Snoop God

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Monkey Swallows the Universe has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): http://www.myspace.com/judybeat) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

my silence, and simple watching of injustice with Mr. Micah Hinson must stop now: how is the last information, in quotes and with citing regarding his political stance, being erased? the way it is now is completely FALSE. Mr. Hinson DID NOT SAY THAT HE WAS AGAINST NATIONAL HEALTHCARE OR AN ANIT-OBAMA SUPPORTER! their is absolutely NO quotes or proof that these statements are true in ANY ARTICLE. the editor from yesterday clearly had everything down to proof and facts and somehow it was taken off and replaced AGAIN with this FALSE INFORMATION! if Mr. Hinson DID say these things: QUOTE HIM! if you DON'T have QUOTES; LEAVE IT ALONE! this is turning not to an encyclopedia, but a place where ignorant, uninformed people can go to have their opinions stated, and other people who wish to correct things get everything taken off and treated like fools, even when they have total and utter truth under their arms! YOU ARE SHAMEFUL, IGNORANT, AND LASTLY AND COMPLETELY: WRONG! you should be kicked off for vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.160.156 (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I have no interest in vandalizing articles. I just want to make sure that great claim have great sources. If you believe a third part opinion is necessary, I support you commitment in finding one. --Damiens.rf 00:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Gabriel

Hi. I am not sure why you keep adding wiki links to We7 when there is no article of that name. Wiki policy is NOT to create red links. Cheers MrMarmite (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Strangeglue reviews

Hey, I just wanted to know why are you removing all reviews of Strangeglue, qualifying them as WP:COI (and btw, mislinking it to COI). ≤ ^alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 13:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

These reviews and links should not be submitted on mass. It is definitely Conflict of Interest as the person who added these links is essentially using Wikipedia as pr to attain exposure. If it was an occasional well written review added by someone who is interested in anything other than strangeglue.com then that would be acceptable.
Please understand I have a third party interest in some of these articles, and I also occasionally add reviews - but without any COI. Hope that helps. (Snoop God (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

So are you saying he/she wrote the reviews or is the owner or something, of that website? ≤ ^alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Owner or contributor? yes, probably. Why else would anyone just add loads of external links associated with Strangeglue.com, exclusively? Snoop God (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting album review additions

I've noticed that you're mass reverting the addition of album reviews by Spin magazine citing spam and conflict of interest. I also notice that above you say we shouldn't allow these to be added by people who work for the magazine. Whether these are being added by an employee or not of Spin magazine (and I doubt you have evidence that they are an employee) is neither here nor there. They are legitimate album reviews by a legitimate music magazine. We should not be watering down the quality of Wikipedia because you believe these are spam links. --JD554 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All of these edits were generated from the same IP and are all linking to SPIN reviews, exclusively. I'm all for people adding well written reviews, but only if it is subjective without a conflict of interest. Snoop God (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how they're added, you have no evidence that there is a conflict of interest. The reviews are from a reliable publication and should not be removed. --JD554 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this sort of mass spamming will encourage more to do the same. Snoop God (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please spell out exactly what evidence you have that the ip works for the publication and therefore has a conflict of interest. --JD554 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As i said before I wouldn't see any logical reason for anyone adding a bunch of links to one particular publication exclusively. The thread is absolutely clear, but go ahead and add them back if you so wish.

Why not open a discussion with the individual that added the links (all specific to SPIN) which is an excellent publication, I agree with you. Or open a general discussion. - Snoop God (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely the obvious answer for adding them is to add album reviews from a publication with is a reliable source. It might be worth your while to read WP:AGF. --JD554 (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't take offence, but I think you are a little naive. Cheers, Snoop God (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You really should listen to JD554. I added a bunch of Spin reviews all at the same time before because I realized they were finally putting them up on their website. However, I don't work for the magazine. It's silly to assume that people who perform similar actions do. This is why you need to assume good faith, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You also added many other articles out with Spin. If you look at 67.91.200.66 you can see a 'repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user tag. This is just an alert, obviously - but it should be acknowledged. This is mass spamming of external links to one publication exclusively. Simple. If you encourage people to spam more and more then Wikipedia will become like Myspace.

Please discuss further with the IP that added the reviews, i feel like I'm repeating myself, though I appreciate the discussion and understand your concerns. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP's editing isn't a problem, there is no need to discuss the issue with them. The chances are that it isn't a static IP address anyway which would also account for there being no other edits. Again, please refer to assume good faith, you need evidence before accusing someone of breaching Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I appreciate that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, but if you continue to remove good links from articles without a good reason, that can be considered to be disruptive editing. --JD554 (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley edits

Hi, it's me from the Jeff Buckley page. I'm a little confused by what you're saying. I provided sources for correction of how he met Inger as well as his episode with Steve Berkowitz. You'll also see several sources in the section I added about his character. Do you mean that I need a source suggesting that relative to other artists, Jeff's personality is a big part of his legacy? If so, that should be pretty easy and wouldn't require undoing my other edits.

