User talk:ILIL

Just wanted to buy you a beer and say "well done" for creating the Domenic Priore page. It's a page that I've long meant to get around to creating myself, so well done on actually doing it. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

I've just had a chance to get acquainted at the Wrecking Crew article. Looking over your profile, I see that you have done a lot of great things over the last few years. You have created a host of articles and have done extensive work all over the map. I see that, like myself, you are apparently a big fan of the Beach Boys, especially Pet Sounds. So this is a token of my appreciation for your significant efforts and contributions at Wikipedia. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	I thought I would also commend you for your dedication to making sure we all get the sources right. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer's Barnstar

Oh yes, you are a stern taskmaster--I've felt the sting of it before. But, I recognize that it is meant for the best and that you are on a journey of excellence that requires a stringent regimen. And, I have to admit that some of those little "stings" have forced me to "up my game" on a couple of occasions, even when I might have disagreed. I also recognize your outstanding work on so many projects. I want to especially single out your work on the "Good Vibrations" article, which is now beginning to look like one of the best song articles at Wikipedia. So, I thank you for your contributions and hope that this will encourage you to keep up the great work. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Music Barnstar
		you probably already have one of these but thank you for all the fantastic edits to Vaporwave! Keep it up👌☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 03:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks so much for all the work on "Gotta Get Up" - especially the image. I was thinking we would never find one. Looks great! —МандичкаYO 😜 02:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop by and say great job with the Vaporwave article!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the clean. Recently the name was changed from Collaborations between ex-Beatles to that clunky mess. There's a discussion on the talk page to revert it back. What say you? Hotcop2 (talk)

I am writing in regards to music producer, Joe Thomas. His BIO includes inaccurate and false information. I saw that you were also editing the platform. Would you be able to help to get his correct BIO with true and factual information added to his WIKI page?

[copy of IMDB bio redacted]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:501:53F1:E46C:5FF6:88B4:A111 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @2601:243:501:53F1:E46C:5FF6:88B4:A111: You would need to find reputable sources that support this information. See WP:SOURCES and WP:REPUTABLE. ili (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also not just copy his IMDB bio, even if it's written by a publicist. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've been very busy lately on various Beach Boys wiki pages, and i see you're working on completely overhauling the page on Smile. However, i want to point out some inherent bias:

1. The tracklisting on disc 1 is inspired directly by the tracklist for BWPS, which was made for a touring setting.

2. Fly-ins are used on tracks like Holidays and Love To Say Da Da, to match the 2004 versions of songs as close as possible; this would not have been the case if the approach was to make a historically accurate Smile.

3. Autotune was used in one instance, for the "Rock With Me Henry" version of Wonderful.

4. The box set, as large and expansive as it is, fails to include master takes from several various sessions. On top of this, on several occasions wrong takes are used to represent the master.

5. The understatement on Smiley Smile's production and dismissal of the "stripped down" approach contridicts with the main theme of the Smiley Smile article.

6. There is an excessive amount of comparison and need for approval by The Beatles.

7. There is absolutely no mention of the contributions of Bruce Johnston, who not only provided vocal work on several songs but needed to take a break from early to late 1967 due to feeling overwhelmed by the group's new direction (having only joined a year prior).

8. The album as originally intended back in 1966/67 was not completed and never can be completed.

That being said, i appreciate the MASSIVE effort a project like this would take, and a lot of these points aren't even mentioned on the base Smile page.

