User talk:Fru1tbat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re: Area 51 revert

Yeah, you're right about that. ummm... I kind of panicked and started reverting edits that weren't vandalism because for some reason I thought the new user's contributions page was the contributions page for this one guy who kept replacing pages with "AAA CCC AAA LLL AAA MMM AAA RRR III !!!!!!!" or something like that very quickly. (User:Acalamari had just reverted a previous edit of his) Anyway, I started hitting rollback like as fast as I could and only realized what I was doing after I did about 15-20 edits. So, I went back and fixed them all. For some reason, I read the diff page incorrectly on the page in question and thought that the vandal on Area 51 was actually reverting the vandalism instead of causing it. (in that case, I would have been reverting the revert, which, ironically I suppose, was what I ended up doing.) So anyway, I hope that explains what was going on for you and sorry about that. Regards. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: FauxMan

I would have to agree with you that he does appear to be interested in defaming those particular organizations, but as he has not made an edit since two days ago, imho, it would not be appropriate to report him. If he starts vandalizing again, then it would be ok to report him to WP:AIV, but until that happens, I would not take any action. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of SMV (band)

A tag has been placed on SMV (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thunder (SMV album)

I have nominated Thunder (SMV album), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder (SMV album). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

SMV (band)

What it comes down to is that each project must stand on it's own...Notability is not inherited. If the band's members are notable then there will be articles written about the band and then the article can be recreated at that time...but it doesn't qualify yet. Sorry! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to Council Rock High School North

I noticed your recent edits regarding the marching band. While I think information on the band is valuable to the article, it needs to be done in a non-POV manner, i.e. citing accomplishments, awards, etc, rather than general statements about how popular/renowned the band is that would appear to outside readers to be local bias. I didn't want to just revert the edits, in case you want to attempt to rewrite it, but I think something needs to be done. Let me know if you have any questions. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

could you help me with it. its absolutely vital that its kept in about the band. they've never received anything lower than a superior rating and they sweep captions including best drum major, best music, best marching and best color guard all the time. they participate in 5-6 different competitions every year and also 2-3 parades. the info about the drum major needs to be kept in also. Could you make the changes so I could see what I can do in the future? Manchester.united69 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have some time (extremely busy IRL right now). I haven't been able to find much information on the band's history or competition results, though. Any websites that you know? --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lifehouse article punctuation

Thanks for giving me the reason and the link to the style guide. I appreciate it! --Mulder8281 (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Voltron edits

WP:Burden I have taken a literal attitude to wikipedia's guidelines, the article is still confusing and needs cleanup but at least it has credible and reliable sources to back up some of the statements. You are welcome to put back the edits you feel are appropriate.

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

Trafalgar House (company)

I accept everything you say in your first paragraph, and you are right. Given the variety of different on-screen presentations with varous browsers, and an author's (or editor's) inability to anticipate them all, the potential for messiness is high. But I suspect nevertheless that the actual incidence of it will be low - probably more prevalent with older machines and earlier or non-Microsoft browser versions. However, that is no excuse for me, because in fact I was well aware of these problems a few years back when I was heavily engaged in HTML work every day. It just slipped my mind recently.

It still leaves a bit of a problem, because uninterrupted prose in confined spaces like caption areas often yields ugly layouts and broken word groupings, which are an anathema to me. I really don't know the best answer.

Regarding the lead, I have a particular sensitivity here. The fact is that the whole of Trafalgar House is history, and painful history at that. I was thrown out on the second large wave of redundancies, and likewise the boss who threw me out - who followed on he third wave.

When I re-vamped this article in early November I placed the first section under the heading of "Introduction", and it remained there for many edits thereafter. Then along came someone called Ground Zero who dispensed with that heading - possibly wishing to adhere to a Wikipedia standard format. It was immediately clear that this first (headingless) section's content contained significant historical matter, and this had been emphasised by the removal of a section heading. It seemed not inappropriate to quickly detail the birth of the company under an "Introduction" section, but not so without that heading.

Hence the obvious requirement for a "History" heading. When I introduced that new heading, the most natural thing in the world, for me, was to have it right at the top - because everything in the article and about the company is history.