As far as I can see, the only unsourced thing I added was about the 2/4/1997 gig. I'll see what I can do about that, and it's fine if we leave that out for now. (The tidbit about him being nervous is sourced but nonnotable so it's fine to leave that out). Speedstyle (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the edits are good and I can see the references. But you ended up changing different aspects without improving the article. Basically, if the thread in the editing is too random important stuff will be lost because there is twelve edits to dissect. You also deleted paragraphs (that other contributors had sourced) without explanation. Remember the page is not supposed to be written with the feel of an author, but it should be generic and colorless, and absolutely factual without trivia. Snoop God (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice. In the future, I'll separate big and little changes and give fuller edit summaries. Is the current version okay? Speedstyle (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Character section goes against Wiki rules. Character is based on perception and point of view, so doesn't really have a place here. I would question the relevance also. You could add hundreds of similar quotes and anecdotes - but is it really appropriate? Snoop God (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Character might be, but personality isn't. Let's talk this out civilly, please? Ratethatvoiceterms (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC) (aka speedstyle before I forgot the pw to the account)

I tried uploading a a higher resolution photo of Jeff's current wiki image but you mentioned that no higher resolution is needed. The current photo is blurry and tiny. I think it would look better to use the larger, clearer version I uploaded. I am the one who originally uploaded the current photo anyway.DreamBrother83 (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Best leave this alone - you will be opening of can of worms. Snoop God (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Instruments played by Jeff that should be included in his 'Instruments' section. Here are Jeff's album credits from Grace: Voice, Guitars, Harmonium, Organ, Dulcimer, Tabla. These should also be included. I've tried editing Jeff's instrument section before but it kept on getting deleted, even though I gave a reference link in my edit summary. (http://www.jeffbuckley.com/pages/albums/grace) Also under Jeff's 'Notable Instruments' section it only mentions that he played a Fender Telecaster. He also played a Gibson Les Paul Custom (Black Beauty), and Rickenbacker 360/12.(http://www.jeffbuckley.com/rfuller/buckley/faq/25gear.html). And finally some edits need to be made to Jeff's 'Genres' section. Currently it states that Jeff's music is alternative rock and folk. This is very vague and not even accurate. Jeff's music was far from folk or alternative. Jeff said, "I guess it's understandable why it's misconstrued that I'm a folk guy, because people who play in small places with one guitar usually are. But that shit's dead." (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u5N81jnSZ3UJ:www.jeffbuckley.com/rfuller/buckley/words/features/rs-sonalsorises.html jeff buckley interview folk is dead&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca). Folk music afterall is played on an acoustic guitar. All of Jeff's songs are electric. Personally I think his 'Genres' section should read as following, minus the bracketed examples. Rock, Jazz, Blues, Avant-garde (ex. 'Tongue' [Grace EPs]), Qawwali (ex. Yeh Ho Halka Halka Saroor Hai, Dream Brother, New Year's Prayer), Classical (ex. Corpus Christi Carol, Hallelujah, etc.) Ambient (ex. You & I).DreamBrother83 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Try adding other instruments to the article - but avoid adding as notable to infobox. Snoop God (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not add other instruments to the info box though? Basically every other multi instrumentalist on Wikipedia has mention of this in their respective info boxes. I think it would a good idea to acknowledge Jeff therein. Perhaps a topic could be started about Jeff's instrumental abilities which is often overshadowed by his voice? As well, what about the genres section? Jeff was pretty adamant that he wasn't a folk artist. I also don't see the alternative rock association. Would just 'rock' better, broader description? His music fused different layers of rock music to just narrow him down to 'alternative rock' and 'folk.' Jeff was ironically the antithesis of alternative rock/grunge.DreamBrother83 (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)DreamBrother83 (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I emailed photographer Merri Cyr about using some of her photos on Jeff's Wiki page and she gave me permission to do so. I can show you the email to confirm. How do I go about uploading the photos now without having them removed?DreamBrother83 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have the rights of the owner to use the work then you can upload them. You will need to credit the photographer and add licencing, as required. Snoop God (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm new at this. How do I add licensing?DreamBrother83 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you not say you added the latest Buckley jpeg? Snoop God (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well technically, yes. I uploaded the pic, but with no licensing. Some other user helped me get all those details sorted out. I don't know how to license an image, personally.DreamBrother83 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Playing Fields (band)

Re- your note requesting speedy deletion, I have been through this before with another editor and proved fulfilment of the notability criteria. Unfortunately I cannot locate the thread of this conversation at the moment. Please let me know if you want me to fulfil some criteria for you. Fiedorczuk (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On what basis is this band notable? Snoop God (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Significant coverage"- the sources address the subject in detail. No external research is neccessary.

"Reliable"- sources published works.

"Sources"- quotes secondary sources, band has over 100 press articles.

"Independent of subject"- I am not affiliated with band.

"Presumed"- there is no presumption neccessary, all references are inline citated.

"Neutral sources"- many, quoted.

is that enough? Please let me know if you need more.

I am on here regularly. Whilst this band may not be Madonna,

General notability guideline Shortcuts: WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...

and it doesn't stand alone, it is not an orphan.

