: For citing an audio source, I think the best thing to do is to give timestamps, which you can do with {{sfn|Lastname|YYYY|loc=}}. I used audio sources for The California Field Atlas article, note 31 is a good example.

As far as the state of the article, I don't think it's quite ready for FAC yet... but I think it's reasonably close. You've done a wonderful job researching and building up the article, but I think it is still in need of a really thorough review. Some notes:

• I'm satisfied with the book citations after combing through them earlier—btw, that issue with all the incorrect ISBNs provided by Google Books was bizarre, something I've never encountered before, so no worries about that. That said, the web references are still in need of cleanup. Citations without dates should have |date=n.d. for "no date", and you should also include "n.d." in place of the year for all footnotes. Citations without an individually credited author (or collective author) can be handled a few ways, but I prefer using |author=Anon.. In the bibliography, I sort all the anonymous sources first alphabetically (even ahead of names that come before "Anon." in the alphabet, as "Anon." stands for the absence of any name rather than the presence of an author with the name "Anon."), with all "Anon." sources sorted by date earliest to latest. I assign these anonymous sources a {{sfnref}} (or {{harvid}}, same thing) using the same name that I used in the website (or sometimes publication) parameter. You don't need to use {{sfnref}} under any circumstances if there's already a credited author. In some cases you've included a website and publisher when only one is necessary, as with "IndieWire.com. IndieWire."—that should just be |website=IndieWire (linked) with no publisher. (The IndieWire article itself does not italicize "IndieWire", but that isn't necessarily correct in the first place and, regardless, it's OK to have a website title italicized in a citation even if it isn't ordinarily italicized in prose.)
• IIRC, some of the reviewers at FAC took issue with some of the sources from a reliability standpoint. I have no immediate comment on that yet, but it's something I'm keeping in mind as I go through.
• I think the "Release" section could use clarification and restructuring, something I'm working on a bit right now. It should be presented in a more strictly chronological order, especially the order that screenings took place. Some of what's there can be confusing or contradictory. For instance, it was unclear in what sense its first New York screening was its "official premiere" if it had screened elsewhere earlier. Certain phrases like "briefly screened" need clarification, since that sounds like it could mean "screened only in part" when in fact it had three full screenings at SFIFS.
• I added an introductory paragraph before the rundown of all the screenings. A lot of important context went unstated, things that may be intuitively understood by a savvy reader but could be baffling to the general reader. For instance: while it almost goes without saying that the film did not have a wide release, a general reader may not be equipped to read between those lines unless they see it stated plainly. Someone reading it may have a default expectation that any old movie gets a theatrical release, or going even further, they may be entirely unfamiliar with the way American film distribution worked at that time.
• I retitled the "Theatrical release" subsection "Theatrical screenings", since strictly speaking it didn't have a "theatrical release" in the sense that term is commonly understood. I think it would be clearer to combine "Distribution" and "Theatrical screenings" into one "Theatrical distribution" section, then sorting it chronologically—right now, the SFIFS content split between "Distribution" and "Theatrical screenings" jumps around and would make more sense presented in a linear chronological order.
• I found an old MoMA press release that gives some more info about the early screening there, including the precise date and the nature of the screening series, which featured some kind of post-screening appearances by the filmmakers.

I'll continue making revisions over the next few days. —BLZ · talk 22:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought:

• In the Filmmaker interview, Merhige says "Peter Scarlet and Tom Luddy had decided to include it in the San Francisco Film Festival, though I got the sense that they weren’t too sure about it themselves. So they asked Susan if she would look at it. She loved it and asked me to project it in her living room for a group of her friends." That seems to contradict the account given by the article, which suggests that Scarlet and Luddy discovered the film at SFIFS. —BLZ · talk 01:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandt Luke Zorn: Thanks so much for all the work and input, I shall try to make some revisions when I can. Should I use the press release template for the MoMA pamphlet?--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: I think so, yeah. I'd attribute the author as either "Anon." or "MoMA Department of Public Information". Some other new thoughts:

