User talk:A Knight Who Says Ni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page.

If replying to a message I left on your Talk page, please respond here, as I usually don't watch other people's Talk pages for a reply. (However, if you state on your talk page that you prefer to reply on your own page, that's fine, and I will watch your page.) Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== or fill in the subject line for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply); I recommend using the "Show preview" button before saving, to check how this looks. I will generally respond on your Talk page (and may add it to mine, as well) and copy over our previous discussion on the subject to a new section on your page, if it's not already there. (I think this is good practice, and encourage you to do the same.) ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Contents 1 PS 2 Pink Floyd #1 3 Mike Oldfield's Single 4 Norway's charts 5 Pink Floyd (Barrett's Decline) 6 Question 7 Pink Floyd #2 8 Pink Floyd personnel lists 9 Pink Floyd album covers removal 10 Pink Floyd: A Momentary Lapse of Reason 11 Great Name 12 The Dark Side of the Moon 13 Pink Floyd – "Biding My Time" 14 Hello

[edit] PS

PS - cool user name. -- Roleplayer (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd #1

Thanks for recommending I do a revert immediately, instead of asking for consensus on the article's talk page. I just started editing Wikipedia this week (though I've been a reader here for a long time), and didn't want to make a major boo-boo from the start. I guess it's too early for me to be bold. I'm sure I'll get bolder as time goes by. Thanks again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for editing Wikipedia. Your cautious assumption of good faith is sensible and appreciated. Wikipedia:Verifiability (not to mention Jimbo Wales) grants editors much permission to revert questionable, unsourced material. Comfort and experience pending, WP:BRD will usually work well in situations like this one. Ni! / edg ☺ ☭ 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Oldfield's Single

Hi, thanks for making minor edits to this article for style. I'll try to follow your example when expanding articles for other Oldfield singles, which I'm planning to do. (By the way, you sure do make a lot of edits in short time! Is your process automated?)

The only thing I'd question is removing quotes from this sub-title:

"Mike Oldfield's Single (Theme from Mike Oldfield's album 'Tubular Bells')"

where you changed 'Tubular Bells' to italics, since the quotes actually appear on the record label. Mind if I put them back?

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for improving the article so much, and expanding some of Oldfield's other articles would be really great :)

I'd only changed the "Mike Oldfield's Single (Theme from Mike Oldfield's album 'Tubular Bells')" to italics, as it is the usual style for album titles to be italic. But I've changed them back to how they appear on the sleve.

Some of my edits are semi-automated, via AutoWikiBrowser. Most of my edits at the moment are just fixing style/formatting; which is why I've done so many edits recently.

Have fun improving Wikipedia :) TubularWorld (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norway's charts

Hi Terjeno Oslono. I, like you, recently got a Wikipedia account, and thought I'd copy over the welcome box that someone put on my page. I find it very useful!

I was looking at the edits you have been making, adding Norway chart info to various articles. I think that's great and will be helpful.

Can I make a suggestion? Wikipedia is very big on verifiability; the ability to show where you are getting your information. Most chart info has a link to a page about where that info comes from, usually pointing to a website. I see your edits just have a link to "Norway". I did a Google search for Norway charts, and found many commercial sites. I'm not sure which one is the best for research, and most of those sites don't make it clear where they are getting their info from, either!

A good idea might be to create a new page called "Norway album charts" with a short (stub) article that points to the website or other reference you are using. Then, when you add info to other articles, have it point to that page.

Let me know if I can be of any help.

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, shall try to link the Norwegian chart tag to an approriate side. Do you know the best way to upload an image without getting it delete the next week? Try to include as much info as possible but it's still isn't enough. Do you now how?

kind regards/Oslono. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oslono (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried uploading images yet, but I am aware that it's one of the most frustrating things to do at WP. They want to make sure that all images on WP are legal, and that forces us to understand how copyright laws work. I haven't got into that yet myself! As I understand it, album covers can be used in a "limited" way, meaning only used in the article that is for that album, and can't be used in multiple articles. There is something specific you have to say in the picture's description page to explain that this is what you are uploading it for. That's all I know about it. Good luck! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd (Barrett's Decline)

You removed an edit by an anon IP (multiple-user with a history of vandalism), with edit summary: "Don't know why that was taken out. Use an edit summary next time". I have re-inserted it. Just to let you know, I'm not the person who changed it originally. The first time I saw the change, I thought it was an improvement. I did create a summary explaining why. Just trying to help a newbie, but with his talk page full of warnings, I don't think it would be useful to comment on his page. Hope you approve. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, THanks for the message. I've no problem at all with your re-edit. I was obviously a little cranky last night, because there wasn't an edit summary, and i'd been fighting IP vandals all day! Thanks for the message :) Ged UK (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello, I am Valtoras, a fellow Wikipedian editor. Not to sound rude or anything, but I was wondering if you could explain why you reverted 3 of my edits a few days ago.[1] I'm certain you have a good reason, but I myself am somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia basic editorial style. Oh, by the way, for a newcomer you're certainly doing very well. Valtoras (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Valtoras. The revert had this edit summary, which tried to explain my reasons in the tiny space allowed: "this was duplicating info which was ok where it was, also lacks refs, also had typos". I don't mind explaining it, and hope you aren't offended.