Fiedorczuk (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to any of the '100 press articles', please? The only references on the page are from blogs and fanzines and nothing really serious. Snoop God (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Are published nationwide magazines all over the world inadequate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiedorczuk (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

NIN

Why would you undo a revision such as this? That is completely correct. Breaks are not supposed to be used in musical article's userboxes for listings. They are always supposed to be commas. See WP:ALBUM. • GunMetal Angel 14:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Breaks would be more grammatically correct (these genres are all separate entities after all), though I appreciate not using them is absolutely okay. Snoop God (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviews in infoboxes

Album reviews are no longer placed in the infobox, see WP:ALBUMS#Reception. Very long and detailed discussions about this took place here, here, here and here. If you disagree with this, please take up at WT:ALBUMS. Thanks --JD554 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• This article predates the current shift to WP:ALBUMS#Reception. Therefore these changes should not apply to 2007 albums. If you want to be consistent and dredge through the thousands of album articles and add a reception section then go for it. Snoop God (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It applies to all album articles, and going through old ones is a task that is being undertaken, see here, along with the help of a bot, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 34#Bot-work here. --JD554 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Try getting the bot to add detailed reception to old articles. The older articles will be all over the place! Snoop God (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Four Songs From 'The Obscure' Nominee

I decline speedy deletion of this recording under the criterion WP:CSD#A9 because it did not apply, as there is currently a Wikipedia article about the artist, Tom McRae. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You've tagged several articles about McRae's recordings under A9; please be careful to check whether an artist has an article before adding an A9 tag. Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be the quality and relevance of these articles that are questionable. An article about a promo non-single is bordering on ridiculous and some of the other single releases are peripheral and not notable. The album articles (also cover single releases) would be sufficient. Re articles based on promo singles such as Four Songs From 'The Obscure' Nominee. This was a white lable promo sent out for pr - NOT a release! db-a9 was added as the page does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Tom McRae has a page - this is not in question - please see WP:CSD#A9 (A9). Snoop God (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how horrible the articles are, they may not be speedy deleted under criterion A9 unless the artist does not have an article. Nyttend (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, i should have checked that. Snoop God (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer status

I have added "reviewer" status to your account. This means that your edits will automatically be approved on pages with Pending changes enabled. You can also accept/decline other people's edits on those pages. Papa November (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good of you, thanks! Snoop God (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Micah P. Hinson

I don't understand why you continue to post false information that is based on assumptions of an article that it seems you did not read completely nor comprehend. You continue to misrepresent Micah as a Republican and an Obama-hater, both things Micah refutes in the article that you continue to misquote. Please stop harassing Micah. It is apparent from your history that you have continuous conflicts with musicians and/or music magazines. It is also evident from your history that you are often misguided and must be corrected frequently. Please stop harassing innocent people, you are costing them future jobs. Misscontrary (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I never added that whole sentence to the article, but i did take the time to check the reference. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You did not check the reference, so I took the opportunity to take direct quotes that refute your assumptions and post them with proper citations. Thanks. Misscontrary (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been unfairly accused of vandalism by others because of your initial statement that Mr. Hinson is against national healthcare, which is unfounded and was not mentioned once in the article you cited. I have not expressed opinions or vandalized Mr. Hinson in anyway with the statements I have most recently added and as this is his wikipedia page, I believe it should hold at least some semblance of credibility. I have used only direct quotes from Mr. Hinson in his Quietus interview. If you would like to refute my statements, then please make sure you are able to cite every comment and use direct quotes as evidence otherwise I am afraid we are going to continue to disagree about facts which seems to be a difficult thing to argue about based on the fact that they are, in fact, facts. This is an official warning to you, in the friendliest of terms, due to your insistence upon posting uncited POV's and placing them under the heading of "PERSONAL LIFE" when they are not "personal" and only reference Mr. Hinson's sense of American politics, therefore, the comments should be posted under the heading of "POLITICS" so as not to be confused with his personal life as he is not a politician in his personal life. This is not an opinion, just a matter of decent editing when discussing subjects of a differing nature that they should go under appropriate headlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.160.156 (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As before, i did not add the quotes from the interview, though i did patrol the page and also checked the reference. It seems that you should take up any issues with the publisher of the article. Snoop God (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

i also took the time to patrol the article, and did not find any reference to anything you say Mr. Hinson says. i do not believe this to be an issue with the publisher of this article, as the publisher of the article never stated that Mr. Hinson was against national healthcare. thanks.

my silence, and simple watching of injustice with Mr. Micah Hinson must stop now: how is the last information, in quotes and with citing regarding his political stance, being erased? the way it is now is completely FALSE. Mr. Hinson DID NOT SAY THAT HE WAS AGAINST NATIONAL HEALTHCARE OR AN ANIT-OBAMA SUPPORTER! their is absolutely NO quotes or proof that these statements are true in ANY ARTICLE. the editor from yesterday clearly had everything down to proof and facts and somehow it was taken off and replaced AGAIN with this FALSE INFORMATION! if Mr. Hinson DID say these things: QUOTE HIM! if you DON'T have QUOTES; LEAVE IT ALONE! this is vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.160.156 (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your deletion of my changes to the Arcade Fire page

I'd like to know why you deleted all of my changes to the Arcade Fire page, in which I tried to detail the band's history prior to 2003. At present, the page reads that the band began in 2003, which is plainly incorrect. Your having reversed my changes is simply bolstering that factually faulty understanding of the band.