Apologies for cluttering up your talk page, I wish wikipedia had a proper direct messaging system. --Hidlive (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Hidlive: I appreciate the feedback but I don't understand what exactly you're disputing on a lot of these points. You'd have to reference specific claims that you think expose a bias. I don't know what you think should be added re: Bruce because AFAIK Bruce was just a vocalist-for-hire and had no input on the project (he wasn't even included in the formation of Brother Records). And I don't have any sources to correct/add anything pertaining to Smile Sessions autotune or mislabeled tracks. ili (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ILIL: Bruce contributed vocally to Our Prayer, Wonderful, Wind Chimes, Cabinessence, Child Is Father Of The Man, Vega-Tables demo, You're Welcome, and Do You Like Worms. In addition to this he plays piano on I Don't Know, and recorder on Bag Of Tricks. I can upload a youtube video showcasing the use of autotune on Wonderful sometime, but a lot of research is being done by 2 hardworking fans. If you've heard of the Sail On podcast, they've been guesting on it quite a bit recently. Also i'm not sure if this reply will format right because i am extremely new to wikipedia editing.

@ILIL: By the way, Walkin' was officially released! It's on I Can Hear Music: The 20/20 Sessions. It's even listed at the bottom of the page... Jingle Bells was also released, on Keep An Eye On Summer - The Beach Boys Sessions 1964. Other things of note:

-Alone On Christmas Day (which is the full title, not just Christmas Day) was re-recorded by Mike for a 2015 single, which was put on his christmas album Reason For The Season.

-Be My Baby, recorded in 1980, became the basis for the final recording on Mike's album Looking Back With Love.

-California Beach was re-recorded by Mike for his album 12 Sides Of Summer.

-Rollin' Up To Heaven evolved FROM Ding Dang, not INTO. Ding Dang was first recorded in fall of '73, per AGD's site.

-Stella By Starlight and How Deep Is The Ocean have vocals. Numerous times people have tried to clear that up. You can look it up on Youtube, there are vocals on it by Dick Reynolds. It's on all the bootlegs with vocals.

-Heart And Soul and Long Tall Sally were both released on Beach Boys Party! Uncovered And Unplugged.

@Hidlive: If you want to add content to any article on Wikipedia all you have to do is cite reliable published sources, like a book or an album's liner notes. If we don't cite proper sources then the article has a high likelihood of being deleted. If you think there's information that should be added, but it's NOT supported by Bellagio 10452 or other sources, then virtually nothing can be done until Doe updates his site, or until other established authorities like Mark Linett, Alan Boyd, Craig Slowinski, etc. make their own website (if they ever do). ili (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you're largely responsible for the Smile article and thought you'd be a good person to ask for advice about this. I've been working on Love for Sale (Bilal album) and am thinking of cover options for the infobox, but am uncertain about the fair-use implications. The image that appears most often in association with this album on blogs and discographical sites is this one (Genius.com is among the more reputable sites), although there is no commentary on this - it could be a piece of fan-made art that simply became popular by association with the album's spread online. This interview by Albumism mentioning the album uses that image in a collage of other albums' official covers, so perhaps that counts as some kind of validation? Otherwise, there is no reliable commentary on the planned or leaked album's cover art like there is at Smile. A similar article, Camille (album), uses a limited LP copy as the cover, so I've also considered using one of these sleeves of a promotional LP ([1], [2]). What can you advise? isento (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repost this at WP:ALBUMS. isento (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rip of the SMiLE bootleg CD issued by "The Early Years", which is composed of needledrops from the Brother Records SMiLE LPs, judging by the pop and cracks on some tracks. Here's the relevant track, also featured the rest of the cassette's "Element Suite" recreation.

As I'm aware, Dada appears to be the the segment from Cool Cool Water usually known as "Water Chant". As this is from before the Sea of Tunes CDs, it starts with water noises, indicating that the compiler was well-aware of its rumoured origination from the Smile Sessions, but not really as it was the early Smiley Smile sessions. Sea of Tunes' SMiLE bootleg CD infamously used Water Chant [a raw session version] as an intro to Dada, and this edit has been recycled on both BWPS and the Smile Sessions [Disc 1/"The Album" proper].

