User talk:The Keymaster/Archive 1

Thank you for uploading Image:SylviaMason-James.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to The Smiths (album), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. freshacconci talktalk 10:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited King of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sonny Boy Williamson (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) 10:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kimono My House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smiths (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) 18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Long Tall Weekend, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Severe Tire Damage (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) 23:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Devo discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monster Man. 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) 10:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Oh, No! It's Devo

added a link pointing to Freedom of Choice

Shout (Devo album)

added a link pointing to Love Machine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dominatrix (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freestyle. 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) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Let It Be... Naked, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pat O'Brien. 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) 10:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Assault on Precinct 13 (soundtrack), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dark Star and Alan Howarth. 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) 09:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brad Dourif, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinner. 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) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Best O' Boingo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dead Man's Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Listen to the Band (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Richards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Farewell (Oingo Boingo album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farewell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Moog Cookbook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electronic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Moment of Truth (The Real Milli Vanilli album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All or Nothing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elvis Costello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cold Mountain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mondo Bizarro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brain Drain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eric Red, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Last Outlaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Aero Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kevin Connor, Bernard Rose, Candyman, The Beyond, Gary Sherman and Mary Lambert

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Just What I Needed: The Cars Anthology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Door to Door (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Doors (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4K (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Greatest Hits – Volume 1: 20 Good Vibrations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Pellington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dolenz, Jones, Boyce & Hart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Davy Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Absolute Beginners (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kojak Variety, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Carr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Olodum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Three O'Clock High, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hughes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plastics (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rough Trade.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TTG Studios, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roosevelt Hotel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rag and Bone Buffet: Rare Cuts and Leftovers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dear God.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I need an expert opinion on a number of ongoing edits that are happening on the Devo album pages. An editor, in addition to not adhering to basic MOS:ALBUM style concepts (like italicization, quotation marks, capitalization), has also created and continues to add to absolutely exhaustive "Tour" sections, with information taken from what is basically a bootleg site. Additionally, they have been adding percentage calculations to the sections, tallying how many songs were performed from each album, how many were performed from prior set lists, etc. Here is an example. Most of this information seems extremely superfluous, the sourcing is dubious and it definitely clutters the pages, in my opinion. Are these edits acceptable and, if not, how should this be dealt with? Thanks.—The Keymaster (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't use the {{help}} templates to solicit allies for a content dispute, but I can advise you on things you can do. If you disagree with the direction another editor is taking with a page, by all means bring it up as a discussion on the article talk page or, sometimes, on the user's talk page. This way they can discover that not everyone agrees with what they are doing. When you see edits that are poorly sourced, you can undo them and, again, explain the reasoning in either a detailed edit summary or a talk page discussion. Some of these things may fall into the category of fancruft, which you can explain to the other editor, perhaps suggesting that they take their enthusiasm to Fandom or some other site more appropriate for this level of detail. Finally, if you do want to recruit allies, you may want to go to the talk page of the relevant WikiProject and ask for a second opinion about the overall direction of a set of edits. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you've interest in Devo and have edited their entry recently. I wanted to let you know about a new short documentary on the band and their gear. Mark Mothersbaugh gives a tour through their studio. Might be of use for a reference or external link.

http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/4/21/electric-independence-inside-devo-s-ufo-studio-they-whip-it-new-wave-but-with-new-hats

Thanks for you editing efforts! CorridorX (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

hi! sorry for any confusion. i removed that section because it consists of original research and completely lacks citations...not because i disagree with the one fact about edith head. (although that one seems to be especially original research!) anyway, most of that content seems to be non-notable anyhow. preferably we can avoid an edit war here, but, in all that section is very scattered and not very encyclopedic (or verifiable), so i don't think it belongs. ~ Boomur [talk] 23:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