The trouble with cheeseparing edits on work that someone (like me) has spent many, many, hours and days constructing and illustrating is that they almost invariably surface in the evening, when tolerance is low - and they are always accompanied by the quick cure-all link "undo". Before I took any action I studied your user page, saw your admission that you don't feel sufficiently confident to conduct major edits, and therefore confine yourself to minor matters. Then I saw your proliferation of multicoloured banners seeking to convey to the world all aspects of your views on life.

The instinctive reaction was (rightly or wrongly) to feel that my long, hard work was being meddled with by a newcomer who even admits up front that he can't yet take the weight of serious and substantial contributions. SO, I press "undo". You must realise that it matters not whether I was right or wrong. What matters is how you come across. Your user page presentation does not help you in this respect. I also suspect that there is a substantial age difference; and while that of itself carries no intrinsic merit or demerit, it does not help mutual understanding.

My last word is on Wikipedia standard presentational format in its brodest sense. That concept cannot stand alongside the ever-present exhortation by Wiki to "be bold". And furthermore, it is clear that Wikipedia depends very heavily on creators like myself - rather than dabblers like yourself - and Wiki is therefore very careful to let it be known that what they offer to serious contributors is "guidance". I am happy to be guided, but not at the expense of creativity being stifled.

As far as I am concerned - have a free rein. Go back to your own edit, and either leave it as it was. or tweak it if you feel it needs tweaking. It all became history over ten years ago. --JHB (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Move-prot

I'm well aware of that thank you, If you check you'll see that the page protection was recently changed from semi-prot to semi-move. I simply was unaware that the move lock meant full prot and that there is not one for semi-move.--94.192.72.3 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Forward pass

I note your editing of Forward pass and won't revert it. But, I disagree with the edit, as it has, in my opinion, weakened the sentence. This is a small matter but, since you went to the trouble to make the change, it must have been important to you. It was certainly not a "poor use" of an ellipsis. Wikipedia states that an ellipsis "can also be used to indicate a pause in speech," which is exactly why I wrote the original sentence in that way. If I were to tell the story to someone in person, I would tell it just the way I wrote it... that the game was officiated by one of the top officials in the country. His name was Stuffy Hackett. The person's name is secondary in importance to who the person was. In fact, Hackett's status as an expert is the whole point of including this section of the article. I would not say to someone, "the game was officiated by Stuffy Hackett, who was a top official." The most important thing was that the game was officiated by an authroity on football. The most important thing to communicate was not a guy's name that nobody knows and then, after giving the name, explaining to the listener (reader) why that name should mean anything to him. Given my preference to lead with Hackett's credentials rather than his name, a comma was not indicated and an ellipsis -- a pause in speech -- was exactly what I meant to employ. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

" Quoted bold "

Is that a rule of long standing?
"Gunga Din" is not set up that way. Varlaam (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted, and fixed. :) It's been that way as long as I can remember. I should have referenced MOS:PUNCT instead, though, which states it a little more clearly. --Fru1tbat (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have >50K edits, and I haven't noticed this before.

I would suspect, therefore, that there are plenty of poems, songs, and TV episodes in violation all over the place.

But I don't know how to run a search for irregularities of punctuation.

Varlaam (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure a bot could take care of it, if someone felt so inclined. I fix them when I notice them, especially if I'm making other edits, but sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference anyway, so I don't go out of my way. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's true it's not the most conspicuous "problem". Ok, thanks for the info. Varlaam (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MOSTM

See WP:MOSTM.

• "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules"
• "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words"

The brackets are not pronounced and are essentially a styling issue. Wikipedia does not lend undue weight to non-standard English usage, and so standard English rules apply. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Cultural References

Fine, I'll add it back now and remove the "may be" language--but you cannot require definitive proof of every Chuck cultural reference for a few reasons. First, how does one actually prove that? Except for cases like last night, where they use a specific name, it's difficult to find definitive proof short of finding an interview with a show creator revealing all of these details...and since part of the fun of the show is that many references are veiled, that likely won't happen anytime soon. So: I'll revert my edit, and remove the "may be" language, since it's an example of res ipsa loquitur as we're talking about very similar situations and actions in two scenes from works from the same producer (McG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.160.99 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, let me say that I usually leave policing the trivia/cultural references sections to other editors who feel more strongly about it than I do (I like trivia and cultural reference sections, personally, so I try to find a way to make them work), but this case poses a problem to me, precisely because it's the same producer. Is he making a reference to his own work, or is he just re-using something he did before? The former would qualify as a cultural reference, but the latter wouldn't, in my eyes.