Hope you understand all the above. --TapLover (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Barnstar
	For your work on Hyperpop. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a subsection on soul and funk to progressive music, and created a main article for progressive soul. isento (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I'd like to start off by apologizing for continually reverting your changes to my edits, and I want to let you know that I will make changes to properly source my material this time around, thanks. Agent101232 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of retargeting control society to the Deleuze article, as I think the phrase is most closely associated with his work, but then saw that you'd done that soon after creating it then returned it to the current target. So it seemed prudent to get your views first – do you think the term's seen enough outside of the Deleuzian context that the broader topic is the better target? It's a bit hard to judge from any search results as you mostly get things like "the Birth Control Society of Hamilton" and "How China's Rulers Control Society," so interested to hear your views. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: I haven't got a clue. Was only taking my best guess based on my hastily-gathered understanding of the topic. ili (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think I'll retarget it with a hatnote. Not much point in taking it to RfD as participation would probably be low for similar reasons. Maybe eventually I'll get round to creating an article on Deleuze's "Postscript" but that would be a long way off. Cheers, – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ILIL

I have I think moved all those that you requested now, so they're back at their former titles. (Most of them were redirects anyway, so just a case of the categories now being in a different place, with both variants redirecting to the parent album). If you discover any others, please let me know. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing to see the would-be owner (not just of MLIR, but almost every page to do with Blur) get his way with another mass revert of other editors' hard work and 100% constructive edits. If you have the energy to become reinvested in this issue, I'd be most grateful. Thanks. 149.241.190.42 (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me if the edit gets reverted again and I'll revert it for you so that you don't get hit with a 3RR. The only other thing I can suggest is opening an incident report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I don't have the time to take the initiative, but I have seen enough questionable conduct from the other editor to provide you support should you choose to report them. Thanks ili (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you read there being clear consensus for the edit you just reinstated. The question that started the discussion asks about how to refer to the subject in the lead; the close is not explicit about where it's referring to, so is ambiguous, but the fact that none of the participants thought it necessary to implement a change like yours makes me wonder whether your interpretation of the consensus is in line with their intentions. The reason I protected the page a couple of weeks back was largely because of edit warring over the first sentence, and I'd hoped that the discussion would put a stop to that. I personally don't care what we call him, but if someone else reverts to the status quo ante, please don't reinstate your change again without getting talk page consensus. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: You're right, there wasn't a consensus for introducing him by his legal name, and neither his birth name, but we do have a policy outlined at MOS:LEGALNAME. I don't care about Kanye in particular, but it would bother me if I ever have to engage with an editor who points to that article as an example of a subject that isn't introduced by their legal name. ili (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good, policy based argument that you could use in a talk page discussion. However, I draw your attention to actual verbiage of the MOS: For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. First off, someone might want to argue the toss over whether an old name is really a pseudonym - I suspect that guideline was written with people like Bono, Slash or Eminem in mind. Second, there's that sneaky word 'usually' in there, implying that in certain situations this is not the best thing to do. In other words: policy is not clear-cut on this, it's open to editorial judgment, and I am not convinced that the change you made reflects the consensus of that discussion. As I said - I'm not going to change it back myself, but if someone else takes issue with it you need to discuss it with them. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ILIL. I'm responsible for expanding folktale and some fairy tale articles. I saw the warning on the article and I've come here to ask how can the article be improved. However, there is one point I must object: that the article seems like a personal essay:

• Nowhere in the text a personal opinion is presented as fact; all sources have been published in the last ca. 200 years (as seen in the dates of the references);
• The motifs and origins sections cite different views from different folktale scholars of the 20th and 21th century.
• The article tries to gather scholarship from all around to the world to present the most complete view possible.
• [ADDENDUM] Nearly all the variants are cited/mentioned/listed in the selected bibliography used for the article (namely, Schiefner, 1873; Clouston, 1887; Bolte/Polívka, 1913; Braga, 1914; Pino-Saavedra, 1961; Hoogasian-Villa, 1966; D. L. Ashliman, 1987).

189.122.34.209 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@189.122.34.209: I've only done a skim of the article and can give an example:

At first glance, scholarship admits some antiquity to the tale type, due to certain "primitive" elements, such as "the alleged birth of an animal or monster to a woman".