(i might find occasion to quote WP:V: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." ~ Boomur [talk] 23:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC))

okay, sorry for going ahead before getting a response, but i think i've found a happy medium. per WP:OR, i've moved some of the "attributable" information to "song origins", and deleted what could not be confirmed by a reliable published source at this time. perhaps deleting the entire section was a bit rash, but as i said in my original edit summary, it was only a temporary solution so that the information could be restructured and stripped of any unverifiable content. ~ Boomur [talk] 00:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored many pieces of information in the article that have no source, such as the line about songs first surfacing on Dial-A-Song. If you are going to complain about all facts being verifiable, you should have to add sources for your claims as well. The fact that "Edith Head" has the same music bed as the Mink Car version and that many of these songs are Factory Showroom outtakes have been long established facts in the TMBG community for over a decade. The latter was even mentioned in the Info Club newsletter from summer of 1999. If you want to be pedantic and include a source for every single piece of info in the article (many of which are easily verifiable via TMBW), I can do that, but it will take a while. I will continue working on this. The Keymaster (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

whoa hey, i am not trying to be hostile here! as i said, TMBW is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, per WP:RS (this was also discussed in a recent DYK related to TMBG). the first three sentences (including the Dial-A-Song facroid) in the "song origins" section are actually all traceable to the Westnet interview with John Linnell. here's a quotation: "As a sort of 'premium' Dial-A-Song compilation, Long Tall Weekend collects unreleased studio material that, taken together, stands up as well as any other TMBG release. It's full of surprises -- from the longtime Dial-A-Song favorites 'Dark and Metric' and 'Token Back to Brooklyn'...". sorry if that was unclear. i'm not trying to be pedantic. not every piece of information needs a direct verifiable source, but if it is open to challenge, then it does. this is not a rule i made up, it's Wikipedia policy. sorry for any inconvenience. i'm quite aware that these facts are verified on TMBW and in the TMBG community, but that in itself does not make them eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. that's why TMBW is a separate entity. ~ Boomur [talk] 00:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There are MANY pieces of information you left intact that are not verified with sources. I will be removing them. Also, where is the Linnell Westnet interview? No link is provided. ~ The Keymaster (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

my bad, it's here, and i'll add it to the ref. i'm not sure what you're referring to about the unverified information? perhaps you could clarify here before an edit war ensues? i've cited all the information i added to the page, unless it exists de facto...if you'd like to challenge something i can provide sources. i'm sorry if i've created a disturbance, i think i'm missing something here...sorry! ~ Boomur [talk] 00:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

again, maybe you could clarify the changes you want to make prior to editing the page? Discogs is also a sort of wiki in that it consists entirely of user-generated content, and therefore it is not really a reliable source for Wikipedia. i'd like to accept the info club citation in good faith, but it's a bit vague...could you provide a scan or transcription? unfortunately, even TMBW doesn't list any info club entries from 1999 (if you have some i'd urge you to add them there as well!). ah, i think i've found the entry to which you refer; however, it does not list all the tracks you mentioned...i'll make the appropriate change. ~ Boomur [talk] 01:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, what IS an acceptable discography source for you? There are other facts contained in the article that only cite Wikipedia itself as a source. (For example, linking to the No! page to verify that "The Edison Museum" was reissued on that album.) I just think you are being needlessly pedantic. You are the first person in 12 years that has suggested that "Edith Head" is a complete re-recording or that half of this album isn't Factory Showroom outtakes. The Info Club newsletter may not be online (or it might be hiding somewhere...hopefully), but it made a lot of this stuff common knowledge back in 1999. I have a transcription sitting right here in front of me. (I made a CD-R of the album and created my own liner notes from it.) Come to think of it, I believe there was a similar press release for Mink Car that talked about each track, including "Edith Head". I will have to search my archives at a later date. ~ The Keymaster (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

er, as previously stated, some things, like which songs were on which albums, can be accepted de facto (again, see WP:OR for a much better clarification of what i'm trying to say). you can find a list of good sources for discographical information here (note Discogs is listed in "sources to avoid"). i'm not arguing about whether or not "edith head" was re-recorded, i'm saying that there is no verifiable source for this information besides the "fan community", which can't be cited. also, i think you're referring to A Song-By-Song Drive-Through Of Mink Car, which doesn't actually make any reference to ltw. ~ Boomur [talk] 01:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

