| Revision as of 14:20, 6 March 2016 editBrianboulton (talk | contribs)100,115 edits maindate note← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:12, 2 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,900,992 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (16 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) |
| Line 23: |
Line 23: |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Pink Floyd|class=FA|importance=High|listas=Final Cut, The|album=yes|prog-rock=yes|album-importance=mid|prog-rock-importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|listas=Final Cut, The|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pink Floyd|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Albums}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Progressive Rock|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
| Line 33: |
Line 37: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"recording.. with ]" - --] (]) 23:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
== Recording: Gilmour receives co-producer's royalties on The Final Cut. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Parrot of Doom: I know you're not a stupid man, so how did you fail to notice that I cited Nicholas Schaffner's ''Saucerful of Secrets: The Pink Floyd Odyssey''? The ''Uncut'' magazine interview with Roger Waters that is reproduced, as you complain, at pinkfloydz.com, is a ''secondary'' source. You asked me to explain how pinkfloydz.com is a reliable source. My answer to that is: ''I don't ''have'' to!'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Why do I say that? |
|
|
|
|
|
Because the exact same information is in the Nicholas Schaffner book we've been citing, as if it were holy scripture, for "years, absolutely ''years!''" I cited it properly, with a page number . . . and you need not dust off your copy and thumb through the book, because HERE'S A LINK to books.google.com. From page 257 of ''Saucerful of Secrets'': |
|
|
|
|
|
http://books.google.com/books?id=xfqremepxrkC&pg=PA257#v=onepage&q&f=false |
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth paragraph, second to last: |
|
|
<blockquote>'''"Dave did finally agree to relinquish his position—but not his final cut of the producers' royalties."'''</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there something wrong with Schaffner, now? Explain that one to me. Because as it is, it looks like your reversion was intellectually dishonest, reverting the whole edit because you didn't like the ''back-up'' citation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Schaffner's book has been out since late 1990. Why is there any uncertainty in your mind? Did you read it only once? Or is it just that you oppose any edit that casts David Gilmour in a less-than-flattering light?? That kinda seems to be the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't like the cited source of ''Uncut'' Magazine's interview with Roger Waters, that's not a problem. Other statements in this article use Schaffner as their sole source; there's no reason this one can't do that, too. If you don't want to link to pinkfloydz.com, we can remove the link and leave the citation as '''Roger Waters interview, ''Uncut'' Magazine, June 2004'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
I do realize the pinkfloydz.com site LOOKS a bit dodgy, but I believe they transcribed the interview accurately (despite a lack of proper formatting and some questionable punctuation). For your edification, this is what was said: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><small>WATERS: '''The big argument '''''' was whether he’d be getting a production credit and a point off the top for producing the record. He didn’t produce it. He didn’t want it to be made. He was disinterested in the album. He didn’t get the production credit. He did, however, insist on taking the point off the top.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
UNCUT: '''How did he manage that?''' |
|
|
|
|
|
WATERS: '''Just by being obdurate. That was when we really fell out, over all that. He and I faced off about it, and Nick... I had this one telephone conversation with Nick about that. He said “I think you’re completely right about this, but I’m going to side with Dave cos that’s where my bread’s buttered.”'''</small></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
You really don't trust a web site that managed to transcribe a word like "obdurate" correctly? Well, that's you. That's not me. I really couldn't care less that this was a Featured Article, 'cause it's still a pretty bad, biased article. You've fought my every attempt to balance it out, and it seems your reverts are oriented towards protecting public perceptions of David Gilmour. |
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully, you have no arguments left to make. Schaffner is reliable and so is the ''Uncut'' article, but if you object to the pinkfloydz.com link, I have no problem whatsoever with de-linking it. The ''information'', however, STAYS! |
|
|
|
|
|
→] (]) 17:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{edit conflict}} We should stick with the Mark Blake citation as it is a ] as opposed to the Uncut interview, which is a primary one. It is also more recent (2011) than Schaffner (1992). Blake writes; ...the absence of Gilmour's name (was) the result of a later disagreement during the final sessions for the album, (p. 296) and "the upshot of the argument was that Gilmour's name as producer was removed from the final credits, although it was agreed that he would still be paid". (p. 298). I suggest that the sentence in question is changed to: |
|
|
::"After months of poor relations, and following a final confrontation, Gilmour was removed from the credit list as producer, but would still be paid his production royalties.<nowiki><ref>{{Harvnb|Blake|2008|p=298}}</ref></nowiki> |