• The more I look into it, the more I doubt that it's accurate to say Begotten "screened at the Berlin Film Festival"... It's not in the the complete 1990 program, which includes films screened out of competition, nor in the programs from 1991–96. In the Essman interview, Merhige says "[Sontag] brought it to the Berlin Film Festival", and in this article for The Buffalo News he says "Susan Sontag was a big supporter of the film. She brought it to the Berlin Film Festival, proclaimed it as a great masterpiece of cinematic art." It sounds like Sontag probably just brought a copy of the film with her and somehow informally screened it for interested cinéastes in her social circle.
• It's also not clear whether Herzog saw the film during the BIFF or whether Sontag caused Herzog to see the film. Merhige said "And then Herzog had seen the film at just about the same time", which only indicates a rough contemporaneousness of Herzog's viewing. It's as if he's jumping from Sontag to a new and unrelated thought—"and here's another prominent person who saw my film around the same time"—rather than indicating a causal connection. —BLZ · talk 03:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: Just for fun, look what I happened to come across: check out the third mask in this gallery. This might be an alternate view of same, although I came across the latter image in a random cached webpage and I have no idea of its source. I'm sure it's a recreation, not the original, but then again who knows—maybe someone who got their start making props and costumes for Theatreofmaterial went on to make and sell latex horror masks. —BLZ · talk 18:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandt Luke Zorn: That is an interesting possibility. Anyways, I reworked the Distribution section a bit so that your concerns were addressed and later this week I will look over that Audio source to see what I could include in the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great additions to this section. I recently made an edit to your contribution by porting over Season 2-specific notes to the True Detective (season 2) page; the description and citations were on point, but the section on S2 criticism didn't tie in directly with the topic. However, if you strongly disagree, I won't take offense to reverting my edits, though I'd suggest breaking up that long paragraph and finding a point/quote in the citations that bridges the two seasons on the topic of "auteurism" specifically. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GimmeChoco44: Hey there! Thanks for the ping. I actually think your trim was a smart move. Even as I was writing I felt concerned about venturing too far into S2 territory, on the one hand, but on the other hand I wanted to make sure I substantiated what I wrote about S2 without making weaselesque summary statements. I really appreciate that you ported what I wrote over to the S2 article where it belongs.

I've added some new sentences that briefly summarize the relevant aspects of the S2 production/reception and provide the minimum necessary context to understand the post-S2 reevaluations of S1's "auteurism". Imo, the necessary kernels of context are (1) Fukunaga left, (2) Fukunaga was replaced by several directors, (3) Pizzolatto essentially consolidated his creative control, and (4) season two was not generally well-received. I think point #2 is a subtle but crucial one to hit: the show dropped not merely Fukunaga, but also the almost-unprecedented practice of handing an entire season of TV to a single director, and it explains the critical complaints about an "inconsistent" or weak directorial vision after Fukunaga. The alleged Fukunaga–Pizzolatto beef provides some fun spice, but it's not strictly necessary. —BLZ · talk 01:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the revision -- S1 and S2 bridge is much clearer. Well done.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on getting Clint Eastwood filmography up to FL status. I was wondering if you could find an image of Clint beind the camera, something like the lede image at Orson Welles filmography. If you don't have the time or will, I completely understand. You just seem to have the magic touch when it comes to finding great images. Thanks! ~ HAL333 18:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone upload non-free media for Plan 9 from Outer Space? but it's still nominating for deletion from Commons.

See it here: [13] --122.2.10.69 (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow @ your Spin Alternative Record Guide edits. isento (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brandt Luke Zorn, I just want to say thank you for all your help with the Begotten article. I have been doing some more edits and am now on the final stretch before I resubmit it for FA review. I have been trying to figure out since Nikkimaria has some reservations on some sources, some of which I have fixed. I am trying to figure out a way to argue for their inclusion and notability/reliability. Here are the sources that have come to mind:

• SmellsLikeScreenSpirit- Interview with Panos Cosmatos on Begotten influence
• Nightmare on Film Street- Interview with James Quinn who refutes critics claims that Flesh of the Void fell into the category of Begotten
• UltraCulture- Podcast interview of Merhige who discussed a little on Begotten

--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Virgil Texas, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.
• It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 12:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a pain, but as the lyrics are pared to the bone par excellence, the article should also be so. No verbiage, adjectives etc, as sparse as we can make it. Its probably above my skill set, so a combined effort and rally around DMT biscuit‎ re prose would be great. I might also ask Dan56, and if you have other suggestions for people that might help. Hope all is well otherwise, we are in a 2nd lockdown atm, 5 weeks in, but will be able to go back into pubs for Guinness next Thursday. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BLZ and Ceoil, my friends. Seasons greetings! How are you guys? I hope you are both doing great and managing during these COVID times. Let's hope vaccine distribution is effective in our respective countries and around the world, and life can return to something more normal in the coming months.