So you accept those "de facto" yet remove mention that "Lullaby" had already appeared on Hello the Band, an easily verifiable fact? You are being hypocritical. And yes, you did argue about "Edith Head" being re-recorded. As you said, "edith head is definitely different instrumentation: the bug-eating at the end is a giveaway. they're also in different keys." Not even close to being accurate. I will continuing revising. ~ The Keymaster (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "Song By Song Drive Through" isn't the source I was referring to.~ The Keymaster (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

i didn't actually remove the mention of "lullaby to nightmares" having been previously released, although i suppose i made it a little more vague? i don't really think that detracts from anyone's understanding of...anything, but i apologise if you disagree on that count. sorry, i was being unclear again: yes, i previously argued that "edith head" was re-recorded, but to be quite honest it's irrelevant to the current discussion. right now, my argument is that it is not possible to verify the extent to which "edith head" was re-recorded, because no verifiable source ever makes reference to it. therefore, it does not belong on Wikipedia. please clarify what you are going to "revise" before doing so. i do not understand your intent here. my only problem with the information you are adding is that it is not verified. i am not personally challenging the truth of the information. i agree that long tall weekend is mostly fs outtakes. but, again, i can't stress this enough, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." this information cannot be verified. it is original fan research. i apologise if this has come across as a personal attack, as that was never my intention, but please follow Wikipedia's policies. ~ Boomur [talk] 01:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You removed the original release source of "Lullaby" ("Hello the Band" EP), even though it is de facto information. And "Edith Head" is entirely relevant, as it was the first piece of information that you removed, which started this mess. You ask for verification before revising your words but did not afford me the same luxury. Notice that you are the first person to argue with me in the many years I've been here. I stand by my assessment: you are being both pedantic and hypocritical. I'm done. ~ The Keymaster (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

hi, i just wanted to notify you that i opened a request for a third opinion on the above discussion so that we can resolve this debate without bias. ~ Boomur [talk] 01:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother. I no longer wish to discuss this with you. ~ The Keymaster (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And I will no longer revise this page...or any TMBG page, for that matter. Knock yourself out. ~ The Keymaster (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

i want to stress that i had absolutely no intention of deterring constructive edits, and i did not mean to contradict the factuality of your contributions — they are just not verifiable pieces of information. i truly hope that you will reconsider. it is important to mind Wikipedia policy (not that i'm an expert therein) when editing any part of the wiki...not only TMBG articles. i apologise for any misunderstanding or unintended hostility. ~ Boomur [talk] 01:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: Sorry to see that Keymaster does not want to consider a 3O. It has been removed from the listing. (BTW, I am not watching this page or the article.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC) .

Just thought I'd point out that the parenthetical "(Help is on its Way)" from "Hold on Girl" was added on the The ★ Collection: 25th Anniversary Edition album which was released in the United Kingdom. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I found that after some digging. However, one exception 25 years later isn't enough to change the title that has appeared on the vast majority of releases. - The Keymaster (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't remove spoilers. Wikipedia isn't the IMDb, and we don't censor spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Dolby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Clinton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Lane Smith (illustrator)

added links pointing to Lowbrow and 35 mm

Robert Margouleff

added a link pointing to 3D

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Adios Amigos (Ramones album)