And you're right that for most of these references, you're not going to find a source explicitly making the connection, and I agree that it shouldn't necessarily rule out inclusion (if it's obvious enough). I will say, though, that if the consensus is that a reference isn't obvious, no matter how much some editors may think it is, it probably shouldn't be included. I think this one falls into that grey area. I could see how it might be a reference to Terminator Salvation, but I don't think it's clear that it is, and if that's the general feeling, it's better to leave it out. You can add it back if you want, but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone else remove it if they don't think it's an obvious connection either.

--Fru1tbat (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean about it not truly being a "reference" if it's just McG using the same technique...but he's currently only the executive producer, not the director/writer/etc. I suspect that he doesn't have the sort of artistic control that would warrant a finding that he's reusing the technique. Though I'll keep building up support for this interpretation before tempting other overzealous Chuck editors, since I (obviously) think it's hardly ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.160.99 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Humble request

Of course! I had no idea my lack of edit summaries bothered anyone. --Boycool (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But this category is helpful and it could have been helpful for me if i found it in here!

what's wrong with this category? why did the users even voted for the delete in the first place? it should be an article not a category btw and i'm out of here because this is so stupid. --Escalader (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(replied at category talk, linked above) --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Template questions

Sorry for being dense, but I missing something. I see two differences between the actual template and the sandbox. One is that the sandbox includes {{Documentation}} where the sandbox includes {{template sandbox notice}}. The other is that the sandbox has two open tables and one close table.

1. Why the sandbox work when it appears to have mismatched open and close tables? (Or can I not count)?
2. Why not include the doc in the sandbox?
3. Why, when I edited {{Infobox book series}} was I able to copy and paste the sandbox exactly? (Did I do it wrong?) In fact, I now see the sandbox icon on the sandbox version, but I don't know what generated it.

Sorry for these newbie questions, but I should get more experience with templates, and the only way to learn is to ask.--SPhilbrickT 19:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize! I'm not an advanced expert on templates, but I know a decent amount, so I'm happy to try to help. So, on the diff I linked on the talk page:

1. The sandbox version does appear to have mismatched table tags. Whether it works or not is up to what the renderer assumes, I guess. The main version doesn't have the same problem, but it should probably be corrected in the sandbox.
2. The documentation probably could be included in the sandbox. Not sure why it's not.
3. Well, now, that's the key difference. In this case, the sandbox has a template that declares that it's a sandbox (which makes it easier to remember which one you're looking at, I guess). I'm assuming {{Infobox book series}} doesn't? You can try to standardize all you want, but something will always fall through the cracks...

So each case is different. At least the fix in this case is easy. Just change the one line (add the "font-size: 88%;" part), and that should do it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes, I guess I could just pick the line that needs editing, but that requires looking at the template in some detail. I prefer a model where those who are looking at the details mock up an exact version in the sandbox, then the editor making the change doesn't have to look throguh line by line, but can simply confirm that the sandbox version is doing what is intended then copy and paste the entire sandbox. --SPhilbrickT 13:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It turns out the current model supports this (it just wasn't being used very well). {{Documentation}} provides for an automatic notice when it's transcluded on sandbox pages. I've updated the sandbox to match the main template exactly (except for the font fix, of course). Feel free to copy and paste. You should be able to just overwrite entire main version with the sandbox version now. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawaiian Vacation

OK "co-release inserted" - release with and being short ahead of Cars2 both mentioned now. Alandeus (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Okay, okay, I didn't know that people talk to inanimate objects all the time, don't get all snappy at me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.83.117 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended, but I didn't think my edit comment was worded harshly. I was just citing the reason for the revert (synthesis, i.e. drawing a conclusion not necessarily supported by the film), and adding some additional explanation. Nothing personal. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Voltron

I have a question for you. I made my first wiki edit a few days ago -- the copypasta from GoLion to Voltron. You subsequently cleaned it up (nicely I might add), and judging from the overall history, you have a watch on the Voltron article. My IP edit doesn't show up in the history, and I was just wondering why not? Yes I'm being a little paranoid, but it strikes me as very weird, based on previous readings of edit wars, etc. Again, it's just because I'm kinda new to this... TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.229.127 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the material you copied was from Mirai Robo Daltanious and pasted to Beast King GoLion. I moved it to Voltron instead (and looking back, I think I was too hasty - a note could be put back into the GoLion article about it; I just felt in the state it was in, the level of detail was better suited to the Voltron article). The edit history for GoLion shows your edit (I assume - IP is different, though). Or did you copy it to Voltron as well, and there was an edit conflict? Either way, I don't think any edits were forcibly removed, so I wouldn't worry about it.