I have a funny question to ask your opinion about. I've had a really busy year and very little Wikipedia time lately (well, I've taken on other projects in real life, and one can't do everything). Still, I have a big itching to do another FAC run sometime. I have notes for various article expansions on back-burners, but most of them would still require lots of work to get anywhere near FA. I have a little window of time during the winter holidays, and I realized my best bet, maybe, would be to clean up one of my shorter current GAs, if any of these are indeed within the realm of possibility for bringing towards FA with a bit of work. They are subjects where there's not that much source material out there. There's one point of view that an FA can be short as long as it's comprehensive for the information available; but I think some other editors feel that some subjects by their nature are too small to ever really be appropriate for FA. (Even for The Breeders Tour 2014 I had a couple of comments along the way that it might be too short.) I have a handful of GAs that I could polish up in a relatively short time—"polishing up" meaning tightening the prose and cleaning up the formatting of the sources, etc. I could scour for a couple more details to add, but in most cases I wouldn't be able to find much more than what's there now. So I'm saying I'd be mostly just tightening the prose for the existing level of detail. I do believe my writing has improved since I wrote these, and I could spot lots of places to improve the prose. Could I ask your honest opinion whether you could imagine any of the following within the realm of FA with a bit of polishing up of the existing amount of detail:

• Santa-Fe (Bob Dylan song) (the longest of the ones I'm proposing, but there's not much more out there about it);
• I'm Goin' Down (probably the one of these with the most potential for me to find a medium amount of additional detail with scouring); or
• Community Trolls (short, but kind of an interesting story? Of the three, the prose probably needs the most tightening on this one.)

I have other GAs but they either would need to much work for the window of time I have (including Pacer (album) and The Amps, where I'm sitting on a ton of expansion material) or on the other end of the spectrum I know they really are too skimpy and far from FA.

Of course, if you can't see any of those three being close to FA potential with a bit of work, just tell me. I know there's no easy path on the road to FA. But I also know if I don't manage to get enough momentum on an article during the holidays to at least take it to PR, come January I'll fall back into my busy routine and it'll be months before I'll be able to organize myself for any concentrated work. Thanks in advance, I appreciate your guys' feedback and perspective. :-) Moisejp (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about it since yesterday, and I think I'll just start cleaning up one or two or three of my GAs without any expectations that I'll take this one or that one to FAC. Then I can see how they evolve and decide later if any of them might be good to nominate. And if none of them end up being so, at least I'll have improved them as GAs, which is worthwhile in itself. Moisejp (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Badass Gonzo “lawyer” Award
		For your badass copyright law judo Making images like this available. —50.201.195.170 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For this. Truly outstanding work finding and integrating those sources into MF Doom. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I hope you are having a great, safe 2021 so far. Apologies for my super random message. I was wondering if you could help with my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the FAC was just promoted. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spiderland. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Adore (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – zmbro _(talk) 23:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Spiderland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your name at another candidate at WP:FAC and wanted to ask if you would comment on or review my nomination of Love for Sale (Bilal album). It has not received new comments in a while now and is running close to the end, and there are reluctant takes on the sourcing in particular. isento (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Endless title card.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brandt Luke Zorn, it appears that Lorenz's birth year is itself disputable. Prior to her joining the Times (in 2019), they stated (in 2018) that she was 31. That would put the date off by 2-3 years (1986-1987 instead of 1984). Given this irregularity, it is probably best that we refrain from including the year until we have a definitive source either way. At current, no source has included both pieces of info; while I would normally agree with WP:CALC as you had pointed out, this teeters fairly close to WP:SYNTH's literal definition with this irregularity..especially when there are valid sources for different years, which makes this a murky mess. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a talk page discussion about this. Rather than constantly restoring without discussion, this needs to be talked through. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BLZ, It has been a while since we last talked. In between that I renominated the Begotten article for FA status, but it failed to pass yet again due to not enough reviews and questions in regards to the sources used. I am just wondering if you are willing to work with me on coming up with an appropriate defense for all the sources that are cited in the article?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I hope you are doing well and staying safe. I was wondering if you could possibly help with my current peer review for the Veronica Clare article. I am planning on nominating the article for a FAC sometime later this year, but I thought it would be helpful to go through the peer review process first. I completely understand if you do not have the time or would not like to participate in the peer review, but I wanted to reach out to you after your help with The Emperor's New School FAC. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Curator Barnstar
		For taking the seemingly impossible task of finding some terrific and free photos of Stanley Kubrick. Hat's off to you, sir! StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mic Dicta, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mic Dicta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mic Dicta.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Brandt, thanks so much for reviewing my recent article, giving it a reconsideration, and upgrading it. The destruction of our collective early cinematic history, as exemplified by the disastrous Lubin fire, needs far more coverage and documentation on Wikipedia. I worked very hard on that article, and, admittedly, it kicked the wind out of me when I saw the quick "C" grades. I have written quite a number of new pages over the years and have other articles that received "B" grades that are far less in-depth in their narratives, insight, and in the scope of their source citations. I have to admit too that the initial "C" responses dampened my spirits to continue with a variety of other articles that I would like to contribute. Thanks again. I really appreciate your contacting me; it gives me fresh "wind" to press ahead. Strudjum (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Brandt, thanks once again for your feedback. FYI: I went ahead and submitted a GA nomination for my new page on the 1914 Lubin vault fire. Strudjum (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Strudjum: D'oh, looks like someone else beat me to the punch. My apologies—that said, I'm still happy and willing to help review and improve the page. I've taken the liberty of making some minor corrections throughout to save you the trouble on some necessary, albeit tedious issues. —BLZ · talk 05:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Brandt, any additional assistance is much appreciated. Strudjum (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so you know, I took your advice to "absolutely prioritize the GA review", its criteria, and the very helpful recommendations recently provided by GhostRiver in that process. I think I have addressed all of those recommendations and will now be turning to further improve my article by going over carefully your suggestions. Having such assistance from both quarters is much appreciated, and it is really gratifying to have direct contacts with you and GhostRiver and to have such great input from you two. (I copied this follow-up from my article's talk page, appreciating the fact that you must remain mighty busy with a variety of your own Wiki projects, so I wanted to make sure you got this update in a timely manner.) Strudjum (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet another image request: F. Scott Fitzgerald. Any photos would be appreciated, but particularly any of Scott with Hemingway or other Lost Generation writers. As usual, I completely understand if you don't have that time/energy to work on this. Also, I notice the name change - is that a Blade Runner reference? Best. ~ HAL333 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: @Flask: Hi Hal! Sorry for the delay on responding here; I have been a bit busy irl, but also I somehow missed the notification for this message at first. Seeing that you're working on an FAC on Fitzgerald right now, I did some digging for Fitzgerald photos but unfortunately didn't turn up much.