added a link pointing to Brain Drain

Astronauts & Heretics

added a link pointing to Giant Records

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Campfire Songs: The Popular, Obscure and Unknown Recordings of 10,000 Maniacs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Smith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cynthia Darlow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grease.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stuart Whitman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mesopotamia (EP), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ricky Wilson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mummer (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Sinclair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recombo DNA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Myers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cruel World Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love and Rockets.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, The Keymaster. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hack-O-Lantern, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carl Graves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cashbox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Changes (The Monkees album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Davy Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Session with The Dave Clark Five, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Music for Pleasure.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, The Keymaster. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Hack-O-Lantern".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I could have sworn I had worked on that in some capacity in the last six months. I've been working on and off on that page for several years. The Keymaster (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have requested its undeletion. The Keymaster (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Discogs is a very reliable source. It has scanned images of the liner notes that clearly shows all the credits and lyrics. I got all the info from there. Krisfrosz133 (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Krisfrosz133. Discogs is not an accepted reference here, as outlined in WP:ALBUMAVOID: "Info is user-submitted/uploaded and fails WP:USERG." If Discogs is used to glean information via images, you must cite the actual liner notes, not just link to Discogs. "Album jackets should be sourced directly using the Template:Cite AV media notes template." So I took the information you'd added and cited the liner notes directly. I hope that clears things up. Cheers. — The Keymaster (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've started an RfC about the guidance at MOS:ALBUMS for alternative and bonus tracks. I've notified you because you've participated in a past discussion of the issue. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#RfC_on_bonus_and_alternate_track_listings.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you head over to the Tennessee football page since your an admin somebody keeps vandalizing the Tennessee football page Chasenielsen545 (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chasenielsen545 Ah, I'm not actually a moderator, but I will direct you to Sergecross73's talk page. He's a great moderator and he even has a running thread at the top where you can report vandals. If you need help, just let me know.—The Keymaster (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Chasenielsen545 (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chasenielsen545 Also, it looks like that user is using two different accounts, which is called sockpuppetry and is 100% forbidden here on Wikipedia. The Keymaster (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Well he keeps vandalizing pages and I can’t stop him Chasenielsen545 (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chasenielsen545 Looks like someone finally caught them. Feel free to let me know if you see any other suspicious activity on those pages. The Keymaster (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, and I will have a good day. Chasenielsen545 (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey there. I had made an edit to the Monkees "Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones" page which, on October 27, you reverted, claiming that I had no references for any of the additions made. You then added back in 3 or 4 edits for which you did find references; however, *every* statement I made in that original edit either was properly cited or could be properly cited, so I have added back in everything that was taken out--and for those statements I made that originally had no citations, I've added in proper citations now. Because I don't want this to become a huge back and forth where you continually revert my changes and then I re-revert them, and so on, I want to explain why the references I used for the challenged statements were proper and also where my new citations also should cover what was said, so hopefully you are fine with my latest edit.

1) you had taken out the phrase "inspired by Sgt. Pepper", with regards to the band being inspired by that album. I have added in a citation from a web article citing an interview with Micky Dolenz in which he called "Sgt. Pepper" a "life-changing" album for him. "Life changing" pretty much means "inspirational", no?

2) You took out "after experiencing difficulty during the recording of Headquarters" with regards to the reason why Dolenz quit playing drums after that album. I have added in a citation to the 1994 "Headquarters" liner notes which states the difficulty Dolenz had in drumming on that album and also features a quote from producer Chip Douglas that in order to get a good final master of a song, he often had to edit 8 or 9 takes together in order to get a decent drum track because Micky was such an unsteady drummer. This was why Micky quit drumming for the group, he knew he couldn't match up to the pros.

3) you took out that the album "featured a hybrid of members of the group and session players on instrumentation"--but this is clearly cited in the 2007 Pisces deluxe liner notes, where Tork is quoted as saying, with regards specifically to the instrumentation, "It’s sort of a mixed-mode band: you hear us, and you hear the pros.  It’s a compromise." I have added in the 2007 deluxe liners as citation.

4) you took out "music hall" to describe "Cuddly Toy". Besides this being ultra-obvious to anyone who has heard the song, I added in a citation to an article on the album in "Stranger" magazine (NOT a blog, but a real mag) in which the author describes it as music hall.

5) you took out the part where the record execs discovered the lyrics to "Cuddly Toy" were suggestive of gang rape. But I clearly referenced the 1994 Pisces liner notes in which that is directly stated ("however, the subject matter of Nilsson’s unsavory wordplay was a Hell’s Angels’ gang-bang. Reportedly, when Screen Gems’ Lester Sill was let in on this fact after the record’s release, he was furious.") I don't know how you could have missed this when reading over the deluxe liners.