The tone here suggests WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:WEASEL. What scholarship – whose "first glance" are we speaking of? Who is being quoted? If there are other statements in the article like this, then they must be rephrased in an objective and encyclopedic tone, not in a tone one might expect from a research paper or college essay. ili (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insight. I will try my best to clean out the article.189.122.34.209 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! ili (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. I'm a bit stumped. Which sections do you think should need work?189.122.34.209 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't have the time to help. If you're stumped then feel free to remove the tag. Just as another tip, I see a lot of claims that lack citations, so those should be addressed as well. ili (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for expanding the MIU and LA (Light Album) articles. Your work is greatly appreciated! -Brigantics Brigantics (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ILIL.

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Orbison, you reverted my addition of Infobox person with this note "13:05, 12 April 2022‎ ILIL talk contribs‎ 78,788 bytes −631‎ Restored revision 1082118718 by 8.9.93.141 (talk): Not an improvement, Orbison was not notable for anything other than music undothank Tags: Twinkle Undo"

I'm confused. I'm not sure if your comment "not notable for anything other than music" is suggesting that the Infobox person only be used when there are multiple infobox modules to be used. Or perhaps you're suggesting that the Infobox person should only be used when the individual is notable for something other than music. But when I look at many other musicians on wikipedia, I see they use the infobox person with the module infobox musical artist, but they don't appear to be notable for anything other than music, and there is no other infobox module they use. Here are some examples:

• Tom Petty
• George Harrison
• Jeff Lynne
• Barry Manilow
• Bob Marley

The main reason why I converted the article to use Infobox person is because I wanted to call out that Roy had two spouses in the infobox, especially Claudette. The fact that he married and divorced Claudette and then married her again, and that their second marriage ended with her death is obvious from the Infobox person format, but took a fair amount of digging in the article to determine those facts, absent the Infobox person. These facts relating to Claudette are also unusual, and her death was an influence on his music, which seemed a good reason to make this more obvious using the Inbox person.

Also, the Infobox person allowed me to link to Roy's son Alex easily and obviously, and to his second wife Barbara Orbison.

If you don't have a strong objection, I would like to put the Infobox Person format back into the article.

Thanks for listening. ReferenceMan (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ReferenceMan: Please go on Template talk:Infobox musical artist and voice support for adding a spouse parameter and we won't need to change the templates. ili (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILIL: I don't have a strong opinion about whether the Template talk:Infobox musical artist should include a spouse parameter. I can see both sides of the argument. But I do have a strong opinion that the Roy Orbison article should have infobox information about his spouses and son. If you don't have any further objection, I would like to proceed with restoring that change I made using infobox person, as that is currently the only way to get the spouse and child information in the infobox. ReferenceMan (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ILIL: Do you have any objection to me restoring my change? ReferenceMan (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for dragging you back in. I didn't think the would-owner, Indopug, would just brazenly return to his old antics (censoring reviews and certified sales figures he doesn't like), but since you offered to revert his behaviour if he did, I leave this comment. If one were to honour the edits made since his sweeping revert, the article would look something like this. Thanks for your help. 51.199.19.249 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you're unaware, but I Me Mine was the last song recorded for the album (hell the last Beatle song recorded) in January 1970. Phil Spector put the all the recordings together AFTER the recording was done, and put the album together in the process. You're welcome. ChallengeCick (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChallengeCick: I Me Mine has orchestrations. Those orchestrations were not performed by the Beatles in January 1970. The orchestrations were recorded by Spector in April. ili (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Hold on, let me listen to the song to see if I can hear those orchestrations. And if I don't hear them when I'm listening closely, there's gonna be a problem. ChallengeCick (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article All Summer Long (album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:All Summer Long (album) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Realmaxxver -- Realmaxxver (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article All Summer Long (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:All Summer Long (album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Realmaxxver -- Realmaxxver (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Power pop you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cioriolio -- Cioriolio (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ignore this, the bot has a bug. the article passed Cioriolio (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC) VVVV The article Power pop you nominated as a good article has failed; see Talk:Power pop for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cioriolio -- Cioriolio (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sweet Insanity you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ILIL