And as for where the content should go, it could probably be referred to in both places - though there's a cite needed section tag in the Daltanious article, so a valid reference should probably be found first, before adding it anywhere else.

--Fru1tbat (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fru1tbat. You have new messages at Lady Lotus's talk page.
Message added 11:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lady Lotus (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Monsters

Hi. Just noticed refs 75-8 and 90 need publisher info. Can you fill them out with citation templates? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And 67-9.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Brave

I've tried to compromise by making it way shorter and to the point, but he just doesn't listen. He's hell-bent on his stupid crusade. --Andromeda (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lots of movie articles have information on post-credits scenes. Also, many people does not watch the credits if they don't know there's a post-credits scene, so I think is a good thing to mention it for the people who might want to wait and watch it. Really, I don't understand his stupid crusade. --Andromeda (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Wild Things with Dominic Monaghan) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Wild Things with Dominic Monaghan, Fru1tbat!

Wikipedia editor Schwindy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good article introducing the series! Possibly consider expanding it at a later time by adding an episode listing or ratings/reception information. Thanks! Schwindy (talk)

To reply, leave a comment on Schwindy's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwindy (talk • contribs) 07:38, December 13, 2013‎ (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Fru1tbat, for your note on Koala15's talk page viz a viz the revert to The Incredibles and the lack of edit summaries etc. It helps to have two people point out these things. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It frustrates me to see so many well-intentioned changes reverted without good reason (or any reason!), especially when valid improvements are lost in the process. I've seen an awful lot of it recently on certain articles (including Pixar stuff). Being in the habit of using edit summaries consistently (i.e. being forced to provide a reason for an action) probably makes an editor think twice before reverting something that's not clearly disruptive... --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with your reasoning Fru1tbat; I think edit summaries are an essential part of the training process in order to become a responsible editor on Wikipedia. Invertzoo (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

David Crowder Band

Just curious why you're altering the DCB chronology not to count Pour Over Me and All I Can Say. Independent albums are still albums, and the lead can reflect this difference without ignoring them completely. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I go by the sourcing and Allmusic refers to Can You Hear Us? as the "debut project" from the band, so I am clarifying it on this encyclopedia. On the subject of Give Us Rest, The Christian Manifesto talked about a "signed release" being Can You Hear Us?, so they consider that to be the first studio album from the band, and called Church Music, "Their last studio release".HotHat (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Allmusic refers to Illuminate as the bands "sophomore release". A Collision was called their "third studio effort". Church Music was referred to as "their fifth studio release", so independents count towards the total albums but not studio albums. Sorry!HotHat (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it, and you maybe interested in the David Crowder Band discography that I created to show what is what based on the sourcing.HotHat (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "signed release" means just that - release signed to a record label, i.e. not independent. It does not imply that the early releases don't count in some way. I note that Allmusic was your source, otherwise. Furthermore, how can any album recorded in a studio, i.e. a studio album, count towards a "total album" count but not a "studio album" count? The logic there is totally inconsistent. We have to agree as a community that either the early independent recordings should count as releases by the band (as they have been), or that they haven't. Allmusic's listings are not always complete, and they are not the authority on what counts and what doesn't. --Fru1tbat (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, I urge you to look at MercyMe discography and the Casting Crowns discography to see other examples. MercyMe's first studio release was Almost There. Casting Crowns first studio album is considered Casting Crowns. Those were not done by me, so that is the reason I am citing them instead of Third Day discography. So, I suggest you take your stance to the Albums project if you want to see what they will say on the matter.HotHat (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Independent albums before an artist has been signed to a label is usually considered a demo, and not a studio album.HotHat (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I see that the independent albums are listed separately (not sure I agree, but that's fine), but you should note that the lead for Almost There specifically says "first major-label studio album" (the lead for Casting Crowns does not make this distinction, though I would say it should). See also Nothing Left to Lose, which says "second studio album and major-label debut" (in the interest of full disclosure, I've contributed some to that article). I don't see anything wrong with being clear. I find using "first", when early works exist, to be misleading. Clarity should always trump any "system", as far as I'm concerned.