6) You took out "folky anti-war statement" with regards to "Door Into Summer". But this was in the deluxe 2007 liners where the song was described as anti-war, so I now added that in as a citation.

7) You took "earmarked for their next single" with regards to "Pleasant Valley Sunday". I don't know why this is controversial at all, since it *was* their next single, and that's all I was saying. It's so obvious that I've added it back in without any citation, although I could use ANY Monkees book as a citation if you want.

8) You took out that PVS was "finished with overdubs of congas, guitars, and vocals on the 11th and 13th". But not only is this info in the Wiki article for "Sunday" using the citation of Sandoval's "Monkees: Day by Day" book, the recording dates for the song are in the 2007 deluxe liners as well. I have added citations to both the 2007 liners and Sandoval's book, so there is no doubt.

9) You took out the word "late" in the "late 1966" date I gave for the recording of the original "Words", and also the line where I mentioned it had been aired in the first season of the TV show. The word "late 1966" is *clearly* in the 2007 liner notes when the original recording of "Words" is discussed, and I've also added the YouTube post of the 1st season episode "The Monkees In Manhattan" as the most direct way of showing "Words" was broadcast at that time. (but if you need me to, I can add in any number of Monkees books, like Sandoval's, which mention this as well).

10) You took out that "Daily Nightly" was inspired by the burning of Pandora's Box in the Sunset Strip riots. Again, I'm not sure how you missed it because the citation I used for that, the 2007 deluxe liners, explicitly talks about it being about the burning of the nightclub. Your taking it out and reverting it to being about the "closing" of the nightclub actually makes it LESS factual. Read those liners again, please--the part about the burning of the club is definitely there.

11) You took out "tongue-in-cheek" when describing "Don't Call On Me" as a lounge ballad. Once again, it's in the 2007 liner notes when Nesmith says of the song "It was just a send-up of those kinds of things.” To make it even more specific to the Nesmith quote, I've changed it from a "tongue-in-cheek" lounge ballad to "a send-up" of a lounge ballad, and cited the 2007 liners, so there should be no argument there anymore.

12) You took out "and briefly released in Canada as a B-side to "A Little Bit Me, A Little Bit You" before being pulled" with regards to the original recording of "She Hangs Out". The reference I used for that, however, Eric Lefcowitz's "The Monkees Tale", explicitly gives that history--unfortunately I can't give an exact page number because I have the Ebook edition, but it's definitely in there, I promise!!

13) You took out the mention of "Star Collector" being about the groupie phenomenon and that it was originally meant to be 2 1/2 minutes but was extended to nearly 5 minutes through a jam, to which the Moog overdubs were added. Again, I'm kind of shocked that you thought this had no reference because the reference I used, the 2007 deluxe liners, explicitly mentions ALL of this. Read those liners again.

14) You took out the entire paragraph which mentions the Moog overdubs to "Daily Nightly" (including the Oct 4 date for Micky's overdub) and "Star Collector", and Tork's high praise of Micky's playing. I gave a perfectly good reference for the Tork quote (the 1994 Pisces liners) and I've now added in citations to the 2007 liners which, again, reference the recording dates for these songs including the Oct 4 Western Recorders date for the Moog overdub (I did discover that I accidently originally attributed the Oct 4 date to the Paul Beaver overdub on "Star Collector". I've fixed it to attach the date to "Daily Nightly").

15) I didn't mind your changing my statement that the counterculture press "largely ignored" the album, changing it to "they did not cover the album extensively", with one exception--the word "extensively". That implies they did cover it, just not that much. In reality, they did not cover it AT ALL, at least no review of the album has been found in any counterculture rag of the period (there were only 3 or 4 such rags at the time). So I took out "extensively". It simply was not covered.

16) You took out the phrase "with Americana signposts" in my quote of the "Record Collector" review of the album. Yet once again, if you go to the citation I put and read the magazine's review, that exact "with Americana signposts" phrase is *right there* in it. So again I'm puzzled as to why it was taken out, so I simply put it back in.