Thank you for creating Inside the Music of Brian Wilson.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sweet Insanity you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sweet Insanity for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brian Wilson (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brian Wilson (album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Brian Wilson (album) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sweet Insanity you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sweet Insanity for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brian Wilson (album) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Brian Wilson (album) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Music Barnstar
		Just wanted to thank you for all the intensive research you've done for many a Beach Boy album on this site. It is truly enlightening to read all the info you provided on often-overlooked parts of their catalogue. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're one of the handful of Beach Boys fans who actually puts in the legwork required for these pages, rather than just bitching from behind closed doors like others do. I never get real feedback and criticism from regular fans, but I must be doing something right, because from what I've heard, BRI loathes Wikipedia and would prefer that some inconvenient but well-documented facts be expunged from the record. So, yeah, I really appreciate your gesture. Fighting negationism is often a thankless job. ili (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff to hear. It's a tricky task parsing through all the contradictory accounts from members, associates, etc.—so I fully sympathize with your work in trying to compile the most objective account possible. Thanks for the tip on Archive.org, a site I've occasionally stumbled on but never truly utilized. Again, thanks for your work in keeping the Beach Boys pages in tiptop shape! Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carl and the Passions – "So Tough" you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Carl and the Passions – "So Tough" you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carl and the Passions – "So Tough" for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sweet Insanity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ILIL, I noticed you reverted the image representing the song "Here Today" by The Beach Boys from the cover of the B-side picture sleeve to a picture of the vinyl. I'm confused on why, when I looked at images for other B-Sides released around the same time like The Beatles' "The Inner Light", the picture sleeve was used instead. Your reason listed was that the image looks too similar to the image for the song "Darlin'", but the aforementioned Inner Light sleeve looks about as similar to it's A-side "Lady Madonna", so I'm confused why that image for "Here Today" was a problem in this case.

I haven't been editing for very long, so my apologies if I made a mistake, I was just trying to apply a consistent style to the article compared to others about similar topics. Hartcanyon (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:God Only Knows single cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work on album era. Thank you for the improvements ... 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Vega-Tables cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pink Floyd - See Emily Play.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Little Bird - Beach Boys.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Brian Wilson's Smile group photo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just wondering after all these years if it makes sense to have Lopatin's "Angel" video as the main example on the hpop page, given that it's now widely associated squarely with vaporwave. Certainly there's some bleed, but I'm wondering if it'd be better to get like a Ferraro lo-fi track that's a clearer distillation of the hpop ethos in its place. Whatcha think? Kkollaps (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect List of members of the Beatles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 17 § List of Beatles members until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow Wikipedian passing by. You're the best Beach Boys-related user and so much more, genres and songs and all. An absolute legend to me. It's been a year since your last contribution; I assume you've had or are having a very well deserved rest after eight years. That Pet Sounds article now fits the B-class criteria more than ever. SMiLE is a really big article, though a little unfocused. But without you none of these articles would've been any better. I'm concerned about the lack of activity on your "Good Vibrations" sandbox, however; hope you don't mind if I salvage the contents for future edits. I'm wondering if you're still interested in editing or not. That's all I have to say. I cannot thank you enough for your efforts in pop music. Farewell. Carlinal (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto above. Hope you can find the time to return someday—your writing on musical genres, the Beach Boys, and XTC are some of my favorites on this site. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlinal: Sorry for the belated response. Just letting you know I've finished revamping Good Vibrations. I probably won't return to editing after this. There are far better editors than myself who contributed to those articles. But the kind words are appreciated. Cheers, mate! ili (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not @Carlinal, but a belated welcome back! DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your return but welcome back! Sad day today, the man, the myth, the legend has died. Gonna be spinning Beach Boys the rest of the day. Appreciate your articles. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles August 1969.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:The Teddy Bears Spector.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as the web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the direct/bare URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Angel - Daniel Lopatin.webm. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Games People Play APP.ogg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

sample not proven yet significant contextually to the song. identity ≠ contextual significance.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. George Ho (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If left uncontested, the following images will be deleted after seven days:

• File:Clang of the Yankee Reaper.ogg
• File:Child is Father of the Man sample.ogg

George Ho (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• File:I Hear a New World - Joe Meek.ogg
• File:Good Time - American Spring.ogg
• File:I Do - Castells.ogg

--George Ho (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more:

• File:Just Once in My Life - Beach Boys.ogg
• File:Rollin' Up to Heaven.ogg
• File:Hey Little Tomboy.ogg

--George Ho (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Way more:

• File:When I Grow Up (To Be a Man).ogg
• File:Please Let Me Wonder.ogg
• File:Kiss Me, Baby - Beach Boys.ogg‎
• File:She Knows Me Too Well.ogg

George Ho (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots more:

• File:All You Pretty Girls.ogg
• File:Train Running Low.ogg

George Ho (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:I Do - Castells.ogg at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 8.

George Ho (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More files nominated at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 17:

• File:Darlin' Beach Boys.ogg
• File:Wild Honey Beach Boys.ogg
• File:Let the Wind Blow.ogg

--George Ho (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more files nominated at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 24:

• File:Friends - Beach Boys.ogg
• File:Busy Doin Nothin - Beach Boys.ogg

--George Ho (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Darlin' Beach Boys.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

174.128.153.62 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wild Honey Beach Boys.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

174.128.153.62 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Let the Wind Blow.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

174.128.153.62 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Friends - Beach Boys.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

174.128.153.62 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Busy Doin Nothin - Beach Boys.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

174.128.153.62 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following are proposed for deletion. If left uncontested for at least seven days, they will be deleted:

• File:River Song - Dennis Wilson.ogg
• File:Lines - The Beach Boys.ogg
• File:Soul Searchin'.ogg
• File:California Girls intro.ogg
• File:Believe - Atticus Ross.ogg
• File:My Girls - Animal Collective.ogg

George Ho (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More files proposed for deletion. Likely deleted if left uncontested for at least seven days:

• File:High Coin by Harpers Bizarre.ogg
• File:Palm Desert VDP.ogg
• File:The Honeys - He's A Doll.ogg

--George Ho (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following files are listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 8:

• File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg
• File:Shortenin' Bread - The Beach Boys.ogg

George Ho (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good Vibrations

added links pointing to Bluegrass, Rebecca (film), Psycho (film), Punk and Upbeat

Brian Wilson

added a link pointing to CBS Records

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Smile (The Beach Boys album)

added links pointing to ESP and Broadway

Good Vibrations

added a link pointing to Upbeat

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Smile (The Beach Boys album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ESP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pet Sounds, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jethro Tull and Walter Everett.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Van Dyke Parks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flash Harry and Happy End.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Britney Spears § Conservatorship wording. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Eugene Landy and Brian Wilson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   999 {\displaystyle 999} REAL 💬 ⬆   00:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phil Spector, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Hammond and Blondie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know about Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 31#File:Gold Star Studios - Wrecking Crew.jpg because the file had been previously removed from Wall of Sound by an administrator as a result of a WP:FFD discussion about it. Generally when something like that happens, it's better to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and discuss things with the admin who removed the file instead of just re-adding the file. I realize you just did a major expansion of the article: so, perhaps the situation has changed from before, but a new FFD discussion may be needed to reverse the consensus of the first one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited We Gotta Groove, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Just Once in My Life was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you're one of the top contributors to the Wikipedia article for Pet Sounds, so I thought I'd ask if you'd be willing to do me a favour and get it nominated for Featured Article status as well as Today's Featured Article, specifically May 16, which is the album's 60th birthday. There is no queue for May's TFAs as of yet. I'd attempt to do it myself, but I'm not really sure how the process works, and I'm not a contributor to the article anyway. I hope you don't mind me just asking out of the blue. Rigby4444 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say I don't think I'll be able to follow through with a Pet Sounds WP:FAC before the deadline. It would probably fail WP:FACR #3 and #4 in its current state. Or probably not? FA nominations can be a lot of work depending on who's reviewing so it would be best to start with WP:PR/Instructions and contact an FA reviewer to see what objections might come up before nominating. ili (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Pet Sounds article and looked to see why it hadn't been nominated for GAN yet; I think it's very close to a FA status, but you're right that it needs to be trimmed down about 4,000 words or so (the lead paragraph is the easiest place to start with this, you don't really need more than three paragraphs for that). Media seems appropriate, only problem is a bit of sandwiching when there's images and audio files in close proximity. Other minor quibbles like a handful of unused sources might come up at FAC.

