User talk:zmbro

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks }} to user talk pages.

A tag has been placed on File:Elvis Costello and the Attractions 1979.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. ${\displaystyle 999}${\displaystyle 999}REAL 💬 ⬆ 19:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Load (album) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your decision to revert was good, not sure if you're aware but these edits come from an LTA who has been blocked several times. They have a bunch of technical tells (which is why I know that was them) but their general preoccupation is insisting on vandalizing the term "neo-Nazi" into articles with 0 sources, often of random CEOs and celebrities they don't like, then concern trolling about it when confronted.

Going forward, just revert them for block evasion, debate is useless. No matter what source you bring up, they aren't satisfied, they will misrepresent sources, then admit it don't say this, and then when you call them out will imply you're whitewashing secret neo-Nazi cabals. They have been doing this for several months, and may continue targeting the Bowie page. Just wanted to make you aware. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

PARAKANYAA I appreciate the heads up. The only reason I didn't revert to begin with was that I neglected to see the original revert, and no one had reverted the post I responded to by the time I replied (thinking it was real). I'll keep an eye out for the future and not waste my time with this shit. Thanks! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Load (album) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Reload (Metallica album) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Reload (Metallica album) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello there. This is a courtesy notification to let you know that I've just blanked-and-redirected the articles "Sense of Doubt" and "Neuköln" to "Heroes" (album) , since neither song seemed to have any significant coverage outside of mentions in Bowie biographies or coverage about "Heroes". As the person who got the album to GA, you are likely the editor with the most knowledge about whether this sort of significant coverage does exist at all for these songs; if so, feel free to reverts these BLARs. Leafy46 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Hallo Spaceboy is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ceoil -- Ceoil (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for all of your wonderful work - it was such a delightful brightness to see Ziggy Stardust on main page today. You rock. Netherzone (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you today for Life on Mars?, "about... David Bowie's 1971 masterpiece "Life on Mars?". Take two, electric boogaloo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you both so much! Appreciate the kind words :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

JuniperChill (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

JuniperChill (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Wild Life (Wings album), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can Wild_Life_(Wings_album)&preloadparams%5b%5d=1337703590"}]]}">report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Hallo Spaceboy has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ceoil -- Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, zmbro. I'm just posting to let you know that List of songs recorded by the Smiths – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 18, 2026. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. --Pres N 02:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your work on Elvis Costello. I agree that it is not GA status (yet.)

His appearances on Saturday Night Live were mentioned in three places. This seems unnecessary. I merged them.

Bob Dylan has a Featured Article, and rightly. Without GAs are those who followed in his happy wake: Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Waits and Elvis Costello. One thing at a time...

I love this quote, on the influences of Armed Forces: "If you're sitting in a station wagon driving from Atlanta to Madison, Wisconsin and listening to Bowie's Low and Heroes and Iggy Pop's The Idiot and ABBA's Greatest Hits over and over again, that's the kind of record you'll make!" Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hollis Hurlbut These things take time. I still have a bunch of work to do at David Bowie (already an FA) to bring that article up to modern standards. Problem is, I have other hobbies that gets in the way of WP, as well as other projects and the like. For the future, do NOT nominate articles for GA (and especially FA) unless you've reviewed the GA criteria. Costello's article should have been a given: dozens of uncited paragraphs, a refs needed tag, and improper sources. For example, the wiki fan site is not a reliable source (which you cited in this edit). Furthermore, in this edit, you did not provide enough info (see Template:Cite comic). And that only covers sources; Costello's article needs much more on prose writing, musical influences, his jumping from genre to genre, and songwriting style to be even close to GA, but I think it's doable, especially while he's still alive. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Strunk and White write "If those who have studied the art of writing are in accord on any one point, it is this: the surest way to arouse and hold the reader’s attention is by being specific, definite, and concrete." I have tried to that. There was mention of the Byrds influencing Costello's interest in country music. The album was Sweetheart of the Rodeo. I added it. I have tried to say more with less, as brevity is the soul of wit (the character who says that, Polonius, is long-winded, so that was a joke on Shakespeare's part. Never mind.) I also added quotes around Bowie's "Heroes" (I heard Philip Glass's "Heroes" symphony on the radio this morning. Synchronicity?

I have not read Costello's Unfaithful Music and Disappearing Ink, though I want to. His songwriting is specific, definite and concrete. (I have read Dylan's Chronicles: Volume One. Well-written, but don't expect a lot of answers.)

