User talk:John5008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the Sandbox.
- For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
- You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...
I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.
[edit] Wiki Birthday!
 |
Wiki birthday to you! Wiki birthday, dear John5008! Wiki birthday to you!
Congratulations on your first Wikibirthday at Wikipedia (December 3, 2005.). On behalf of the community, we'd like to thank you for your countless edits in the past year! Keep it coming!. This Wiki Birthday Balloon was awarded to you by: SoothingR |
[edit] Image:Abrokenframe.jpg
I'm terribly sorry, but the album cover which you added to your userpage falls under Wikipedia:Fair use, and is therefore not likely to be of any 'use' at your userpage and should be removed. Could you please take care of it? Sorry for the inconvenience. -- SoothingR(pour) 19:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I completely forgot about that part of the fair use qualifications. My apologies, I have taken care of it. Thanks for pointing that out.John5008 21:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
No, no. Thank you for your cooperation. -- SoothingR(pour) 08:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Depeche Mode
Thank you for your comment; I have seen the article Depeche Mode discography and it's ok.--Daniel bg 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alan Wilder Wiki
John,
I see you reverted the additions I made to the Alan Wilder wiki entry. Just curious, since the biography was lifted straight from Recoil.co.uk, why revert it? I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, it's just the best, most thorough, and most accurate bio of the man I've seen, so I thought it would be uniquely suited for reproduction here.
Michael —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fueledbyhatred (talk • contribs) .
[edit] Rangers info
hey thanks for that link for the saleries for the rangers but i had already looked at it. The big problem is the amount players make isnt necesserally the amount charged against the cap. For example Jagr makes the maximum amount yet washington picks up a considerable amount of that. Essentially I need to find a list of what each players cap number is or what the total team number is Caleb rosenberg 18:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Master and Servant"
Hi,
I think Wikipedia's information about "Master and Servant" reaching #6 is incorrect and that it in fact peaked at #9. See [1], [2]. Acegikmo1 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Depeche Mode Early History"
hey
i am 100% sure that andy was in french look, before Martin, because Martin was in Norman and the Worms, when Andy first spotted him. I believe that's what was said in Depeche Mode: Some Great Reward, but I'll check to make sure. I do remember that Robert Marlow said that in an interview, and I'll post the reference, once I find it. I mean, exactly, how much info can you find on Robert Marlow. In English, mind you.
I understand your faith in allmusic.com, but I've noticed that it is occasionally flawed. Not to nit-pick or anything, but if you read the Yazoo biography, it refers to once of Vince's Depeche hits (guess which one) as "I Just Can't Get Enough." But I'll leave it were it's at, until I find the interview.
That was my point. I think you misread the comment. I know the name of the single and of its acronym. (Human historian 00:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
YES I certainly did. I mistook "Yazoo biography" for "Yahoo biography,' meanining Yahoo music's bio of DM. Sorry. Jackbox1971 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
no worries. (Human historian 19:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
[edit] LOL
Oi. Wyatt Gallagher 22:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please Reconsider the Following Mergers
I respectfully submit that merging "Everything Counts" with "Everything Counts (Live)" and "Enjoy the Silence" with "Enjoy the Silence 04" was a mistake. I believe it is reductionistic.
1.) I believe that if the overall history of DM is taken into consideration, it is important that the discrete singles be given their own articles. These are four separate singles with their own catalog numbers and release histories; they are not reissues (like "Strangelove" 1987 and "Strangelove 88" - different mixes but same catalog number).
2.) All four singles deserve their own article not only because they have distinct catalog numbers, but also because they are representative of milestones in the band's history:
a> "Everything Counts" (1983): the band's first serious excursion into industrial style (i.e. Einstuerzende Neubauten)sampling. It is a precursor to the work they would do on Some Great Reward and Black Celebration.
b> "Everything Counts Live" (1989): this single represents the band's moment of arrival in the American pop consciousness, the Rose Bowl concert of 1988. From this point onwards, Depeche Mode would be major players in the US music scene. The single marks the shift in the band's fortunes from cult to popular status.
c> "Enjoy the Silence" (1990): the band's biggest US hit should be considered on its own terms. It is indicative of a hugely successful promotion.
d> "Enjoy the Silence 04" (2004): the remix project was essentially a tribute album and not really indicative of Depeche Mode per se. In addition, "ETS04" is a project unto itself (there is no song called "Enjoy the Silence o4" and some of the BONG 34 releases do not include a version of "ETS" at all).