There's a perversely tricky thing about photographs from the period before and just after the "hard" public domain date of (currently) 1926, which is it's often much more difficult to determine whether a photograph was actually "published" compared to photos from ~1940–1975. For example, pre-1926 photographs of Fitzgerald as a child were likely held in private collection until they were first published in biographies of Fitzgerald decades after his death; therefore most photos of the young Fitzgerald would most likely remain under copyright even if they were created pre-1926. The same difficulty exists for many post-1926 photographs of Fitzgerald, since publicity photos for authors did not become common until the mid-century (so there aren't that many of him) and it's very difficult to determine when, e.g., personal family portraits with Zelda and the like were first published.

That said, I have turned up two potential leads so far. Neither of these are slam dunks, but I figured I'd show you what I found and let you (and your FAC co-nominee) decide if you'd like anything to be uploaded to Commons.

1. First, there are some photographs of Fitzgerald's college years published in the Princeton Bric-a-Brac, e.g. 1, 2. Commons already has one group portrait with Fitzgerald at Princeton and this headshot (already used in the article, even), but I wouldn't be opposed to uploading others if any seem useful to you.
2. Second: in 1929, Fitzgerald appeared in a series of print ads for the Woodbury Soap Company, which featured variations on the same photo portrait of him. Some examples:

• "Vote Her the Most Beautiful Young Mother";
• "Voted the Prettiest of Co-eds";
• "Voted the Most Beautiful Woman in the Arts".

The photograph is by Nickolas Muray (source 1, 2, 3) and was commissioned by the J. Walter Thompson ad agency. Each ad bore the valid notice "© 1929, the A. J. Co. [Andre Jergens Company]", and while I haven't checked yet I highly doubt they were renewed. I've found some high-res versions of the photo portrait (1, 2).

The problem is that only the portions of the photograph that were disclosed within the ads as originally published have entered the public domain, and these ads always cropped Fitzgerald's portrait in an awkward circle. The copyright to the full "un-cropped" photograph belongs to Murray, unless it turns out an as-yet undiscovered ad featured the full rectangular photograph. As far as I can tell, the full portrait was most likely first published in the book Muray's Celebrity Portraits of the Twenties and Thirties (1978). The "Co-eds" ad shows the biggest portion of the portrait (or put another way it's the most "zoomed out"), while the other two ads only show very tight crops of his face. I cropped the high-res version to match the portions shown by the "Co-eds" circle crop and, to give you an idea, this is the result.

As for photos of Fitzgerald with his contemporaries (other than Zelda), I tend to doubt there are any out there unfortunately—regardless of copyright status. I found a handful of him with Cornelius Vanderbilt IV (1, 2) selecting "winners" for that Woodbury Soap ad campaign, plus an undated portrait with French bookseller Adrienne Monnier. However, the provenance of those photographs is unclear and I can only assume they're validly copyrighted. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 02:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blz 2049: Wow! Thank you so much for all of your hard work tracking down images related to F. Scott Fitzgerald and determining their copyright status. Thank you also for adding them to the article. It really made the article look better.

Regarding the Woodbury Soap advertisement: I found an uncropped version of that Fitzgerald image published in newspaper variants of the ad. This one in The San Francisco Examiner (21 April 1929, p. 132) featured the whole image. (See Imgur pic). It also appeared in The Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph (21 April 1929, p. 97). There are also several uncropped variants with the background removed. Does this mean we can use the whole image?