It's true that I have not provided any references. Unfortunately, the only reference I can give was that I was present at each of the events I mentioned (with the exception of the band's recording session in Maine, though I was the first person Dane Mills had asked to drive the band there) and friends with the people involved. That's to say, I know about the early shows because I was present there; I know that Brendan lived with Win and Régine because I visited their apartment; I know about the way their album release show ended because, again, I watched it happen. Among the Montreal artistic community, there were strong emotions attached to many of these events and I've done my best to leave them out of the discussion and apportion to blame to anyone. However, I'd like to see the wikipedia page at very least reflect the facts of the band, which began in 2001.

The only things I am not certain about are as follows: the exact date and location at which Win recorded the first collection of demos; the exact date of Myles's departure from the band and his replacement by Richard; whether or not Tim had joined the band prior to or following the Casa del Popolo EP release show. My hope is that someone more familiar with the precise dates can correct these facts. However, everything else as I entered it is correct and may be corroborated by a large number of members of the Montreal musical and artistic community.

Thanks. Querenciazine (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

David Sylvian

Re these changes you reverted, I believe they are actually sound. They just need to be sourced. I'll try and do that. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but please find refs before reverting. Snoop God (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nina Nastasia

RE: this edit.

I couldn't help but notice you reverted a simple, obviously factual edit on my part which updated the Biography section of the Nina Nastasia article. I updated the article to state that Miss Nastasia has released six albums, instead of five. The figure "five" has undoubtedly been there on the article since the release of 2007's "You Follow Me." The release of June's "Outlaster" brings the total amount of Nina Nastasia albums released to six. A simple glance at the discography section beneath the biography would have clearly shown to you the titles of six Nina Nastasia albums.

I've also noticed you screwing around on each individual Nina Nastasia album article. Please do not refrain from using your common sense when attempting to revert edits in the future. Thank you. 79.97.208.144 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Only 5 Nastasia solo releases, so far. Snoop God (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The simple statement "Nastasia has released five albums" does not reflect an indication of reference to either solo or collabration albums. Regardless, the material featured on "You Follow Me" is clearly in the sole ownership and copyright control of Nastasia and/or Fat Cat Records. The material was written solely by Nastasia and would most likely have been released eventually with or without Jim White's involvement. With no ill toward to Jim, it is clearly a Nina Nastasia record and is counted on both the Nina Nastasia and You Follow Me articles as such. Therefore, a total of six albums by Nina Nastasia have been released. Also take note the line "All six of Nastasia's albums were recorded by Steve Albini" appeared later in that same paragraph. Again, another example of you simply hitting the "Undo" button, as opposed to actually attempting to proof-read and edit the information manually yourself. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Outlaster

RE: this edit and, again, another edit to the same article

It would be harsh at this point to immediately jump to the conclusion that your reversion of sourced and fully-referenced edits amount to vandalism, but that is certainly the impression I have considering your recent activity. The edits I made to the Outlaster article were either simply me altering the text of some sentences to reflect the simple passing of time ("will be released" became "was released," etc.); removing the now-5 month old tour dates and relaying information regarding upcoming tour dates; information about the second single from the record; and information regarding the latest promotional activities currently being undertaken by Nastasia.

Blithly editing other peoples properly-referenced work is, to me, nothing but vandalism. Your reversions are now being reported as such. Thank you. 79.97.208.144 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you add releases you should also indicate on what format. Otherwise best leave it for someone else to add correctly. Hope that is clear. Snoop God (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Indicating the release format is only a requirement for newly published articles. This was not a new article, but an update to the main album article which simply indicated that a new single would be released in two months time. In addition, the release format of the single (digital download-only) was clearly indicated further down the article, in the "Second leg" of the Release & Promotion field. No portion of Wikipedia Policy states that the release format of the singles released from an album should be included in either the main heading or the "Singles" field of the Infobox. Undoing the entire edit was unjustified, in my opinion. A lot of other information was also removed by the edit. If you believed there was a problem with some of the information provided, you should have taken the time to manually edit the offending piece yourself, instead of jumping to the conclusion that the entire work needed to be undone. Otherwise, best leave it for someone else to do correctly. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted a poorly executed edit, though I appreciate some of content was good, it just wasnt added correctly. I will look further at the edits. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit was perfectly adaquate as it was, containing valid, useful and properly sourced information. You've again edited the Outlaster article, improperly referring to the individual tour dates as vandalism - when my original edit had already removed those tour dates. You've again edited the article to remove any mention of the forthcoming single, except what was already included in the Single infobox. And once again, you've edited the main Nina Nastasia biography to "five" albums - a completely inconsctructive and contridictory edit. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Before you once again undo any edit - incorrectly citing it as vandalism - is it too much to ask of you to read exactly what has been changed? If you read the article, you'd undoubtedly see that many aspects of the article now require updating 5-months after the album has been released. Read what I've written in the comments field here before undoing again and you'd clearly see why I've been disregarding your edits. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with both, for now. Snoop God (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