The article is far from perfect but, as Lennon and McCartney said, getting better. Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I do think the article is getting better. It used to say Costello "neither particularly liked or disliked Presley". I do not think someone who was ambivalent about Elvis would record King of America with two of Presley's sidemen.

I think detail is worth adding. I think it's notable that "Watching the Detectives" was inspired by The Clash's debut and by Bernard Herrmann's Hitchcock scores, as that shows Costello's eclectic affinities. Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

It is, but a few minor additions and copyedits will not make it a GA. The article still needs restructuring and an overhaul of sources (particularly in the 2000s era). I would like to see more analysis of his consistent genre-hopping and collaborations, as that feels particularly weak. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Agreed, the more recent sections seem weaker. What structural changes do you recommend?

There was mention of him playing with Green Day. Interesting, I guess, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedically significant. Some things were mentioned redundantly, in many places, like R. White's "Secret Lemonade Drinker" ad. That seems important enough to mention once. Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:NegativeMP1 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

When I checked the Hall of Fame, and did not find Zmbro (talk · contribs · count · logs) anywhere, I was appalled. Of all editors who work primarily on music articles, Zmbro is among those whose repertoire I look up to the most. With a grand total of 13 featured articles, 17 featured lists, and 69 good articles, his work includes a topic for every single studio album by David Bowie , of which all I believe he promoted (or at least most), multiple songs by Bowie (including Life on Mars? and, one of my personal favorites, "Heroes" (David Bowie song)), multiple albums by Bruce Springsteen (including the FAs Born in the U.S.A. and Born to Run), and multiple song lists (including the Beatles, Daft Punk, and Led Zeppelin). He's also reviewed a great number of nominations, including some of my own, to which I will say that he is an incredible reviewer and has even helped add content I initially missed . On multiple occasions, I have checked one or more of the articles he has worked on as a frame of reference on how to structure my own contributions. And with as expansive and impressive of a list of works as his, I can't imagine I'm the only one. This nomination was seconded by TechnoSquirrel69 and Gog the Mild.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 20:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Bowie's 'The Man Who sold the World' was described in one little part of the Wiki piece about it as being and being close to heavy metal (after being compared to hard rock several times). It is not heavy metal and to describe it as heavy metal demeans it. Early Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin were not heavy metal bands either, they were hard rock bands. Judas Priest was probably one of the first heavy metal bands, Very loud, screaming vocals, fast, very high energy, that's heavy metal, The Man Who Sold The World is art and if it must be labeled, it should be called something like hard art rock. From a 73 year old hard rock bassist who dislikes most heavy metal. Bobyoung53 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey there. Heavy metal as a genre began as a branch of hard rock. Early Sabbath and Zeppelin have very much been described as heavy metal, even if what the genre became later on in the 70s and 80s diverged from the early beginnings. Nevertheless, the genre began somewhere, and it's been widely established that heavy metal began in the late 60s and really came to prominence and contributed to the genre's development with bands like Sabbath (saying Sabbath wasn't heavy metal is frankly just plain wrong and demeaning to them).

More importantly, Wikipedia operates under what reliable sources say about the topics at hand. The provided sources compare Man as heavy metal, as that's what they should say. We can come across information we disagree with, but changing that doesn't make it true. You also saying you dislike most heavy metal introduces bias, and WP is built on neutrality. I hope this helped. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Zmbro. Thank you for your work on List of songs recorded by Depeche Mode. Another editor, Aszx5000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

These are perfectly created articles - you should be autopatrolled? thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Aszx5000 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Zmbro, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you so much! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

First of all, congrats on the EOTW award! Secondly, I wanted to clarify regarding John Lennon. His official website states in its search page, from verbatim, that it is the "Official website for artist, musician, poet, peace activist & philosopher John Lennon." My main thing regarding that was was that I would write it as his website would, as it technically is also ran and accepted by his family and the Lennon estate. I did not intend to stating that he was one, only that his website made it that he would be recognized as such. I don't know the logistics of it, but I feel like there is some weight via the website. Once again, not my words; blame the site!