Also, the image of Fitzgerald with Cornelius Vanderbilt IV was part of the same Woodbury soap ad campaign and was likewise published uncropped in a variety of newspaper advertisements such as in The San Francisco Examiner (19 May 1929, p. 122) (See Imgur pic). This makes me wonder if it was also by the same A. J. Co. [Andre Jergens Company] and likewise not renewed.

Lastly, if I may impose further upon your talents as an investigator, would it be possible for you to take a look at these two images, please: 1, 2. I have been trying in vain to determine their copyright status, but I have come up empty. (I emailed the Minnesota Historical Society three times in the past month, but I have received no answer.) Regarding the Fitzgerald's passport photo, buidhe stated that some passport images are not in the public domain, but I don't know how to determine if that is the case here. — Flask (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask: Wow, OK those Newspapers.com versions of the ad show pretty much exactly what I'd hope to see to feel confident that the ads disclosed a complete view of the underlying photo. I've gone ahead and uploaded Muray's portrait of Fitzgerald to Commons, as well as two of the newspaper ads. I also uploaded a few other Fitzgerald images, some of which I know you've seen because I added them to the page. The others so far are his sketched author portrait for Tender Is the Night, a caricature by William Gropper (very clearly modeled after the 1921 Scribner's publicity photo), and a portrait of Zelda from the National Portrait Gallery (sadly, the NPG's two portraits of FSF both have usage restrictions). Can't say that any of those are super obviously useful for the FSF article, but they're available now at least.

Unfortunately, buidhe probably has a point about the passport photos. US passport photos are tricky because although they're part of a quintessentially federal document, it's extremely unusual that a federal employee actually takes the photo (and even when that may have been the case, it'd be extremely difficult to prove). Thus the photo in a passport is almost never "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" for purposes of copyright law. I haven't found any information in F. Scott/Zelda biographies about the circumstances of their preparation of passport photos, but they were almost certainly taken using a photo booth, making the Fitzgeralds the presumptive copyright holder(s). We know these passport photos have been published, but they were probably first published decades later in academic/biographical publications, which are highly unlikely to have fallen out of copyright—so that avenue of getting to the public domain is blocked as well. It'd be good to find something like a note from a museum or other institution labeling the passport photos as public domain/CC0, like what you found with the Hemingway photo in NARA's database, but unfortunately NARA's note that Hemingway's photo is not use-restricted doesn't necessarily mean that the same applies to any other passport photo from the same period. As far as I can tell, the Fitzgerald estate(s) probably technically retain the rights to those photos.

However, I have a consolation prize: I found copies of F. Scott & Zelda's 1929 French identity card portraits and learned that such photo portraits are categorically public domain, regardless of who created them. It's not a 1:1 substitution for the passport photos—these were taken several years later, and young Scottie is no longer included—but it serves an equivalent purpose reasonably well.

I'll look into that other photo of the unbreeched young Francis and let you know what I find. It's likely that other childhood photos of FSF may be available, even if that one may be questionable.

Incidentally, here's some confirmation that there are no known photos of Hemingway and Fitzgerald together. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 20:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your help! The photos you have added to the article are great, especially the Fitzgeralds' French identity cards.) Given the gorgeous quality of the Murray publicity photograph that you uploaded, I'm wondering if an extracted/cropped version could be used for Fitzgerald's Infobox as opposed to the current one? The Murray photograph is perhaps one of the most iconic images of Fitzgerald as a writer. @HAL333: What do you think? — Flask (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell by my own belated response, I completely understand. Thank you so much again -- these are great. ~ HAL333 05:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted at the approach to the name change and tranisition announcement, done with class, style and humour, and congrats all round, it must be a great relief to get it out there so can go forward. Re 2049, I did like the movie, a lot, but more to look at than think about, damn thing was too long and for periods seemed infinite, but would watch Gosling tie his shoelaces. Re the year 2049, I'm still smoking in my mid 40s - google death watch tells me I'll prob be ok until 2032, after that, prob not. Ulp and will u look after the Loveless article after that haha. Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Hey! Thank you very much, that's very kind of you to say and always good to hear. It's been a bumpy process figuring it all out but I'm doing a lot better now, and you're absolutely right it's been a tremendous relief. I also count myself extremely fortunate that my family and closest friends have supported me 100%, which is not everyone's experience, so I can't say how grateful I've been for their care and acceptance.