CSD declination

I've reverted your re-nomination of the Only Skin article for two reasons: First, the name does matter because the A9 criteria specifically says that an A9 nomination is inappropriate if the artist's page exists, which it does in this case (though I botched the link on the first try). Second, per the policy here once a speedy nom has been declined it is ordinarily inappropriate to re-nominate on that same criteria even if you disagree with the declination; the proper thing to do is to PROD or AfD the article (which I was in the process of doing, anyway, when you retagged). Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I never placed the a9, but regardless, if talk is used first at least it can give others a chance to delete in the correct way. Snoop God (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Cat Power

Hey Snoop, you reverted because of lack of discussion - let's discuss! The Interior(Talk) 18:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Give others a chance to contribute to the discussion. I'm totally against mass deleting as most of it is relevant. Also, if you remove the dedicated section, people will randomly add back (and include future licencing) to the article which will result in a bigger mess. Snoop God (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As the reverter of my change, I think that your comments are the relevant ones. You just brought up some interesting points, let's continue this at the appropriate venue. If others want to comment, they will. The Interior(Talk) 19:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Snoop, I'm a bit off-put by your approach to our content disagreement. Bold, Revert, Discuss is the ideal way to handle this dispute. I made a Bold change, you disagreed and Reverted, now we Discuss. If you do not wish to engage on this subject, that is fine, but I will make my changes and expect not to be reverted. The alternative is an edit war, which nobody wants. Can we move forward please? The Interior(Talk) 00:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey The Interior, this should be left for a few weeks to give others a chance to add feedback. Why rush? Snoop God (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Snoop, I really don't know what going on here. The conversation here is between myself and you, and should not be copied to the mainspace. Copying comments does not substitute for debate. After reverting my changes, you have a certain obligation to discuss them with me. Waiting for other users to do the debating for you is not how the process works. The Cat Power talk page is a record of discussion, and other users can comment at any time. This isn't Afd, this is a content edit on the mainspace. Editors are under no obligation to wait long periods of time, see WP:BOLD. Vigorous debate is what draws other editors to a discussion. I took a quick view of your contribs, and noted that many of your edit summaries read "no reference" or similar. This is the material I was attempting to remove from the article in question. I'm baffled as to why you are going to the mat for similar edits here. But the major point - please don't refactor my comments here without consulting me first. Refactoring is for comments that were clearly in the wrong place. As these comments are about our dispute over protocol, and not about the content of Cat Power, this is where they belong. WP:Refactor. Its been my experience so far on WP that poor communication is root of most problems between editors. I hope ours can improve. The Interior(Talk) 17:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bjork's 'post' critical response.

I don't understand why you would rather the paragraph open with 'generally met with positive reviews'? This album has appeared on numerous best of lists and therefore warrants a more accurate description of its stature. You seem to be of the opinion that unless a recording receives 5 star reviews across the board that it is undeserving of 'general acclaim'. If that is your opinion then you should start editing nearly every other article on albums with similar reviews as there are many of equal critical response that have been annointed the 'widespread acclaim' on wikipedia. Thank you. Spaceman Sam (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I agree and the edit is fine. To be honest, i was looking at the previous versions, but this is much more accurate. Best, Snoop God (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley

I have warned Uberciter for edit warring, but the same applies to you. Personally, I agree that the toothpicks thing is trivia and doesn't belong, but please use the talk page to reach consensus. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I had planned to use talk, but i'm really busy - too busy. I will catch up with stuff soon. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark Kramer, deleting entry about William S. Burroughs Hurts

What do you mean by "poor reverence, nn too"? Ask Kramer, if you don't believe it. Why are the other activities less poor? Of course I edited Kramer's recent activities again. If you need more information do not hesitate to contact me. Tabasco da Gammla (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

St. Vincent

I am not sure what your intentions are with the St. Vincent article, but reverting my hours of work on this article seems to be on par with vandalism. The article, in your reversions, reads like a bullet-point biography, with little information at all about her career or music, which is ridiculous considering this is a wiki about HER. I have added information and fleshed the article out, discussing her career— ALL of it is properly sourced, and it's written with care. You continue to make drastic revisions, claiming that the initial line about her album being "equally critically successful" as being inappropriate. That is no reason to revert the entire rest of the article and ignore all of the other work and information I've put into it. Please stop. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Some of it was okay, but it was written from the perspective of a fan. I appreciate you opening talk and I take your point re reverting the whole edit. I will look at it again and make specific changes, if necessary. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Little Dragon's external link discussion

Noticing this, join me, would you? --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 11:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Snoop God, please refrain from edit-warring as you did in Little Dragon. Best to revert no more than once, start a discussion, and maybe tag the article or disputed content. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The The - Referencing

Please could you help in referencing Steve James Sherlock to The The - I cannot complete your previous requests because the page is protected. The information is correct and can be referenced from the following address. Ref: http://www.discogs.com/The-The-Uncertain-Smile/release/167364

also: Changes to Keith Laws - Hot Ice. Hot Ice is not the B-side to Uncertain Smile. Hot Ice is the B-side to Cold Spell Ahead.