Thank you. Be blessed. Frippinator (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Frippinator Hey there! Thanks for the kind words! Ah, I understand where you're coming from. I didn't see the summary when I looked at the page. I don't necessarily see how he could have been a philosopher. Yeah he wrote some philosophical lyrics, but was he Aristotle? No. He was a songwriter. Then again, Bob Dylan's been compared to a poet for decades... Anyways, back to Lennon, since philosophy isn't really mentioned elsewhere throughout the article, I don't think it makes sense to include it in the opening sentence, even if his website says so. But maybe that's just me. Thanks for explaining! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Now I will begin to ponder for the rest of my life whether John Lennon was Aristotle. Maybe I'll have to reinterpret Nicomachean Ethics as Nicobeatlean Ethics. I don't agree that he should be listed as a philosopher; I feel as though that he didn't really have any real credentials of philosophy besides his contemporary songwriting and lyrics. Intelligence and poetry does not equal philosophy; it's as steep a hole to become one as it is to relate to one. Thanks for the response! Frippinator (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

If you look at the older Call of Duty games that went into Game Pass, they all got noted to go into Game Pass on their wiki pages. WW2, Modern Warfare 2019, Modern Warfare II, Black Ops 6 and 7. So i am just filling in what other people have done. RCPolygons (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

So a while ago, you proposed working on all of the Metallica album articles. I figured I'd kind-of give an update on where I'm sitting on that.

I think I probably will take on Hardwired over the summer. I've gone back on a Hardwired kick lately and I'm interested in trying to work on the remaining articles for songs from that album (so Moth, Atlas and NTWD). Especially Moth. And might as well do something for the album article at that point. 72 Seasons I feel a lot less inclined to work on but I'm sure you or I will get to it eventually.

Another Metallica project that I'm thinking about that I look more "forward" to trying though is creating more song articles. I've said it before but there are a lot of Metallica songs that I think are notable but don't have articles. I'm willing to bet that most songs from the main 5 albums are notable except for maybe a few off of Kill 'Em All or the Black Album (can't imagine anybody is writing extended commentary on "Motorbreath"). Otherwise though every song from RTL, MOP, and AJFA is probably notable. Load, Reload, and Death Magnetic also probably have potential for some extra songs themselves (Outlaw? Suicide & Redemption? Fixxxer?). And, obviously, improving existing song articles along the way. One of these days I'll swing through "One", "The Day That Never Comes", "All Nightmare Long", and "Fade to Black". λ Negative MP1 17:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

NegativeMP1 Hey there! I apologize for the late reply, I've been on vacation this whole time. That sounds like a good plan! I still would like to redo the St. Anger article at some point (I just have to set aside a day to watch Some Kind of Monster and do some research). I'd also like to do Garage Inc. too. Let me know if you need any assistance! I'd be happy to help :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't know if I'd be able to help with either of those but I'd definitely be interested in trying to make song articles for those depending on what your research brings up. I strongly believe that their covers of "Whiskey in the Jar" and "Turn the Page" should be split out into standalone pages. And for St. Anger, "All Within My Hands" is a fascinating trainwreck that I almost made the article for but someone beat me to it. "Sweet Amber" is (for some reason) hailed as one of the better tracks on the album so maybe there's potential there as well. λ Negative MP1 20:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Okay, got an update: I think I'm about ready to take on Hardwired. I will probably start work on that soon. You're obviously welcome to help if you want to. Songs wise, I've started the improvement journey there with "The View" (lmao). Dunno what will be next in regards to tracks though. λ Negative MP1 18:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I AM THE TABLE. You gotta wonder wtf they were thinking lol xD. Since the discussion at Talk:Garage Inc. I definitely plan on doing that one now, once I stop getting distracted by Paul McCartney/Wings stuff. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The funny (or sad? idk) thing about "The View" is, despite being completely incomprehensible and ridiculous, it is still the best song off of the album and kinda ironically enjoyable lol. I'm even considering rewriting the Lulu article itself just because I think it's ridiculous (even though it wouldn't count for the topic).

After Hardwired will probably be when I finally go after 72 Seasons. And then, assuming these are done before these, that would leave the Black Album, Garage, Inc., and Death Magnetic as the albums still needing to be GA-d. Plus the St. Anger rewrite. The Black Album is probably gonna be a headache and a half, so I assume that'll be last one to be done? λ Negative MP1 19:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yeah I'm good with that. It's already in somewhat decent shape but just thinking about its legacy/influence is giving me a headache lol. One of these days when I get burnt out of gaming, I'll dive headfirst into St. Anger. I just know I'll need to first suck it up and listen to the whole thing and watch Some Kind of Monster. One of these days... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