The motivation for merging these four singles is unclear to me and seems to be based mostly on desire for singles with similar titles to be culled in one place. However, given that every other electronic DM source of merit (www.depmod.com, depechemode.com, etc.) treat these singles as four separate items, I feel that wiki should do the same and include distinct articles for all four singles. They each have their own history. For these reasons, I humbly request that you give these singles the individualized treatment they deserve. --Jackbox1971 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for responding to my Wiki comment regarding your entries. I wish to humbly disagree with the following assertion:
"the articles are supposed to be about the songs and not the singles. For that reason, throughout Wikipedia, remixes, covers, alternate releases, and the like are always covered within the same article as the original release. Think of it as a "one composition, one page" type thing"
WIki has no such rule. The "rule" is arbitrary. If it is the "convention" then the perameters need to be reconsidered. A "single" is a discrete unit, and discrete unit should receive individual attention. The reason being that the items, though similar, express very different historical assertions regarding the band at a given place and at a given time.
If the rule is "one composition, one entry" then cover versions would not be sep. articles. I noticed "John the Revelator" is given a sep. entry for DM despite the fact that it is a cover tune.
More to the point, articles about a particular release would be more helpful than those about a particular song to those doing research. Think about them as individual promotions rather than identical songs.
Not seperating the four singles fails to recognize the decision, made by the band and record company, to promote what are historically distinct songs.
It is not the end of the world if you decide not to parse out the distinctions. But I feel my position is the correct one from a research standpoint.
I should add that, content-wise, your articles are extremely helpful to those of us doing research on this important band.
Thanks again, Jackbox1971 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello - Just read your response to me on my Talk page. Thanks. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. At the end of the day, a researcher can always find what he or she is looking for if they are willing to scroll down the page. That's what it really comes down to. With this new-fangled "inter-net" thingy, an old fart like me can always find what they need (except foriegn chart archives... but that's my deal).
I look forward to reading your future contributions. Jackbox1971 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Table MOS
Hey john, where's the MOS about the tables? i looked at both the usage of wikilinking and tables, and couldn't find what you referenced at all? (this is in reference to the depeche mode singles/albums) Negative1
[edit] Improper Reversion
I think you should see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not regarding your revert on Tubthumping.
--Andrew Ross-Parker 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, on a second glance, I should not have reverted in that manner (though, what was there could not be kept the way it was written). My apologies in the way it was handled. John5008 | talk to me 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Precious (song)
Hey John. You removed my contribution of "23:42, 5 June 2006 216.145.49.15" from DM's Precious page, regarding one of the samples used in the song, with the comment "prove it?" I'm not offended, I sort of expected that reaction. I did, prior to posting, scour the web for some big of collaborative evidence, to no avail. Still, I know that sound well, having worked with it before; and there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the sound I cited is the sound they sampled. Of course, I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I suppose what I'm asking is, how on Earth can I prove such a thing beyond doubt? I can provide a sample cut from the song and a sample cut from the television show for people to listen to side-by-side. How far must I go before people will accept it as fact? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.106.19.78 (talk • contribs) .
- As this comment was left by an anonymous editor, I'm posting my response both here and on the anon's talk page.
- Hello there and thank you for the comment. I'm glad you weren't offended by the reversion (while I personally probably would've taken offense to the way I phrased the comment...haha...had your edit not been made anonymously, I probably would've been less skeptical, since most vandals tend to be anons, and a lot of times anons add unsourced nonsense to some articles), I believe I did try to leave ample time for you to find a citation before removing the comment. The thing is, you make a great point, it is very difficult to prove a statement along the lines of the one you made, and I hope you understand that a rationale like "I know that sound well...there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the sound I cited is the sound they sampled" is not enough as "proof" in an encyclopedia article.
- That being said, in attempting to prove the claim as fact...the easy way would be to find a link to a reputable source or an interview making the claim, but as you said, you tried this and it led to nothing. Unfortunately, the other way would be to provide the two samples side-by-side, but this could easily be coincidence as well (unless it's blatant, I'm not sure). Unless the samples prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I think the only true way to have the statement be accepted as fact is to find an external citation. John5008 | talk to me 23:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: That grammar thing
Don't worry about it. It's just a minor detail. Anyone could have made that mistake. --[kazikame] 17:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