On the second point, I would need to see some evidence backing that up. A full independent album is a far cry from a demo tape or the like.

--Fru1tbat (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Different story, Bullet was released by InPop which is a labeled release these were independent releases that were released in the hope of the bands getting signed and picked up just look at Contagious.HotHat (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I'm going to drop it. The bottom line is: I don't see why there is any harm in putting a few extra words for clarity or precision. I would also be interested in hearing what other editors have to say, as it's consensus that really matters on Wikipedia, not precedent. --Fru1tbat (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you talk to Walter Görlitz, 3family6 and Toa Nidhiki05 on this matter to see what they have to say, and reference them to this discussion.HotHat (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lastly, If they come to comment then I will weigh in again, but I have put "the debut studio album and third album overall" for Can You Hear Us?.HotHat (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been summoned. I have mixed feelings. I loved the wording you Fru1tbat added to the first sixstepsrecords album, "is the third studio album overall by David Crowder Band and the first for sixstepsrecords". I feel it flowed more smoothly but "is the debut studio album and third album overall", as HotHat has it now, is not incorrect, and it follows the same pattern through the ledes of all of the albums.

With that said, and I don't know if I've expressed this before or not, but I don't usually consider independent releases as real releases, unless they chart are in some way notable. I may have to revise that stance with the number of really good indie releases of the past few years. DCB in particular has done a lot of their recording in their home studio (there are hours of YouTube video to attest to that) and the offshoot band, The Digital Age, did that for their first release. I wouldn't call those demos. I think that the line between recording a big studio for a major label release and recording in a home studio for an indie release have definitely blurred. A friend who has been in the music industry since the 70s and has recorded some major Christian releases admits that he's losing business to ProTools and the availability of good, inexpensive (under $1000) microphones. What would have cost $50,000 to record in the 80s (the cost of an expensive sports car then) can now be achieved alone for under $30,000. All that to say is that maybe calling them "studio albums" is inaccurate and calling them "label releases" is better and would reflect the nature more closely.

It looks like this matter has resolved itself though. If you want more rambling, I'd be glad to offer it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the very fair and well-reasoned response. I suppose I've always thought of a "studio album" as being recorded in any studio - home studio, major studio, garage, whatever. The contrast to me is with live/compilation/etc., not the size of the facility or the budget behind the production. I find using the term to refer to a release under a record label somewhat confusing, but I would be able to accept that that's the industry standard use of the term - it's just not intuitive to me. I do think independent releases need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, with the line being blurred as you pointed out. (Further confusing this case is that DCB's early material was not released under the same name.) I'm fine with the current wording - providing that the community agrees that the term "studio album" is being used in a standard way, in which case I will just have to adjust my own understanding. Thanks for the input! Now I really need to get to bed... --Fru1tbat (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll just note that Casting Crowns includes their independent albums in the chronology, with a note distinguishing them as such.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Crown Imperilled, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War of succession (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Flying fish

Re: Your message on my talk page: It's the physical location, except for Exit 9, where it's kinda obvious. Their site on the Exit Series does mention specific areas that are truly supposed to be "honored;" I put the physical location as a semi-placeholder (since they aren't wrong) until I had the time and energy to suss out how to best accurately include that information. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Flecktones Rewrite