NegativeMP1 Just finished the Garage Inc. expansion. I think while I'm at it, I'm going to go ahead and do S&M too. Garage didn't take long and S&M will likely take even less time. I was thinking though, should we change Garage's categories? They're all compilation cats currently but I'm wondering if they should be more general now... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Damn, that was fast! I have no opposition to changing Garage's categories λ Negative MP1 01:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Be Sweet to Me is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:Gavetheman555 just nominated The Man Who Sold the World (song) for GAN. As you are the primary author, and the instructions say "if the nominator is neither the author of more than 10% of the article nor ranked in the top five by authorship, and there is no post on the article talk page, a reviewer may uncontroversially consider the GAN a drive-by nomination. A reviewer may notify the nominator on their talk page. Reviewers have the discretion to remove any drive-by nominations they come across." Let me know what you want me to do. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am so sorry I didn't intend for this to happen, my intentions were not a drive by at all. It did seem like I was able to nominate it considering I made 41 current edits to the page, but I guess I somehow misunderstood something. I apologize. Gavetheman555 (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Gavetheman555: You can check out the statistics page. You're right that in some unique circumstances, if your 41 edits were substantial, then yes, you could conceivably become a primary author. This has been known to happen. But in this case, most of your 41 edits were minor, IMO. If Zmbro feels differently, they will respond in kind. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for bringing this up to me. In my humble opinion, the article needs some good copy editing before any kind of GAN nomination. I wasn't comfortable with nominating it before now for that reason, and I still feel the same way now. I fully believe Gavetheman555 their actions were definitely not meant to be seen negatively (I've kept a close eye on all my expanded articles over the years and have come across a few poor ones from time to time). If I thought Gave made some poor choices I would ovule have said something. Anyways, if you'd like to co-nominate that's fine with me, but only after some major copy-editing is done :-) In its current state, I don't believe it's there yet. Viriditas – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 13 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Be Sweet to Me has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey there! I'm planning to nominate List of songs recorded by My Chemical Romance for featured list status sometime really soon. Given I've never had a FL before, and Im aware you have a few in Artist lists, I wanted to see your opinion if you think its ready for nomination? I've done substantial work and followed other FL's (particually List of songs recorded by the Smiths and List of songs recorded by Joy Division), overall I just wanted to make sure I have everything ready to go, thank you :) Gavetheman555 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Gavetheman555 Thanks for reaching out! Of course I can take a look! :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your edits! I've nominated the list over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by My Chemical Romance/archive1 just incase if you want to leave comments :) Gavetheman555 (talk) 02:31 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I just created an article for the title track from the album Wild Life. Here's the link. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Are you gonna help improve the article or are you busy? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey there. It's July 4th weekend here in the states so I'll be a little busy this weekend. I can take a look when I'm available. What's the rush? lol – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No rush, I was just wondering if you knew about it. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yep I saw your message. Just forgot to reply, sorry about that! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I also just created an article for "Some People Never Know". Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Newtatoryd222 Thanks for creating these articles! It's honestly about time Wild Life got some appreciation. "Bip Bop" has been a massive guilty-pleasure song for me ever since it appeared on Pure McCartney . – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Wild Life (Wings album) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Cielquiparle (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, Zmbro. I'm just posting to let you know that List of songs recorded by Duran Duran – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 27. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Discogs is just as reliable as wikipedia. They have this image there. Is that enough? https://i.discogs.com/wG5aYj1Eu-UkfX0J0vMJo_rBvUZSA7wd8tQ3wLjFg10/rs:fit/g:sm/q:90/h:596/w:600/czM6Ly9kaXNjb2dz/LWRhdGFiYXNlLWlt/YWdlcy9SLTE4MjQ2/MDA0LTE2MTgyNDk3/ODUtMzM4NC5qcGVn.jpeg AMCKen (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't think you understand why you're being reverted. Discogs is a user-generated site, which is considered unreliable per WP:NOTRSMUSIC. When it comes to song covers, simply existing does not mean it's notable. A simple image that establishes the existence of something doesn't warrant notability (in this context). Per WP:SONGCOVER, Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles. If Curry's version was notable (i.e. charted really well, had secondary commentary on it, etc.), it could warrant a sentence. But a simple Google search of his cover only finds lyrics and streaming sites, so it is not notable. That can change in the future, but as of right now, his cover is not notable enough per WP guidelines. I hope this helps. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

(talk page stalker) Yes, Discogs is just as reliable as Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not reliable at all (being also user-generated). Bishonen | tålk 21:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC).Reply

Bishonen I mean, it's gotten better as of lately. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Wild Life (Wings album) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey, I noticed both volumes of The McCartney Legacy aren't listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Resources in the "McCartney" section, do you think it should be added? (Yes I know you didn't create that page, but you and I use The McCartney Legacy a lot, so I was just wondering.)Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes absolutely, especially if other solo books are included. Both are very reliable and I'm looking forward to the rest of the series. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Me too, what do you think the next volume will cover? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm

Betting 1980 to 1989. The 80s were a pretty eventful decade for Paul (especially the early to mid 80s) so I imagine it will be a long book. I bet the 90s won't start til volume 4. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi there, I noticed that you removed my edit of information on recording dates/takes of songs during the sessions for Living In The Material World. I read your explanation on the history page but I'm still a little fuzzy on the reasoning, so I'm respectfully asking for more clarification. You claimed it was "too much information" but I don't understand how information on recording dates and takes could be "too much" info for an article on an album--I would assume (maybe it's just me) that this is exactly the kind of information someone interested in learning the details of how an album was made would want (plus, I see that info in a number of other Wiki album pages). The LITMW page (and all its associated song pages) is chock-full of lengthy, highly detailed information on the album and its songs, so I don't quite see how this crosses the line into "too much".

You reference the Wiki Primary Sources page but I read it over and I don't see any problem there, either, since it says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" and that's exactly what I did--I provided pure factual information from the source, with no commentary or interpretation, that anyone who clicked on my citation source (the official Harrison page on the recording sessions, and I don't see what could be more authoritative than that) could easily verify. Finally, you state that user JG66 "has all of that"--I assume you mean his individual song pages, which contain further information on the recordings. But in checking those song pages, I do not see him put in the information I included on exact recording dates (he'll say "autumn of 1972" or "October of 1972" but that's as specific as he gets), nor number of takes. Now there are MANY Wiki music articles that give exact recording days that no-one seems to have any problem with, so I'm not sure why it's a problem to list recording dates here.

Since you seem to be a rather decorated, knowledgeable individual around these parts (congrats on getting to where you are!!), I'm assuming you've already thought about it and aren't going to budge on this, although I'd still ask if you could clarify the questions I ask above. But also, let me tell you the reason why I thought it necessary to put that info in--because for years I'd gone by the Wiki article on this album as my source for info, and that article is written in such a way that it leads one to think that the sessions started in October, and that the songs were then being recorded all through the sessions well into March '73. But when I saw the recording sessions page on Harrison's official site, I was flabbergasted to learn that all the basic tracks for the ten new songs were finished in the first two weeks of October, with the entire rest of the next five months dedicated to overdubs. I think that's really important information that should be added into the Wiki article, no? So if you thought my original edit was "too much" (although I still don't quite know why), can I offer instead this more generalized, simplified paragraph that still contains this important information:

The backing tracks for all eleven songs on the album were finished within the first two weeks of October, beginning on October 7 with "The Lord Loves The One" and ending on October 13 with "Who Can See It". Harrison added his vocal to the February 1971 backing of "Try Some, Buy Some" on the 24th with a final song, B-side "Miss O'Dell", recorded on October 27. In addition, brief jams on songs like "Mr. Tambourine Man" "Heartbreak Hotel", "At The Hop" and "Masterpiece" were attempted. The rest of the sessions through March 1973 would be dedicated to overdubs. (and then I'll add my citation to the official Harrison page for the LITMW recording sessions, which anyone can click to get the full details on the rest of the recording dates, the number of takes recorded, etc.)

Does that sound better? All I really want here, if the rest is 'too much' info, is for people to know that the backing tracks for all the songs were basically completed in those first two weeks, and I also think knowing what extra songs were jammed on during that month is enlightening, because it shows Harrison's predilection for 50s oldies and Bob Dylan. Please let me know, if you are still against restoring my full edit from before, if this new, streamlined edit can be added--and if not, if you could give the reason why not. You seem to know what you're doing, so I respect your judgment on these matters!

PS - my apologies for the longwindedness of this post--it's just the way I write. Mtopper73 (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Mtopper73 Hey there! First off, thanks very much for bringing this up here and not starting an edit war. Secondly, I apologize for the deletion of the entire thing. I was concerned about the source, but upon further review it looks reliable. I reverted my edit and made some copyedits. When it comes to album pages, I generally feel mentioning the number of takes is a bit overkill and should be left for the individual articles instead. Besides, saying 51 takes of this song was recorded and leaving it at that leaves the question of, well which take was deemed best? Was it combined with different ones? Why were so many made? See what I mean. It opens more questions than answers. That's why I had said it felt like "too much". Another reason I cleared your edit was that you left a couple of sentences without references at the end, which is generally unacceptable (especially when an article is a GA or FA). I assume the source would be the session website, but not everyone will.