Re 2049: I feel much the same way, or at least I have some of the same complaints (too long, parts of it feel too slow or unnecessary) and the same compliments (the "neon phuture aesthetics" department kept up its end of the bargain, you can see the ocean in Ryan Gosling's eyes even if he's watching paint dry). It's not quite an all-time top-shelf S-tier "Desert Island Disc" favorite for me, the way that enshrining it in my username might suggest, but still I did like it a lot. It struck me as shallow on first viewing, but I've come around to it being a bit more thoughtful than I realized at first. The OG Blade Runner still runs laps around it in this category (Final Cut anyway), but still there's definitely something about Gosling's portrayal of a hollow man living in "the now" that feels new and insightful, not to mention much more hopeful and humanizing than virtually ("haha") any other recent media about people like that character. Speaking of Villeneuve tho, I enjoyed Dune a lot. That one I'd concede is almost pure surface over substance, but what a fun surface. It's an accomplishment as the world's first 156-minute-long trailer, and I mean that sincerely. Trailers are fun to watch!

Ulp, that's a good reminder for me not to heed the temptation to take up smoking again—I quit smoking mostly* cold turkey (*except for a few nights out drinking) after an undergrad fling with American Spirits. Regardless, I guarantee to keep Loveless on the ol' watchlist indefinitely, and'll keep an eye on its wellbeing as long as I or Wikipedia stick around. I like to imagine Wikipedia will probably last for a very very long time in some form or another, but who knows.

Btw: you had an enormous influence on my listening this year, per Spotify. I've really come around to Terraform. Albini's peak, totally neglected masterpiece. I'm willing to concede Alien Lanes is the equal of Bee Thousand... not really decidable which is better imo, they have non-overlapping magisteria or something like that. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 09:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised you have a lot of backing; frankly you come across as extremely thoughtful, bright and articulate, so it makes sense you have very close ties with family and a circle of friends. I know its not the same thing, but my best (& childhood) friend, now also Liz's best friend, came out two years ago, aged 44, having waited until his mother died. When he told me I was thinking "no shit, I knew 20 years ago", but his parents were older, not worldly, which is hard, hard, hard.

Re smoking, Co-vid and working from home has been disastrous; before I'd go out for a cig every two hours, now that working from home its, well you don't want to know. Am feeling it big time...so get your revert finger ready for Loveless for about 2027!!!!

Terraform reaffirmed indie for me after the Britpop disaster, and "didn't we deserve" and "copper", are just wow. ps re Alien Lanes vs Bee Thousand, can you msg Liz that I was right and ye both were wrong, she'd be interested to hear :))))))) Here is something nice for ye tough: a cross between Jarvis Cocker and Mark E Smith, and what a bass line.[14] [[[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, of all thank you for your work at the FAC, in particular for sourcing the yearbook photo - as I said, that was very much a cut above the average. Having taken that initiative, I'm curious if you wish to do something. For a brief amount of time, I was in correspondence with Peyton Pinkerton about releasing an image of Berman to Wikimedia commons - this one to be exact: https://www.gazettenet.com/getattachment/78d63999-83e8-4078-9cea-ec55f971ef9d/ARTS-Berman-HG-092629-ph06 Now, as you might have gleaned, commons isn't my forte, and the official channels were as confusing to me as they were to him. So, I'm wondering if you want to try your hand and hopefully make the process easier, for him chiefly. It's been a bit since I talked to Pinkerton, but he was eager: "You'll get the photo, I'm not a flake." If that's changed than that's fine; if he's too busy or unwilling, for whatever reason, all's well. It's just a little add-on. Thanks, all the same. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMT Biscuit: I'm not as familiar with the process behind the Volunteer Response Team or "VRT", but it looks like the idea would be:

1. First, upload Peyton's image to Wikimedia Commons with the agreed license, proper crediting information, etc. Tag the description with the Permission pending template.
2. Next, have Pinkerton email a written statement using the boilerplate language provided here to the address "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org". There's also a "VRT release generator" to streamline the process of generating the correct language. He can use his own language if he likes, but it's easier to use the template because the permission statement has to be unambiguous for legal purposes. The reason you upload the image to Commons first is so that Pinkerton can include the URL to the file page in his email.

After that, a volunteer on the VRT should get around to updating the page to confirm the license. Not sure how long that usually takes though. According to the VRT guidelines, Pinkerton can send the email granting permission even if (for some reason) an admin on Commons deletes the image before he can send it, as long as he includes the URL to the file page; apparently they will restore it if that happens, just FYI. If you'd like me to upload the image or help in any other way, let me know and I'd be happy to help. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 00:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belated but thanks. Pinkerton actually reached out to me to continue the process; the image has been uploaded and I imagine Pinkerton will send the confirmation email quite soon. The image is presently used in the article. I didn't see any notice discouraging or forbidding this, but if the rule of thumb errs on the side of caution I'll swiftly remove it. I know you're not too familiar with the VRTS but your explanation helped more than various pages of detailed guidance. DMT Biscuit (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC) P.S. I incidentally found a treasure trove of his poems: his theses (Ruined Entrance). https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/2754/[reply]

P.S. P.S. the Silver Palace mystery seems to have been resolved https://aquariumdrunkard.com/2014/08/12/silver-palace-mr-jews-will-oldham-david-berman/. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Nollaig shona duit
	Wising you and yours the very best for the holiday season and new year. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for your improvements to the New Brandeis movement article. It needed some tidying by an experienced editor and the picture of Brandeis is a great addition.