Anyways, that should take care of at least 90% of the deletions I've added back in. I would also advise you that proper protocol for Wiki edits generally discourages ripping out entire blocks of text for which citations (or lack of citations) are questioned. It's better to put in "citation needed" for all the text you feel needs it, so as to give the original editor (ie. like me) the chance to add any citations in and then, and only then, if time has passed and nothing has changed, would you remove the text. In your case, so much of what you deleted was already properly sourced and directly stated in the 1994 and 2007 liner notes to the album, I'm positively mystified as to why you thought the references weren't there, assuming you have these liner notes. But as for the rest of my statements for which no citations were originally given, I've now added them. If you still have any quibbles with what I've done, please talk to me here first so we can come to an agreement rather than editing over each other back and forth on the article page. I look forward to your response, as I'm sure we can settle this amicably. Thank you,

Michael Mtopper73 (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mtopper73 Well, first off, as someone who's been here for 19 years (and approaching Veteran Editor status), I'd really appreciate it if you didn't condescend to me regarding "proper protocol." You should also know it is proper protocol to cite sources when adding content, and WP policy clearly says that any information that isn't cited may be challenged and removed by another editor without warning. Citations are an incredibly important part of Wikipedia, as underlined in WP:WHYCITE.

Also, I'd ask that you please refrain from leaving novels on my talk page in the future. (1,580 words is excessive.) This really should have been added to the talk page for the Pisces album, and a consensus should have been reached with other editors BEFORE you added everything back in. However, it looks like you at least refined and improved your edits this time, so I do appreciate that. Skimming your new edit, I see there's at least one thing I will change, but it's very minor.

The issue here is that you changed/mangled previously sourced, well-written information by ClaritusEliminatus53 (who did a long overdue clean-up job on that page), shoehorned in new information and, for the most part, did not add further citations for these additions.

As you yourself ably laid out above, most of what you added was NOT sourced, either properly or at all, or backed up by the sources that were already there. By my count, only four of the 16 edits you list were non-problematic, while seven were unsourced, three were inaccurate—you even note in point 14 that you cited the wrong date for an overdub—or a case of WP:SYNTH, where you arrived at a conclusion not clearly stated by the source in question. For instance, re: your first point, Micky calling Pepper "life-changing" is in no way the same as saying it directly influenced the making of Pisces. You must stick to the sources and not your interpretation of them, as underscored in WP:SYNTH. (Also, 15 on your list wasn't my wording. That was left over from the original article.)

You should also know that unofficial YouTube channels cannot be used as sources, as it is a violation of copyright, as clearly laid out in WP:RSPYT...so that will have to be changed, too.

You also cannot use Wikipedia as its own source, as per WP:CIRCULAR. In other words, it doesn't matter what the individual Wiki page for "Pleasant Valley Sunday" says. If you're going to add a claim from that page to the Pisces page, you must either find a new citation (probably preferable, honestly) or copy the citation from the other page.

Long story even longer, it's a bad idea to come in and add new information in the middle of properly sourced content because the sourcing then becomes unclear and inconsistent. I figured it was easier to revert the massive edit you made and rebuild things piece by piece. Frankly, as per WP:BURDEN, it's absolutely not the job of your fellow editors to fact-check your work for accuracy, but as a fan of the band for 39 years, I knew a lot of that new information was not verified by those sources. Also, adding something that you deem "ultra-obvious" still needs to be sourced properly, as per WP:CK—otherwise, it is WP:OR. (For example, it may be "obvious" to a musician that a song is in the key of A, but if you don't have a source to back that up, it should not be added.)

Going forward, I would suggest being much more careful about always properly sourcing your edits (WP:BURDEN), especially if you are going to do massive 2,000+ character edits on a page that complicates what is already there. Also, to reiterate, do not come to conclusions that aren't directly stated by the sources (WP:SYNTH) or assume that anything is "obvious" (WP:CK), and do not use unofficial YouTube accounts (WP:RSPYT) or Wikipedia itself (WP:CIRCULAR) as a source.