My biggest concern is that opening paragraphs of articles are supposed to be a very brief summary of the article's subject, i.e. "explain what it is", while saving details for the article's sections, of which this article has many. In the first paragraph you changed "concept/rock opera double album" to just "double album", which seems to take away from the basic description of what it is.

You followed with information about its popularity and sales in comparison to other Pink Floyd albums, and 1980s albums in general, which belongs in the section titled Reception, and doesn't contain much factual information that is not covered in that section. The album's ranking among fans of the group is something that is certain to be debatable, and an opening paragraph is not the best place to weigh in with an opinion.

You also used the opening paragraph to mention Richard Wright's firing and an alleged reason for it, which are already covered in the Recording history section, and which also disputes the reason you repeated, giving other explanations. Considering that this is a strongly negative assertion about a living person, I don't see why it should be included except where it's essential to understand points made in the article, and I'm not sure it belongs in this article at all. It is duplicated in the Pink Floyd and Richard Wright pages. By the way, Richard Wright's page is not called "Rick Wright", which is a redirect page, but "Richard Wright (musician)".

Such a strong condemnation of Wright should at least be followed a reference, which is present in the place where this information was previously, but is missing from your duplication of it. This is what I meant by "lacks refs".

Your edit also removed a large sentence that begins with "Largely based on Waters' life..." (see edit summary), possibly in error.

As to the typo, I see "almum" in place of "album" in the opening sentence. I could have fixed that, but considering my other concerns, I thought it best to revert and let you try again if you feel there is something about this article that really needs to be changed. Looking at the revert again, and the article as a whole, I don't really see what these changes are trying to improve (content or style?), or what's wrong with the article as it stands.

Please don't let this discourage you from editing the article again. If you still feel there is something that needs to be done, by all means do it. Best wishes! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your informative and civil reply. I very much appreciate it. Valtoras (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd #2

Hi, can you explain your recent edit to The Dark Side of the Moon? I realize this is a revert, but both stats link to the same page, and on that page it appears the album rates fifth. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted it to the last good version of the page, which was one of your revisions. I don't keep track of the numbers, and honestly, I had missed it the disparity, focusing instead on removing some idiotic thing someone had written after someone's name in the article. Icarus of old (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd personnel lists

Hello VanzKantDanz,

You have been making recent edits to the personnel lists of articles on most Pink Floyd albums, to add more detail to the specific brand or model of instruments used. You have done this three times, and each time your changes have been reverted. Can I offer some advice?

I think that if these changes are valid, they would be welcome, and the reverts do not necessarily mean they are unwanted or are being disputed. The problem, I suspect, is that you are making these changes without saying where you are getting your information. Wikipedia requires that detailed edits such as these come with references. There may also be problems with the format you are using to insert these details, when they change credits as printed on the album covers.

Another problem is that you are making very similar changes to so many articles, such as replacing "bass guitar" with "Fender Precision bass" on most. Some editors may suspect you have read that Waters used that model, and just presumed he used it on everything he recorded. Are you using a reference that says this make of bass guitar was used on every album whose article you are editing? And that no other model was used additionally on those recordings? It may be that you do have a reference source which says exactly that. But you need to state what it is.

Another problem may be that, in general, album credits should quote exactly what is printed in the official album notes. If additional information is provided, it should be formatted in a way which makes it clear that it is a deviation from the official credits. For example:

• Roger Waters – bass guitar (Fender Precison)[reference to where you found this], vocals

or

• Roger Waters – (Fender Precision)[reference] bass guitar, vocals
• David Gilmour – guitar, vocals (also bass guitar on "One of These Days")[reference]

Hopefully these suggestions will help you make edits that will endure, and they will be welcomed as good contributions to these articles. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the adivce, I'll note the references as soon as I get back my biograhpy from a friend. Thanks-Vanz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanzKantDanz (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd album covers removal

I noticed that you removed some jpeg images pertaining to PF albums. I thought that Wikipedia was allowed to host album covers. Something has changed recently? (please note that I've not contributed to this site for several months, due to the cyberstalking behaviour of some pretentious guy(s). regardsDoktor Who (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Doktor, I started doing this a while ago, and guessed that someone would question it eventually. You're the first! :) I have not removed images from album articles, only album images from song articles. I did this after noticing:

1. several discussions on the Village Pump mentioning that fair use rules state cover art can only be used once for the article about the album, and not for additional articles about songs, nor for any other purpose, even though there are many examples where this rule is not being followed
2. a recent challenge attached to the JPEG for Atom Heart Mother, which was added by Fairusebot and later removed, presumably because my edits addressed the problem, see history page for the JPEG
3. the actual infobox instructions: Template:Infobox Song

In addition, I have been removing jpegs for covers of singles where they appear a second time in the article for the B-side song, as I see no reason why the same rule would not apply here.

