The article is about Daft Punk, not Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo. The caption should specifically talk about daft punk, and what I said in the revert description was that it mentions their real names in the opening sentence of the article. -Mike Payne (T • C) 23:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be prepared for the newest Daft Punk article - Alive 2007. I know you're going to clean it up with some grammar regardless. :) Douglasr007 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should rewrite it then. I don't have much experience in connecting leads. This is actually my second time editing a lead. The first time i made it from scratch(that's what im good at).Blackbird3216 00:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wii article received heavy editing today by users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you think the protection to that article already in place needs to be increased to bring control to the article, please let me know and I will protect that page from edits by all non-admin users. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... That's weird... I thought I was only making like one or two small edits, not complete reverts. I need to pay more attention to which revision I'm editing, I guess. Sorry! LN3000 18:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see what I was doing wrong. I almost made the same mistake again, but I caught it. LN3000 18:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Can you clarify this? What is the problem with the previous version? Note that almost all album articles use either sub-headings as recommended by WP:ALBUM#Track listing or a parenthetical statement to note which tracks are bonus tracks. --PEJL 12:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That particular track already contains bracketed information. This makes the placement of additional bracketed text cluttered and confusing for the reader. Just64helpin 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't find it that confusing, but I'll admit that it would be cleaner with a single pair of parentheses. I'll make that change, to keep this article consistent with other album articles. --PEJL 12:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would actually be more confusing, as it would imply that "Japan bonus track" is part of the track name. Just64helpin 12:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The track name is the part in quotes. See WP:ALBUM#Formatting. --PEJL 12:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now you've moved the quotes so that the quoted text includes the remix info. Per convention, such information is not considered part of the track name. --PEJL 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The remix information is actually marketed as part of track names for the release. It is not simply technical information, as it would be for, say, The Best of Blondie. Just64helpin 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "actually marketed as part of track names for the release"? --PEJL 13:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the artwork of the album states "Blood on Our Hands (Justice remix)" while the "special mix" of "Heart of Glass" is just labeled "Heart of Glass". Just64helpin 13:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convention is to not consider remix info part of the track/song name even if it is listed on the back cover. Cases when such info exists on album articles without being listed on the back cover should be quite rare. (In fact the Blondie example sounds like WP:OR.) --PEJL 14:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your latest change, note what WP:MOS#Brackets says: "Avoid adjacent sets of brackets—either put the parenthetic phrases in one set separated by commas, or..." --PEJL 14:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the "remix is not part of name" bit is noted in the guidelines. Would you mind pointing it out? Just64helpin 14:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, it's just convention. But see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 15#Versions/Remixes. --PEJL 14:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Japan bonus track" is an editor's note and should be distinguished as such. Posting links to a series of guidelines does not solve the core problem. Just64helpin 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the core problem? (I've got to leave now, might be back in a few hours.) --PEJL 14:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The core problem is the confusion of an editor's note with the actual published track listing. Every attempt to distinguish the two is being thrown away per "convention" without any specific discussion relating to the article in question. Just64helpin 15:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure I agree that merging the remix info with the bonus track info into one pair of parentheses is problematic. Why do we need to keep these to pieces of information separate? The fact that one is listed on the back cover while the other isn't doesn't seem like sufficient cause to me. I keep referring to convention and guidelines as I see no reason to treat this article differently from all the other articles with similar track listing issues. But to avoid the brackets issue, I'd like to repeat my suggestion that we convert the article to use the format actually prescribed by WP:ALBUM#Track listing, namely using a sub-section. Given the issues with brackets, would that be acceptable to you? --PEJL 18:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading it correctly, the guideline states that a subsection can be used if different regions contain significantly altered track listings. The Japan release of the album we're discussing just has a bonus track thrown in the end. This brings me back to my original argument, that a singular bonus track does not need its own subsection. The avoid the listing issue altogether, I'll suggest that we simply add the sentence "the Japan edition contains..." somewhere in the main listing, without actually listing the track among the others. Just64helpin 18:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the "significantly" part. (I didn't actually re-read that section. My bad.) The current solution is better than using a sentence at the end, which has other drawbacks (such as not having a clean way to include a track length). --PEJL 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Range-block lifted. Request handled by: —Wknight94 (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait as I contact the blocking admin. Sandstein 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. We are trying to shut down a banned sockpuppeteer who has used this same IP range. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to cite, and I can't take the time to figure it out right now (essay), but on Nintendo's main page they mention the jacket thing, I ordered a few myself. They also sent messages to people Wii's informing them. Hope that helps out. DurinsBane87 17:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• done and done. any time sir. cheers, tomasz. 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I was too late. ;-) Feel free to let me know if you have similar requests in the future. --PEJL 12:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who added the info about him going the logo. I was merely following the word convention. :P Douglasr007 07:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. You recently edited my post on Talk:Techno. I wonder why you did that. I thought it was an unwritten rule not to edit other people's post on talk pages - not even obvious spelling mistakes. There is always the risk of changing the meaning (even the slightest) of what the other person intends. In this case I really don't see the point of your edit since my topic title can't have been much longer than the "journalistic hype..." title. Furthermore, you just made the title less accurate since it wasn't the redefinition of any past artists I was questioning, but specifically those of Moroder and Kraftwerk. Also, I wanted an eyecatching topic title in the table of contents to increase the chance of someone actually answering the question raised (since no-one yet have answered my previous post). In short, I don´t need you to rephrase or cosmetically brush up on my discussion contributions, and no-one else does either. I think you should refrain from making similar edits in the future. It would have been much more interesting and welcomed to hear your actual thoughts on the subject. Respectfully, Sebisthlm 00:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are Just Helpin, but I don't understand why you edited the links on my Userpage. The links redirected fine, and they weren't in an encyclopedic article. Further more, I still don't know why a user I hadn't even met before was checking out my userpage. Plus, you also edited my Sandbox. I intended for no one to ever edit any of my userpage and subpages, except for the talk page. Respectfully, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I'm the one who edited the sample list, and isn't showing the exact parts that are similar source enough for the uncleared samples Daft Punk used? I'm not flaming Daft Pubnk, I just want people to know what it is that was the basis for thier songs. :D65.12.233.213 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to ask if these sources for the following samples are ok, and if so, if they could be included on the table, but labeled something like "uncredited" or "sourced", since these two in particular are pretty clear insofar as actually being sampled: "Aerodynamic" || "Il Macquillage Lady" by Sister Sledge ref: http://www.samples.fr/blog/index.php/2006/10/11/43-daft-punk-aerodynamic ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abf-sYr2K3o "Face to Face" || "Evil Woman" by Electric Light Orchestra ref: http://www.samples.fr/blog/index.php/2006/11/19/49-daft-punk-face-to-face Anyone ok with this being added?^^65.12.233.213 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)65.12.233.213 18:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]