User talk:PhilOak

Welcome!

Hello, PhilOak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (T, C, L) 22:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam and "Love Me and Leave Me"[edit]

Regarding this edit, I feel you may be misinterpreting the purpose of the "citation needed" template. The point of it isn't so much "is this true: yes/no?" as much as to say "where is it written?" or "can you prove this?". Thus, if you're going to remove the template, you should, in most cases, replace it with a citation (in this instance, either from the music press, or from the album's sleevenotes). -- Bobyllib (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suede![edit]

No, Thank YOU for doing so much work on the Suede articles. I'm a big fan and have been wanting to update them for a while, but you beat me to it! Regarding the Sputnik review, the reviews on that site should only be added if they are from Staff members instead of independent users. For example, In Utero review has "Andrew Hartwig STAFF (155 Reviews)" in the opening block. The one for the Suede album, is sadly by "aniym20 USER (10 Reviews)"source. So if the album article ever went up for a GA review or more, it would have to be removed. Shame as it's such a positive review. ah well.

If it's any help, I'm the one who added that Spin magazine review as I have that book it's cited from. I can write out some of the praise for the album from the book for you if you'd like to add it to the article. Sound alright? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I'll write it up later. It's late where I am, and I'm off to work tomorrow. I'll try to send you some information for this weekend. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'm about a month late, but here's some of the information from the Spin book.

(from page 379)

Suede 7 rating.
Stay Together EP 7 rating.
''Dog Man Star 8 rating.

On Suede and Stay Together: "Anderson filled Suede's eponymous debut with nudges and elbow digs designed to induce frissons of shocked adolescent pleasure. "We kissed in his room to a popular tune," he warbled in "The Drowners." "you can only go so far for womankind," he sighed in "Breakdown"." "Have you ever tried it that way?," he probed in "Pantomime Horse." The combination of Anderson's high-pitched Cockney yowlings and guitarist Bernard Butler's flamboyant spurts of empathy went a long way to justifying the extended deification afforded the group by the British rock media. "So Young," mining that beautiful-loser seam, "The Drowners" with the delirious passivity of its swooning "you're taking me o-vah" chorus, and the idiot swagger of "Animal Nitrate" all caught Suede at its best. But one too many Anderson's solitary piano musings sucked much of the air out of the album. (Like the Smiths, Suede littered many of its best songs on its B-sides, a case in point being the fine "My Insatiable One," later covered by Morrissey, now most easily obtained on the "Metal Mickey" maxi-single.) The Stay Together EP found the group still inhabiting that beautiful-loser persona with a title track that embraced the romance of joint suicide. pages 379 to 380

Dog Man Star, released here under the cumbersome but appropriate moniker the London Suede, proved a massive flounce forward, the work of someone suddenly coming to terms with the fact that life goes on outside his smelly bedroom window. Gone are the endless I'm-shocked-that-you're-shocked ruminations on sexual identity, drugs an decay. In its place are starry-eyed sagas of untamed youth ("The Wild Ones," "New Generation"), a raunchy casting-couch fable ("This Hollywood Life"), a ten-minute exercise in atmospherics ("The Asphalt World"), an impossible florid lament for a doomed interracial romance ("Black or Blue"), and two songs delivered from the P.O.V. of a lonely housewife. Of those, the latter ("Still Life") is T.L. Suede's finest hour. A string-laden showstopper, it spotlights Anderson's vocal evolution from drawling South London gutter-snipe to impassioned—and immaculately enunciating—crooner. In keeping with the melodrama with which Dog Man Star is packed, guitarist/songwriter Bernard Butler , the Marr to Anderson's Morrissey, left the group immediately following the recording.page 380

Not bad.. not bad at all...[edit]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For putting the music sample in the infobox. Don't know if it's been done before but, kudos. RB88 (T) 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suede[edit]

Hi PhilOak, I've been very happy to see other contributors such as yourself add to the various Suede (and related) articles here on wiki. Being an American, I didn't discover the group until February of last year, and was disappointed by the lack of information I found here. I've been adding to the pages whatever I could find, particularly the bits and pieces of info I've found on Rolling Stone, Billboard and the British NME websites. Billboard changed their site recently, and while updating the various links on the Suede pages I noticed your name kept popping up. Awesome work, I'm very happy to see these pages get expanded to the level they deserve.

If you want to team up on any projects, lmk. It'd be an honor to work with someone on expanding these pages. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I gather from all I've read is that Suede's lack of success in the States stems a lot from circumstantial incidents. Starting with the legalities behind the name "Suede" here, and culminating with things like Bernard Butler's growing distance with the group on their tour with The Cranberries, as well as the group's getting it's equipment stolen in Boston while touring on Coming Up.

I do find it interesting that Suede had two charting singles in the U.S. ("Metal Mickey" and "Everything Will Flow"), and that all four of their albums charted on Billboard's Heatseekers chart and sold between 100,000-20,000 copies with little-to-no promotion.

For reasons I'm not entirely sure of, my contributions to all the related pages have gone by rather quietly. Besides adding pictures to the albums/singles that were lacking them, and creating pages for the group's dicography and Brett Anderson's Wilderness, I've found numerous references from papers of record such as the aforementioned Billboard, NME and The New York Times, and had done quite a bit of revising on A New Morning, Coming Up and Head Music.