Regards, The Keymaster (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

First, I just want to make clear that I did not mean to be condescending in what I said. I myself have been a Wiki editor for at least six years now and have done over 700 edits, including major rehauls of at least 100 rock album pages--and I've only been challenged on about a half-dozen of them, all amicably settled. And over the years I have been told--by at least two people who told me they were years-long Wiki editors--that if you see something that you think needs a citation, that it's better to write "citation needed" rather than cut it out completely. That's just what I had been told on more than one occasion, so I sincerely believed it when I told you about it. No condescension was meant; I thought I was being helpful!

Second, I responded to you specifically because you were the one who deleted my edits, so it just seemed logical to discreetly talk to you about it and see if it could be resolved. I have done this before and never had a problem. The long length was because I simply wanted to make sure that I had thoroughly argued my case for putting back in what was deleted. I'm sorry that you don't like getting long messages--I did not know, so I'm going to try to keep this one as short as possible (although I'll likely fail, LOL).

You had stated that I "changed/mangled previously sourced, well-written information by ClaritusEliminatus53 (who did a long overdue clean-up job on that page)". Actually, I'm the one who did the long-overdue overhaul of the "Pisces" page back on July 26, prior to Claritus coming in; I added in all the new sections on background, songs and recording, title and artwork, release and reception, and legacy (the previous version of the page was only like 2 paragraphs long). He then cleaned up some of my work and I thought he actually did an excellent job at it, but he did take out some things I had written that I thought were of interest so I put them back in, with citations where I thought they were needed. He seemed fine with it and actually thanked me, as I had thanked him.

The reason I may have seemed upset when I messaged you is that you had taken out everything from my second edit (where I put back in a few of the things from my original overhaul that Claritus took out), even though 9 of the 16 statements which were deleted were all accurately cited by me, either from the 1994/2007 CD liner notes or from Eric Lefcowitz's book on the band, all of which I then pointed out to you in my long message above (I hope you can thus understand why I felt defensive, although again I apologize if my words came out overly-so). As for the statements you felt were lacking citation (and yes, I admit I'm not perfect), I have now gladly added proper citations to all of them, and you have now told me that you no longer have a problem with anything (which is great!) with two exceptions: the YouTube reference to "Words" being used in the first season plus the reference to "Sgt.Pepper" inspiring the band before they made the album. I don't at all mind taking out the "Pepper" bit if it's still unsatisfactory; it's a very minor observation as it is, so I will remove it. As for the YouTube citation, I was citing a link to the actual first-season broadcast episode, which I thought couldn't be more solid as a reference (and the YouTube channel which posted it did so 7 years ago, so nobody can claim it's some fake AI creation) but hey, if that's not good enough, that's perfectly fine because Sandoval's "Monkees Day-By-Day" book on the band also mentions it, so I will swap the YouTube reference for that one. And, I promise to never use YouTube as a citation reference ever again if that is not what Wiki allows (I have seen YouTube used dozens of times for citations in articles, which I why I had probably assumed it was OK).

I will make these two changes that you suggest and hopefully that clears up everything, no hard feelings. I don't think it needs to go to the album talk page because it seems we were able to resolve everything here, although in the future if I have problem with anything happening on the page I will go to the album talk page first. Mtopper73 (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a note - this is why its not a great idea to make a ton of changes across single edits - its makes working through these sorts of things rather difficult. And there's still much to do, there's a lot of unsourced and original research you've re-added another time, which you really shouldn't per WP:BRD. Please take this to the article talk page and not re-add it until there is WP:CONSENSUS on how to proceed. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I never do "original research". Any statement I make during an edit comes from somewhere reputable, and if someone does want to challenge a statement for which I didn't put a citation (either because I forgot or I didn't feel it was needed--the judgment on when to cite is always a little tricky, as I'm sure you know), I know I always can easily add one in, because I know where I got the info from. That is what has happened here, and all the statements which were challenged as having no citation, I have now added citations from reputable sources. Mtopper73 (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)