Take care and happy New Year!

Lonehexagon (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hello again! Apologies for the super random message. I hope you are doing well and having a great start to your 2022. I was wondering if you could at my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. It is still a relatively new nomination and it has already received a fair bit of commentary (and I am still working on practicing patience with the FAC process). Best of luck with everything going on in your life! Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Chevelle - Well Enough Alone.ogg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficiently supported by critical commentary in context, even with caption. Not contextually significant (WP:NFCC#8).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Big Blood you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Big Blood you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Big Blood for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cryptooology you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Man in the Box - Alice in Chains.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Big Blood you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Big Blood for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cryptooology you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cryptooology for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cryptooology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cryptooology for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article What Is the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years? you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rublov -- Rublov (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article What Is the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years? you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:What Is the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years? for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rublov -- Rublov (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article What Is the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years? you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:What Is the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years? for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rublov -- Rublov (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to say thank you for all of your edits to the Paix article. I had been hoping that some editors more experienced than me would check out the page, so I really appreciate your contributions. I'd also like to say thanks for bringing to my attention the French book Il y a des années où l'on a envie de ne rien faire. I found it on Amazon and as you can see Paix is even featured on the front cover. I bought a copy of the book (used thankfully), but I actually don't know French so I'll probably have to type out the chapter on Paix and run it through a translator, as I did for all the French websites I used. PianoUpMyNose (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New Ancient Strings you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article New Ancient Strings you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:New Ancient Strings for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article New Ancient Strings you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:New Ancient Strings for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Poems and Songs of Middle Earth you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Poems and Songs of Middle Earth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Poems and Songs of Middle Earth for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Figureskatingfan -- Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing your work at GA, respect. Want to share a tune that blends Budda in art with velves guirats[15]. The production is so amazing, dunno how they did it, so sharp and abrasive, it make my skin bleed. Ceoil (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chevelle - Point No. 1.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Horse ebooks.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Horse ebooks.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been following User:Popcornfud's trials and tribulations here? Man, that editor can write. The band seems totally up you street, and is headed for GA, if interested. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ps, long time no talk. Im going to go back to This Nations soonish, got distracted with Corp Naomh and H.D. the plan is FAC before xmass, if your still interested in a joint effort.. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pps, saw Peter Hook and the Light two weeks ago[16]. They are basically Joy Division, and it was an almost religious night. He certainly cares about his fans (unlike Bernie, whom Ive heard second hand is an insufferable prick), anytime anybody posts anything about JD/NO on twitter the man sees and gives a like. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This how acid house was c 89-92, when hardcore was taking over [17] We really believed then that E would solve all world problems. I get why your generation are so pisssed off, considering we left the world with California basically on fire. Sorry about that.Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BLZ, I hope you're doing all right. I wish you Happy Holidays, a Merry Christmas, or a Pleasant Festivus. If you have the time, could you dredge up some photos of William Faulkner? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ~ HAL333 06:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Hi! Happy (very) belated holidays to you as well. I'm tentatively dipping my toes back into some Wikipedia-ing after an unintended but prolonged hiatus and finally circled back to your request for Faulkner photos. So far I've only come across a handful that will be usable. There are some dust jacket portraits from his later novels and I'm trying to source high-quality scans for these to upload to Commons soon, although these mostly show the same late-career white-haired Faulkner already depicted in the article. Excitingly, I managed to find two publicity photos from 1924 showing a Faulkner who is much younger yet already embarked on a writing career, which I've already added to the article; as far as I could tell neither of these photos have been reproduced as discrete image files anywhere on the wider web until now, beyond PDF scans from the biography in which they were reprinted. I also uploaded posters for three films with screenplays written or co-written by Faulkner—Flesh, Today We Live, and To Have and Have Not—because it felt like any of these would be a fun choice to visually highlight the Hollywood facet of his career. If there are any first-edition book covers or other film posters you would like me to upload, just let me know, as these will overwhelmingly be public domain and it's just a matter of prioritizing whichever ones you'd deem most worthwhile. Hope you are well! —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 04:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Best wishes for the holidays
		Wishing you and yours the best over the holiday season, and here's hoping 2023 won't bring as much global trauma as 2020, the worse 2021[18] & fecking 2022! Ceoil (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Chamberlin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't like it, that was one of the most compelling arguments I've actually seen from a genre debate. Thank you for your input. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! Appreciate it. Music genre debates drive me bonkers yet I'm irresistibly drawn to them. I think there's a real tendency for people (not just Wikipedia editors, but especially Wikipedia editors) to surf thru popcrit and jump at certain descriptive words that are used various ways in various contexts at various times and then assert that a writer was actually making a specific Genre Classification Judgment. A Wikipedia debate along these lines that sticks in my mind was a few years ago someone cited a review or two that had used the word "avant-garde" to describe Frank Ocean's Blonde and then tried to claim in the infobox and elsewhere that Blonde was a work of "avant-garde music" as such—and like putting aside to whatever extent "avant-garde music" is even a label that describes a coherent "genre" category, Frank Ocean is just not under the same categorical umbrella as like Julius Eastman or AMM or Peter Brötzmann or Merzbow. And no disrespect to Frank Ocean because of course he is an innovative creative ambitious artist but c'mon that's all they were trying to say, not that he's escaping the formal confines of popular music altogether or anything like that.