I had actually started to think that Suede had become unfashionable in the UK in recent years, lol. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Van Houten[edit]

Hi. I just wanted to note that even for a convicted killer, WP:BLP requires that additions that characterize a given person as "less evil" than co-conspirators must be accompanied by reliable sources. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, psychopath (anti-social personality) is a psychiatric diagnosis, and in the context you'd like to show it, it would require a source by someone that has actually diagnosed the person. The Most Evil program involved a psychiatrist using a scale that was developed by him to rate persons on a psychiatrically non-sanctioned "evil" axis, and to be honest, I don't accept his distinctions as psychatrically valid in the way that would authoritatively put anyone squarely in the categories used. It draws a corrollary between "pyschopathic" and "evil", which isn't a valid psychiatric distinction. Such a scale would require wide psychiatric acceptance, and still, would not be conclusive unless - who was it? Michael Stone? - the person involved in the show had directly interviewed and diagnosed the person. He didn't. From the Manson family, he interviewed Catherine Share and Barbara Hoyt, but none of the people he actually categorized. It seems a little contradictory to me on the wiki page for that program. The program included Van Houten with the rest of the Manson killers, saying she is a "Willing companion of killers: aberrant personality — probably impulse-ridden, with antisocial traits" but then includes her on a later program of "The minds of criminals who are impulsive liars and serial predators." The difference regarding WP:BLP is that the Most Evil article discusses what the program itself claimed, but it didn't claim to be authoritative regarding anyone's psychiatric diagnosis. I'd also argue that the categorization is wrong. Psychopathic people don't show, or feel, remorse, and I'd personally argue that any of the persons Manson persuaded to do his dirty work were as much victims of brainwashing as anything else. Regardless of whether Manson wielded a knife or gun, his brand of "crazy" was the catalyst for the actions of his followers. And I'd say, arguably, all of his followers showed remorse and repented to one degree or another. That wouldn't be possible for someone who rated 15 on the scale (Psychopathic "cold-blooded" spree or multiple murders) and I don't believe it is valid for the other 4 members of the Family involved and exclude Van Houten. I'd note that for a number of years, Leslie Van Houten believed sincerely that she did not stab a living person. Then, at one parole hearing, when they entered evidence that Rosemary LaBianca was still alive when some of those stabs were delivered, Van Houten was very shaken by that news. Is she psychopathic? No, I don't believe so, and I've never read a psychiatric report on her, Atkins, Krenwinkel or Watson that said any of them were. In short, an actual psychiatric diagnosis would be required for Van Houten's article, as well as the rest of them. Is Manson psychopathic? Yes, and if I were rating him on that scale, I'd rate him 16. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:SolwayfirthSpaceman.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:SolwayfirthSpaceman.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Small-town hero (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tagged this image because you did not include an appropriate license. You state in the file summary that the photo is public domain, but I can see no evidence that this is the case. If the photo is not public domain, it should still be usable with a claim of fair use and tagged with {{Non-free historic image}}. Regards. Small-town hero (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll sort it myself in the next day or so. Regards. Small-town hero (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Solway Firth Spaceman[edit]

On November 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Solway Firth Spaceman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box for UK number one albums in Suede[edit]

Hi Phil. I don't understand this kind of "territorialism" that disrupts the lines of succession in Wikipedia but here's what I've been told. - Garik 11 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Poison (book)[edit]

Hi,

I'm not sure how viable it is as an article but do you reckon there should be an article for the official Suede biography "Love and Poison"? I thought I'd ask you as you've done a lot of work on Suede related articles. Was there also an unofficial biography a while back that might merit a mention somewhere? AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as we can use the book as a reference for other articles then surely it merits an article of it's own. Some of the (auto)biographys you mentioned are only stub articles anyway, so I would have thought there could be an article of Love and Poison without too much trouble. I have asked over at Wikiproject Books about if there is a web site that details book sales, which could be helpful to acertain notability. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No joy on the sales website, from the conversation had there it looks like publishers tend to keep sales figures to themselves as much as possible. I still think it would be worthy of an article. I also have the Illustrated Biography of Suede coming in the post in a few days, not sure how useful it will be to articles yet but worth a look I think. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Love & Poison" Film[edit]

Hopefully, this is the right place.

The summary of my All Music Guide review of suede's Love & Poison concert film is misleading.

The review is overwhelmingly negative until the very end, where I claim, "And everything before this sentence is a lie." Which ultimately wasn't the cleverest of ideas, but it intended to show just how much personal admiration I hold for the band, Wiz, and such a staggering and beautiful film.

If this could be tweaked by someone other than myself, that would be excellent. Unglug (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Genesprague.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Genesprague.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhilOak (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thanks for unblocking my talk page, now would it be possible to unblock my account per request on User talk:213.107.103.118.

Decline reason:

Per that page, you state I have never vandalised nor been involved in sockpuppetry. However, you have been involved in sockpuppetry; User:PhilOak was blocked on Dec. 31, and you created User:PhilisOak a few weeks later; that in itself is sockpuppetry. What's more, you were also blocked as User:PhilOakey a year earlier; your history is pretty clear. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That was short lived, since you've shown you're not taking this seriously, I've removed your talk page access again. Q ^{T C} 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Genesprague.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Genesprague.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TheRonellesMotel.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TheRonellesMotel.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]