|
|
:::] (]) 18:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I certaintly have no problem with either of those wordings. The point gets made. Thank you for being a voice of reason! |
|
|
::→] (]) 19:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Fine with me. BTW, your statement "You asked me to explain how pinkfloydz.com is a reliable source. My answer to that is: I don't have to!" is absolutely incorrect and I suggest you learn why before you make damaging changes to articles that meet the FA criteria. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 12:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You have a point. But do you understand that the ''Uncut'' Magazine interview, transcribed at pinkfloydz.com, was a ''secondary'' or ''back-up'' source to the first citation of Schaffner's ''Saucerful of Secrets''? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::That is why I said "I don't have to", even though that probably is, as you said, wrong. I said it because it backed up the primary source. I don't realy believe in double-standards for sources; they should ALL be good sources, but then, I'm not as mistrustful of pinkfloydz.com as you are, in the first place. It looks like they transcribed a good interview faithfully, albeit with little regard for format or punctuation. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The "Featured Article" thing: I get it; it's a point of pride. But let's not allow it hold back progress. Surely the article can be made better ''after'' having been a FA, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I'm perfectly content with this aspect of the article now. I know you put a lot of your own time and effort into it, and I promise you I'm not trying to fuck it all up. That is not what I'm here on Misplaced Pages to do. I operated unregistered for years. That thing on your User Talk page? '''"I'm here to write articles, nothing else"'''? That was my attitude. Only I didn't create articles from the ground up. But I did improve many articles on a wide scale, and I didn't engage in much conflict-resolution about it. |
|
|
::::I would like to think you're so protective of this article because of the topic itself. The topic album is important to me, too. So, if I screw up in the future, I would hope you'll just tell me clearly what the problem is, and don't question if I'm being patronizing (that's just me trying to be nice), or if you are (neither of is stupid; we should be able to communicate). I would like you to think of me as someone who respects ''The Final Cut'', and believes it deserves the best article possible. Whether that's about selling three million copies, or buying three pounds of potatoes. |
|
|
::::In all sincerity, |
|
|
::::→] (]) 13:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"The "Featured Article" thing: I get it; it's a point of pride." - you don't appear to get anything. You'll excuse me for paying the rest of your post absolutely no attention whatsoever, since it's all similarly full of bullshit. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::That was the absolute last time I will make any effort to reach out and find common ground with you. Your behavior is absolutely inappropriate. This is not over. |
|
|
::::::And the whole point of your hostility is to cover up your own ''inadequacy'', because you ''have'' to know I'm right about using Schaffner as a source. ''You know I'm right.'' |
|
|
::::::--] (]) 08:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 1987 Salewicz interview == |
|
:::::::If you have such a good insight into the workings of my mind then I'm sure you already know what my response will be. And for the first time in any discussions we've had, you'd be absolutely on the nail. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As tagged in the article itself, is there a better way to format the 1987 Chris Salewicz interview used a couple of times than to link it to a fansite? (which wouldn't be allowed anyway but especially not in a well-sourced FA like this). It's from the June 1987 issue of ''Q''.--] (]) 01:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
::::::::Oh, yes, of course. But, see, I've got this problem: ''I'd'' rather be HAPPY than RIGHT. |
|
|
|
:Oh yeah, I forgot to report back but I've since cleared this issue up.--] (]) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
::::::::I probably do know what you're thinking now, or what you've been thinking all along, and it doesn't interest me at all. I don't care enough about winning. All I care about is the way you speak to me. All I want is the respect I've earned. I have never sought decorations or special privileges, because I don't believe in all that. My views on Misplaced Pages are quite austere. But I have an edit history which is easily accessed. And more often than not, I know exactly what I'm talking about from the moment I hit that "Edit" function, and more often than not, my sources are perfectly fine. |
|
|
::::::::I admit I'm impressed that you've politicked yourself up into a position where you get to verbally abuse people as you please, and all your admin buddies let you slide on it. But it signifies the death of Misplaced Pages. You embody that death. Non-Wikipedians consider the site to be ''personality''-driven rather than ''fact''-driven or ''consensus''-driven. You have become Exhibit A of that argument. |
|
|
::::::::→] (]) 06:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
|
As tagged in the article itself, is there a better way to format the 1987 Chris Salewicz interview used a couple of times than to link it to a fansite? (which wouldn't be allowed anyway but especially not in a well-sourced FA like this). It's from the June 1987 issue of Q.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