The flip side is that genre labels are squishy, and what certain terms mean inevitably drifts over time. I think it's fascinating when Simon Reynolds first set out to define "post-rock" he named Stereolab as a quintessential, obvious example of the kind of thing he meant. I think few people around my age (except hyper-well-informed obsessives like myself) would tend to think of Stereolab as "post-rock" because, in the common understanding, the term went from describing a set of artists with particular creative ambitions at a specific historical juncture who were doing creative modernist fusiony things with "rock" instruments to being mostly used as a label for a much narrower sound (instrumental, ~20-minute tracks, clean-echoey-guitar-then-HUGE-guitar, "cinematic", "a t m o s p h e r i c"—basically Explosions in the Sky is the base model). Then again, if a band that sounded just like Stereolab got started tomorrow they probably wouldn't be very "post-rock" in the Reynolds way because now it's already been done—it felt different in the 1990s because of the other music that was in the air at the moment and its then-recent past, and that's not necessarily where the cutting-edge of what feels musically "Modern" is at in 2023. You can't step in the same river twice. The Stereolab of today would have to borrow from a different past and reach out to a different future, ya know? I think my approach to genre is historical evidence first and foremost because it matters a lot how musicians' contemporaries described music at the time it was new.

Blah blah. Well there's some spontaneous genre theorizing for ya. Thanks again! :) —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 13:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Cormac McCarthy Journal you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Cormac McCarthy Journal you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Cormac McCarthy Journal and Talk:The Cormac McCarthy Journal/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Cormac McCarthy Journal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Cormac McCarthy Journal for comments about the article, and Talk:The Cormac McCarthy Journal/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Credible homepage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BLZ. I am sorry I was hasty in reverting you at the Kinks' 1965 US tour. I had not read COM:POSTER close enough and seen that the pre-1989 US PD rules meant that many posters published in the US decades ago actually qualify as PD. I originally had not uploaded that poster to the Commons because I did not realize that was the case. My mistake and again, my apologies. The article goes up as TFA in a week, so thank you for adding it in time. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 03:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkbrett: No problem! I totally understand your caution over such a dramatic change with its featured day approaching. I just came across the article by happenstance and thought I'd check to see if any PD promo material existed, and was happy to find that poster (with a band photo that's already been confirmed as PD, quite luckily). I'm not much of a Kinks history buff but I do really love their late-60s records, particularly Village Green Preservation Society. The tour article is really fantastic, on par with any of the very best rock articles on Wikipedia imo :). If you're interested, I've also just retouched the KRLA Beat portrait of the group and uploaded it to Commons here! —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 21:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the incredibly kind words! I was originally planning on taking the album article up to FA status, but I only went 90 per cent of the way there, for some reason. Anyways, that retouched image is fantastic -- impressive stuff. Tkbrett (✉) 01:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BLZ, Just wanted to give you a heads up, I did a pretty significant rewrite and expansion of Begotten for sourcing and writing issues that were noted in its previous FA nominations. I am hoping it clears up the bulk of the issues that caused the nominations to fail previously and its current FA nomination to pass. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blz 2049. Perhaps you can clarify the licensing you chose for the various Steinbeck book cover files you've uploaded to Commons; it's being discussed at c:COM:VPC#John Steinbeck book covers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Gardener's Son you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Gardener's Son you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Gardener's Son for comments about the article, and Talk:The Gardener's Son/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could help with the copyrights of some Beach Boys-related files, one of which I uploaded; a clearer image from a photo used in a 1971 Billboard ad, and a crop of Brian Wilson from a rather infamous mirror photo, the parent being unavailable on Commons. I find both uploads to be unpolished, if not suspicious, and I need some assurance. Carlinal (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]