I bet you could get this to FA before May, but the TFA queue for May is already filling up, it'd be too late. However, if you nominate it for Good Article status, it'd almost certainly pass in its current state, and could thus run as a Did You Know for the occasion.

I've written a number of featured articles before, so I could try my hand at making the prose a bit more manageable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 11:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are removing images on genre pages what about Noise rock and Industrial rock.

It's also weird because some genres arguably were invented by these people on the image such as Jerk (music genre), Harsh noise and Power electronics (music genre). Wanted to consult you for what to do about these entries Aradicus (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per the 2018 RFC, the field is intended to be used to represent aspects of a music genre, not to display an associated artist. "Not even Scott Joplin for ragtime." ili (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What about Shoegaze? where its more depicting a specific aspect of the genre (the extensive use of pedals) and not really focusing on a specific artist Aradicus (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aradicus Its usage there makes perfect sense to me. I don't think anybody would take issue with it. ili (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I saw for what you changed to "post-1970s" completely broke the page in terms of information. First what do you mean by promo? Crank wave and the Windmill scene was the most notable recent development in experimental rock / art rock music. Also what is your issue with the word "notable". If a source calls a band an experimental rock band I add it just like this source that calls This Heat experimental rock: https://pitchfork.com/news/this-heat-to-release-discography-digitally-for-the-first-time/

Keep in mind before my massive revamp last year, the page was written by a Beatle fanatic like 10 years prior who made it seem like the Beatles invented experimental rock and called it a day. If there's places for better sourcing please mark it because it takes like 2 seconds to type in "This Heat" "experimental rock" "news" on Google and find a source that corroborates this information. Same thing for the crank wave stuff marked as "promo". It's a hard page to write as the main contributor since not many sources discuss experimental rock in length. But for massive groups like This Heat it's not hard to find a source. It makes no sense to remove massive chunks of info and mark a whole 50 years as "post-1970s". Aradicus (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had to roll back all your edits to the last time I edited the page because it seems you care more about removing information with no care about the genre's history rather than finding better sources to replace FACTUAL information. If you look here you can see Roxy Music in a grammy nomination article had pioneered art rock: https://www.grammy.com/news/roxy-music-phil-manzanera-interview-art-rock-pioneers-50th-anniversay-reissue-2022-tour-living-legends

You went ahead and removed ALL mention of the band from the page and didn't even bother to find more information. You keep stripping pages of relevant information for banal reasons and not looking for better sources. What's the point of even editing at that point? You just make pages less informative?? If you want to move around stuff fine, but please seek consensus in talk pages before removing massive chunks from genre articles. The "Post-1970s" thing you keep doing is atrocious. You cannot summarize what is almost half a century of a genre's development in one small paragraph. At least help out in researching by reading books instead of just removing what I've worked hard to add to pages because in the last 20 years nobody has cared to make these genre pages more accurate. I'll very soon go back and add back the useful stuff you edited. Aradicus (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a lot of your edits were really good thank you for that, but please for the recent development stuff try to encompass it instead of lazily cutting it off as "post-1970s". Aradicus (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]