Hi. I'm a senior at Kenyon College and I'm taking a class on the history of jazz. For a paper, my professor had us find an article in the Wikipedia Jazz section and find a stub or a Start page and rewrite it. I rewrote the Flecktones page. A lot of my sources came through the library's research data base which is why you're having trouble viewing my sources. Should I post something on the Flecktones page or write something that would help to explain this? And if so, where can I find a place to post such information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SZ standing (talk • contribs) 05:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So I see what you're saying about the inference and stuff. The line you questioned, about the Fleck interview, "I met Howard Levy at the Winnipeg Folk Festival in 1987, Fleck said in a recent interview." the part "Fleck said in a recent interview, is still part of the quote, that's what the guy who wrote the article said. The quotes being italics things really threw me off, so I took all them off. I was trying to make a block quote, or put that quote in its own box as other Wikipedia articles do sometimes, but I could not figure out how to do this. Also: wrt to the whole plagiarism thing: are all the quotes plagiarism, or are the quotes that are from the sources that you can't get to plagiarism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SZ standing (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not really sure what you mean by how the 'Tone' of my article does not adhere to Wikipedia policy. Could you elaborate on that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SZ standing (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello--I'm the professor who assigned the work that user SZ_standing did on the Flecktones page. Several students in the class did the bulk of their research, writing, and editing on an external word processor (Word, etc.) and then copied their work into the relevant Wikipedia page. We talked quite a bit along the way about following proper research protocols, citing sources, etc. I am vouching for this student that the work was done in good faith with no intent to plagiarize. We are all relative newbies to Wikipedia protocols, so if there are things that the student can do to avoid problems in the future, please let SZ_standing or me know? Thanks very much. Kenmusprof (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kenmusprof: Thanks for the note - I wasn't too concerned with the intent (especially after all the good-faith replies), but if some of the additions raised red flags to me, they might do the same for other editors. I just want to make sure that the appropriate guidelines and policies are being adhered to. I linked to a few guides and policies at User talk:SZ standing - if you're new to Wikipedia, you may be interested in reading them yourself. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 29 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Stephen Root page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

WARNINGS ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA

WARNINGS ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED ON WIKIPEDIA, IF YOU MAKE ANOTHER WARNING, I WILL DELETE YOUR ACCOUNT! [+6287 more exclamation points - ed.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiamhBurns10 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even leave you a warning. But actually, since you're here, I was going to post a message on your talk page. You seem interested in making valid contributions (along with some more questionable ones), so I'm not quite sure what to make of your attitude here... --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Crowder

I just created his solo debut studio album article entitled Neon Steeple if you are interest in finding out more.HotHat (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion debates

I just nominated four MercyMe albums, one David Crowder Band album, and one Chris Tomlin album for deletion. These are the independent ones with little to no coverage.HotHat (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the album notability policy does some harm to Wikipedia (I think notability should be inherited, at least to a point. When I look for information on a notable artist, I don't like gaps), and while I feel less strongly about early indie releases, my vote would usually be in favor of inertia (if it's already there, leave it). But that's not supported by any policy, so is it really worth even commenting? --Fru1tbat (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to do my duty and alert you to the debates, so that you will know and be able to participate if you so choose.HotHat (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Century"

Hi! Okay, I read the pertinent section. Just for the record, I disagree with it, as it doesn't make sense. That is like not capitalizing one's surname, just because someone doesn't like how it looks. But since it is the official policy here, I'll let it stand then, and I won't undo it, though I will continue to capitalize the non-hyphen version, elsewhere outside of "Wikipedia". LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. You may be interested to know that some other manuals of style also recommend lower case (Chicago, for instance). I can see how one might argue that "The Third Century" when used as a proper name refers to a unique period of time, vs. relative usage like "the third century since X", but I think Chicago's reasoning has merit (the capitalization of "century" seems arbitrary considering terms for lesser periods are kept lower case). I don't feel all that strongly about it personally - I don't think there's necessarily a "right" or "wrong" - but of course, the MOS rules here either way. Sorry to revert twice, though. I don't usually like to do that, and I should have referenced the MOS the first time, but I confess I was in a hurry... --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canadian Brass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ain't Misbehavin'. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Message from 66.87.80.144

You ruin everyone's fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.80.144 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but I'm just the messenger. Wikipedians on the whole aren't very tolerant of persistent joke edits, no matter how much "fun" you might be having making them. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What a dragster

I don't disagree in principle (tho dragster (vehicle) strikes me a stupid pagename, & dragster (car) isn't ideal either--if I had my way, it would be dragster). I think (car) makes more sense than (vehicle) since it's not like it's a submersible or a tractor, however far from road car it might be. Either way, dragster (vehicle) redirects. So until (unless?) somebody creates that page... As it now stands, it's a compromise, failing something better. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)