Many thanks. {Wernboy (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

Sure, I will look at it and add them. Snoop God (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your contribution at C'mon (Low album) - is there a definitive source for album lengths on WP? It would seem in retrospect it might be better waiting for the CD, but I'm not sure. Looking forward to hearing the album! Cheers, Amkilpatrick (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I always think it best to add fine details like production credits, linear notes, track times etc on or after the release date, otherwise it opens up the possibility of speculation and exaggeration.

I've listened to the album five times and I'm not sure. It sounds nothing like Drums and Guns. The vocals and harmonies are really prominent - always a good thing with Low. Snoop God (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nina Nastasia singles

Hi. I was wondering what your thoughts were on somehow expanding Nina Nastasia's singles section. I was going to attempt to create separate articles for "Cry, Cry, Baby" and "You Can Take Your Times," but I was hoping to avoid any sort of edit war with you on this. I don't want to spend all that time creating those articles only to see them almost immediately being tagged for mergers. I do have quite a bit of fully-referenced info on each song that's just sitting on my hard-drive because there's no appropriate section to expand on the album article. What do you think? Maybe just a "Singles" heading underneath the tracklisting on the Outlaster article? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Articles for the singles would be good, so please create them. I would hate to be perceived to be pedantic, although I do think the Nina Nastasia article and album pages read like they were all written by the same person. Maybe that is why I end up changing stuff. Anyway, I will not revert, though I will probably end up editing them at some point. Cheers, Snoop God (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I'll get to work on those ASAP. And, by the way, if the Nina Nastasia articles all read like they've been written by the same person... maybe that's because they were created and/or overhauled by yours truly. :) Honestly, you and I are the only two people I've seen making any sort of constructive edits to any Nina Nastasia page over the past two years. Most other edits seem to either be automated robot fixes or just random people messing with the genre. It sucks that nobody else cares like we do. Oh well, if you want something done right... :) Homeostasis07 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the main Outlaster article to include a singles section for CCB YCTYT. Turns out I didn't have enough material to write separate articles after all. Let me know what you think and I'll make changes accordingly. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! This works well, though I think you have enough to make full articles...? Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 25, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 25, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Radiohead are an English alternative rock band from Abingdon, Oxfordshire, formed in 1985. The band consists of Thom Yorke (vocals, guitars, piano), Jonny Greenwood (guitars, keyboards, other instruments), Ed O'Brien (guitars, backing vocals), Colin Greenwood (bass, synthesizers) and Phil Selway (drums, percussion). Radiohead released their first single, "Creep", in 1992. The song was initially unsuccessful, but it became a worldwide hit several months after the release of their debut album, Pablo Honey (1993). Radiohead's third album, OK Computer (1997), propelled them to greater international fame. Featuring an expansive sound and themes of modern alienation, OK Computer is often acclaimed as a landmark record of the 1990s. Radiohead's work has appeared in a large number of listener polls and critics' lists. While the band's earlier albums were influential on British rock and pop music, musicians in a wide variety of genres have been influenced by their later work. The New York Times described Radiohead as "the world's biggest art band." (more...)

Bon Iver

Why do you keep changing the album name to the incorrect one?

147.143.231.108 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, THANKS for this, and I see where you are coming from. I think? the album will be entitled "Bon Iver", not "Bon Iver, Bon Iver" by Bon Iver, but I will reference it, out with the press release. Let me get on to it as soon as I get time, probably tomorrow. Cheers, Snoop God (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you insist it's called Bon Iver (and not Bon Iver, Bon Iver), please give your sources. Without your sources, your edits will keep being reverted. Sorcing is quintessential to Wikipedia!--BonBonIverIver (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the talk pages you will see that 4AD think it will be self-titled 'Bon Iver' by Bon Iver. The 4AD ref clear. You failed to add a good ref, so until things are more clear please hold. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this enough for you? This is a tweet from Bon Iver's verified Twitter account referring to the album as Bon Iver, Bon Iver posted TODAY. http://twitter.com/#!/boniver/status/71244053018181632 Tamajared (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget Bon Iver's official website also uses the name "Bon Iver, Bon Iver". Get off your high horse. http://boniver.org/lyrics.html 187.37.70.177 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The references all point to a self titled album - they just did something weird with the title, I guess to be different, using the (,) to seperate the artist and the album title. I just checked the initial reveiws and they all go with 'Bon Iver' by Bon Iver or Bon Iver - Bon Iver. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Max Richter edits

Hello. I work for Max as his assistant. I edited the Wikipedia site according to his requests. Information is accurate and checked by him. Would you poss stop deleting my edits? It's creating a lot of work for me and Max doesn't want your original info as his Wikipedia site, because info is patchy and the grammar is also often bad. If you don't I guess we'll have to find a way to get rid of entry altogether, because Max doesn't want it on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star17city (talk • contribs) 09:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I will look at it again. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for completely removing all my updates to the Max Richter page. It is now entirely written by yourself,complete with incorrect grammar and a very myopic slant on Max's life and work. Fraid it's gonna just have to get undone again. And we can keep going back and forth ad infinitum. What a terrible waste of time for both of us. This really is very tiring.