I realize some people may not like these edits, or may feel it is a step backward in the development of these articles. I think it is a step forward, bringing articles up to standards. Since this is a legal issue, principles of "be bold" and "ignore the rules" are not applicable. If you can provide any evidence that I'm in the wrong, let me know. Also, thanks for your vigilence. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks ok to me. Apologies for my lack of time, really, I would like to spend more time here, but life is life... best wishes.--Doktor Who (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd: A Momentary Lapse of Reason

Hello, could you tell me more about this edit. You have changed part of a statement which tells how Roger Waters and Pink Floyd divided up their rights, by removing a specific list of songs. Are you disputing the whole paragraph, or just that sentence, or just the part you removed? What are you using as your source of information? The article, as it stands, does not state where its info comes from, and I'm concerned that it is changing from one unsourced story to another. I have reverted the change, but this does not mean I think your version is less true. I'm hoping you will add the changes again with a reference. If I can help, let me know on my talk page, or the article's talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)"

The wiki article says the following when referring to legal disputes following Waters' leaving the band:

"Waters dissolved his former management partnership with Steve O'Rourke and gained exclusive rights to some traditional Pink Floyd imagery, including the original flying pig design, almost all of The Wall concept (all the songs except the three for which Gilmour wrote the music, "Young Lust," "Run Like Hell," and "Comfortably Numb") and everything to do with The Final Cut."

the writer of this passage is incorrect to say that Waters has "exclusive rights" to "almost all of The Wall concept (all the songs except the three for which Gilmour wrote the music, "Young Lust," "Run Like Hell," and "Comfortably Numb")"

While he/she is correct that Waters does have the rights to the concept of the Wall album and any imagery that goes with it, he/she is incorrect to say that Waters has exclusive rights to songs on the Wall written solely by him. this is evidenced by the release of "Another Brick in the Wall pt. 2" and "Hey You" on the post-Waters Floyd live album PULSE.

(above reply from User:Ledbetterman10 who made the edit under an anon IP)

Thank you, I have re-applied your change. The edit summary box can be used to explain why you've made a change like this. Congratulations on getting an account! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Name

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		What a name! I demand a shrubbery! Ni! RedThunder 18:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the barnstar. It's my first one! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S., Hope I'm not out of line, but I noticed your table on contents was screwed up because some headings only have one equals sign instead of two, so I fixed it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Side of the Moon

Hi WichitaQ, and thanks for the edit you made to The Dark Side of the Moon. FYI, there is a rule against using Wikipedia itself as a reference, so I changed it to a Wikilink; see the difference here: [2]. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S., Welcome to Wikipedia! (I didn't say that before, because I see you have been here a while.) I notice you created your user page just after I posted above, and said you don't like WP's talk page system. If it's because my message was abrupt and impersonal, my apologies. Lately, my messages and edit summaries have been getting quite wordy, so I was trying to keep it short for once. Maybe I should try for the middle ground instead. See you on the Pink Floyd pages! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

oh trust me, i only registered for editing and some advanced options for participating in Wikipedia improving, and your message was the first one i received and i was like "gaah, could they make it even more complicated just to reply back"

i wasn't offended in any way by any of your actions, i just thought it might be nice to set up a profile here :D you see, i'm just trying to be more active here, since i tend to make a lot of edits by forgetting to log in.

don't worry, i'm just implanting myself here in the society, and thanks for the welcome ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WichitaQ (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd – "Biding My Time"

Hi, you state that the song in question dates from 1971; however, the CD booklet doesn't give a recording date, just states that the copyright is from 1971 (unsurprisingly, since it was unreleased before the Relics compilation). However, the back cover of the "four-eyed face" LP version gives production dates for each song, and the one for "Biding My Time" is July 1969 - see here. -- 87.165.252.96 (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good information! I think it should be added to the stub page for "Biding My Time" (and also fix the info box on that page, which says "1967-1969") and of course re-insert your edit on the Relics page. I think it should be okay to use a reference like this, on both pages:

<ref="rcover">Recording dates taken from back cover of ''[[Relics]]'' album, USA edition</ref>

Note: if you look at the above line in an edit box, you will see "nowiki" tags surrounding it; these should be removed. Also the square brackets around "Relics" should be removed when inserting this line on the Relics page. (I presume you prefer to insert this information yourself, but if you don't, I will do it. Just didn't want to take over your edit.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Nice name =D. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)