Bon Iver (album)

Hi Snoop, Coulld you please look again at the Bon Iver album article? I think this is a pr angle. Thanks. Vitashaomi (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I will fix this asap. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Kate Bush discography

Please can you stop reverting my edits on this article. The chart position is already referenced - I don't see why you feel the need to add the exact same reference again. You can reuse refs, but not the way you have done it - you must use the original ref (using "refname=" etc). Also the ref you inserted was left bare (ie. not properly formatted), something which is discouraged. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely fine to use the reflist, especially as the article uses both types. I placed it for clarity as the first ref was inaccurate. Anyway, I do not have time to edit war over a reference, so will leave as is. But you should check out the inconsistencies in the article and chill out a little. Cheers, Snoop God (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "use the reflist", but the reference given is entirely accurate - it clearly states "Deeper Understanding" at #87. I've not noticed any other inaccuracies in the rest of the article, but I have no problem with you fixing any errors, I do see one other bare reference in the article, which needs to be fixed I suppose. Anyway, thank you for your time and consider me chilled.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bon Iver, Bon Iver

In this revert you stated "Consensus via the discussion page is with the Bon Iver title". There is no such consensus. Please contribute to the discussion rather than edit warring over this. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Have done, many times. Snoop God (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bon Iver - Bon Iver

Could you contribute to Talk:Bon_Iver,_Bon_Iver#Consensus_to_how_to_call_this_article please? Thanks. Vitashaomi (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User page

Please delete if inappropriate or offensive (-: Vitashaomi (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thank you. Very fitting..Snoop God (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. but I do miss the banter. (Snoop God (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC))

Out of office reply

I will be away until the fall. Happy editing. Snoop God (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Will Oldham and The Phantom Family Halo cut an album together

FYI. There are references saying this. The album name is on the Phantom page (with a reference). I only added it to the W.O. page to prevent the bot from coming along and tagging "Orphan" on the Phantom Family Halo page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Doing a track on an EP does not really constitute them as an associated act. If you think of the numerous collaborations Will Oldham has done, this isn't really significant. Snoop God (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I was never quite clear what an "associated act" meant, but if there's a place in the Will Oldham article for some kind of mention of The Phantom Family Halo, it would be appreciated, since I wouldnt' get that "orphan" tag. The album was called "Mindeater", comes out in October 2011, and Oldham and the PFH collaborated. Reference is: <ref name=twsG12>{{cite news |author= Whitney Matheson |title= New podcast! Matthew Sweet, Mekons and much more |publisher= ''USA Today'' |quote= - Bonnie "Prince" Billy, Suddenly the Darkness. Dude, I've had this simple (and a bit ominous) song in my head for days. Just warning you! It comes from The Mindeater, an EP from BPB and the Phantom Family Halo. That's out Sept. 27. |date= Aug 30, 2011 |url= http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2011/08/new-podcast-matthew-sweet-mekons-and-much-more/1 |accessdate= 2011-09-07 }}</ref> May I defer to your good judgment where to put it in the article? Thanx. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I will add it to the Will Oldham discog page. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, just added it to the EPs section. Snoop God (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Godspeed and good luck!

I was lucky enough to negotiate a three month sabbatical before transitioning into the new job I'll be starting next week, which gave me the research time I needed, but also lots of free time in front of a computer. What began as a passing, albeit sincere, interest in editing some Wikipedia pages really turned into some serious entertainment for me when I realized the extent to which some people incessantly bicker about things that don't really matter. I'm sorry for how long I let it get drawn out, but I honestly couldn't help it...it was just too much fun. So anyway, I do hope you forgive me and know that it was all in good fun. I can tell that this is really important to you guys, so it would be mean on my part to keep antagonizing you over something as petty as a wikipedia article that at the end of the day, I don't really care about. I won't really have time starting next week even if I wanted to, so apologies again, and thanks for the laughs...it was an unexpected source of comedy for me during my break. I did get one last dig in a few minutes ago (again...couldn't help it), but please feel free to go back through and revert everything. You won't have to worry about me teasing you guys anymore. God bless!Mlillybaltimore (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Justin Vernon

Hi Snoop God,

I reversed your edit of Justin Vernon because the information was factual -- not perspective-based. That said, I did change some of the phrasing that could possibly have been interpreted as POVish, as you put it. Take a look at the changes and tell me what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.141.148 (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate! Firstly, I reverted you! 2nd: I have no interest and I am not close enough to the subject to get involved in editing. However, I reverted your edit because you are writing about Bon Iver, not Vernon. You also added some POVish commentary and added a photo that was not licensed for use on Wikipedia. If you want to persist, please garner consensus via the talk page before editing again, thanks. Snoop God (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mark Hollis

1) Articles should be based upon sources and generally accepted classifications, not personal opinion.
2) I own and enjoy listening to this album often; it is not a standard folk album. The structures of the compositions are certainly closer to Talk Talk than folk music. Listen to 'The Gift' and tell me you don't hear a bit of 'Ascension Day.'
3) Simply reverting other people's (/sourced/) edits based upon personal, unsourced, opinion is not how Wikipedia works.
Cheers,
Ulmanor (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the album is not post rock. All of the instruments used are acoustic, and Hollis said in numerous interviews that he wanted to embrace folk. As was discussed previously the other influences or genres that could be considered are jazz and minimalist. All Music are probably tagging the man Mark Hollis, not the album, and they are just as likely to get genres wrong as you are. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Eponymity

Hi! Let's just ignore what a thing is called, let's focus on what the thing is called after. If you read the article eponym carefully, you must have noticed this (it's the second sentence):

One who is referred to as eponymous is someone who gives his or her name to something […]

(I higlighted the part that is important to us.) Now, I think we can agree that the band is called Bon Iver. According the their article, they're active since 2006, the album was release in 2011. Do you think that they named themselves by their future album, released roughly 5 years after their inception? Me, I don't think so. Therefore, I propose you to let the word eponymous just annihilate from the article, Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Will you? –Matěj Grabovský (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Alasdair Roberts

Hi. I take what you say about the right place for critics comments about albums being on albums pages (even though there are no albums pages for Roberts yet), but what about comments that relate to his entire career and body of work, and do not relate to any one album? Are these not relevant to a profile? And, if they are, where else would they go? I've done another edit that removes all album-specific info - does that work ok, do you think? Genuine questions - I'm pretty new to this, and don't want to get into a tussle about it, just make the best page we can. Davidjennings (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC) OK, now seen your "Still does not belong on the artist page, sorry" comment - are you saying "does not belong on Wikipedia"?

Hi David, An occasional quote from press reviews would be acceptable, but consider adding stuff carefully, in a neutral style. It should not read like it was written from a fan's perspective. Snoop God (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley page

I have to say that I really don't understand your behaviour towards the JB page. I think Sillyforkboys edits were clearly improvements - getting rid of uncited and trivial material, rewriting proseline into prose, adding refs, improving the appearance of the page, writing a musicianship section (even if I wasn't keen on the sources he used, it was a good start)...And your version includes this very strange sentence: "After a day as a guitarist in Los Angeles.." which instantly gave me a poor impression of the page when I first looked at it as a GA reviewer. SFB had fixed this. I honestly don't understand why you twice reverted these changes, to a significantly less polished version of the page. --Lobo (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he initially removed much cited content (without explaining why). I agree the second wave of changes was much improved but I personally much prefer the previous version, although I agree it is far from an excellent article. The America idol section isn't really relevant (Buckley did not write the song) and it was fine as was (placed in the article) and it doesn't require a dedicated section! Also, much of the wording is from a fans perspective and not altogether accurate. I patrol the page and I have discussed many of these implemented changes, so I feel qualified to add these observations. (Snoop God (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

Well he removed the largely-uncited tributes section, whilst maintaining the notable stuff under legacy, which was definitely a good thing. And I definitely think a written summary of JB's instruments is better than an exhuastive and unsightly list. As for the American Idol thing, I don't understand your point here at all because what you reverted the page to has it as a level 2 heading! SFB had it as a subsection of legacy, this attributing less relevance to it. And of course it is relevant—it was Buckley's version of the song that was performed, and it got him to #1. I suggested that the subheading could be named to "2008 resurgence", though, which you may prefer. Anyway, you both need to communicate with each other (civilly), rather than saying "I personally prefer the page the other way" and reverting. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an acceptable reason. --Lobo (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thom Yorke page

I'm not certain as to why you deleted Modeselektor from Thom Yorke's associated acts list. He's done around two or three songs with Modeselektor and has performed live with him, I think that warrants some mention. So too with Flying Lotus, as they have just mentioned that Thom and Jonny Greenwood will be appearing on Flying Lotus' next album. While it's appreciated that Bjork and PJ Harvey were added, Modeselektor and FL are equally relevant.

Majoramask (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Aqualung (musician)

I represent Matt Hales and am revising this page with his management's specific direction. May I ask that you refrain from amending the page with your own choice of grammar, until I have it completed? Thank you (Jpoindex (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

Hi there, If you add to my talk page page, please do not undo your edits. Thanks.

Also, if you are connected with the subject you should not be editing. Have a think about that, please. Snoop God (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Blue Nile

You downgraded the article above in February 2012, rightly stating on the article's talk page that it was poorly written and referenced. I've totally rewritten and expanded the article and think it is now in much better shape, so I hope that you or someone else at WikiProject Biography can take another look at it and hopefully upgrade it (I don't think it's near GA class yet, but I would hope the article in its current form at least forms the basis to work towards it). Any constructive criticism would be appreciated. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I Am a Bird Now

G'day from Oz; I changed the track list because there is no such word as "Bouy" and because several websites list the song title as "I am a Boy Now". If it is in fact "I am a Buoy Now", please correct the spelling accordingly. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have checked the refs used in the article, and of those that list the song, only one has it as "bouy", the others have it as "boy". I see from the article history that you have changed it several times. If it is "Bouy", it is probably worthwhile adding a hidden note to that effect. Cheers again YSSYguy (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good day! I understand why this would be confusing , however the word he uses (regardless of its existence in a common language) is Bouy, not Boy. Hope this helps. Snoop God (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Babel (album), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, they rate 63/100 generally positive!? Snoop God (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)