More generally, I've always kept an eye on large additions to pages on my watchlist, so when I see a 2,000+ byte edit made by an account without a user page I get skeptical. This is not personal towards you, this is just how it is; you never know when "newer" or IP accounts are acting in good faith. But you very much are :-). In regards to Material World, I think your simplified paragraph is definitely better. I have to ask though: did you write it yourself? or use an LLM? Wikipedia has very strict policies regarding AI text so I have to be sure :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi there, thanks for getting back to me! I understand I do not have my own user page, but I have been editing articles on Wiki for about four years now. My homepage tells me I've done 766 edits, although I'd say only about 100 have been substantial (almost all 60s and 70s song/album articles). I guess it's about time I filled out my user page, huh? I didn't realize it would have an effect like it did on you, when you saw I didn't have one, in terms of determining the good faith of the edit. I'll keep that in mind.

I get your point about the take numbers, and if the simplified paragraph looks better to you, I'll be happy to replace my original edit (and thanks for restoring it) with that. And no, I never ever use AI to create anything on Wiki and I'm actually overjoyed to hear they have a thing against AI-created edits/articles! Just give me a day or two to make the next edit with the simplified paragraph. Thanks again for discussing this with me, I really appreciate it and I learned some things along the way! Mtopper73 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Mtopper73 That's also on me for not checking your edit count. I apologize again. Having a user page isn't really that big a deal; tons of experienced editors don't care to have them. Thanks for being truthful. With AI so rampant nowadays, you never know. Take your time! I glad we could get the situation resolved. Again, I'm sorry for my poor judgment. :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey, someone told me you might be knowledgeable on Beatles books, so I was wondering if you could tell me if a couple books published by Paul Du Noyer are reliable, those being Conversations with McCartney and We All Shine on: The Stories Behind Every John Lennon Song: 1970-1980. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Newtatoryd222 I'm not knowledgeable about those specific books but Du Noyer is a well-respected journalist and has worked with respected publications like NME and Q . Based on that alone, I'd say those books can be considered reliable (especially the first one, which features convos with McCartney himself). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm working on an article for "Bip Bop" and I saw that on Discogs, "Bip Bop" was issued as a single in Turkey but I need some help finding a reliable and verifiable source to back that up, do you know where I might be able to find a source to back up that claimed Discogs single release? here's the Discogs link in case you want it: https://www.discogs.com/release/8112887-Wings-Wild-Life-Bip-Bop-Love-Is-Strange Newtatoryd222 (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That will likely be really tough. If there's a book that lists out the complete discography for Mac/post-Beatles stuff (meaning non US/UK stuff), that'd be ideal. But I'm not aware of a book like that. I'm sure it exists (I mean, it's Paul McCartney), but that's where I'd start. Still, I typically don't mention specific country-only singles in articles because they don't feel particularly notable, unless they charted really well (but usually they don't). If Discogs is the only source you can find for it, don't wory about it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey, do you think showbiz411.com is reliable? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

For the future, if you have a question about sources (especially for websites), you can check out WP:RSMUSIC or WP:NOTRSMUSIC for a breakdown. If the source isn't on there, I would bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums or search for it in the search box there.

But looking at the source myself, I would say it varies. Their about page has an editor-in-chief (usually a good sign), Roger Friedman, who has a long history with celebrity journalism. His articles have also appeared in reliable publications such as "Vogue, The New York Times, The New York Daily News, Redbook, US Weekly, Premiere, the Washington Post, and many other publications." I would personally ask WP:ALBUMS about it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, zmbro. Do correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you have access to Rock's Backpages; if so, I humbly ask you to send me a copy of this article: "Smith, Alan (20 September 1969). "Abbey Road Album Track-by-Track". NME." This would help me work on the Abbey Road songs. And since I never found the occasion to tell you, I'll belatedly congratulate you on the Wild Life article and thank you for your service to the Beatles project. DannyRogers800 (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Email sent! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Just what I needed. Thank you as always, zmbro. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You're welcome! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello again, zmbro! As I may have said before, I owe you and Newtatoryd222 so many thanks for pumping new blood into the Beatles project. Really, you've been active there for quite a while. I have a suggestion. Before the summer passes (as I won't remain as active once school opens again), I propose that some of us on the project come together to work on a large Beatles collaboration. We may improve a very big article to good/featured article status, such as that on an album or a historical event (like the breakup or the British invasion), or try to create a good topic: in this case, one on Abbey Road is our best chance. These are just my suggestions, but let's make it a big project, and preferably one about a patch of the band that isn't covered very well on Wikipedia. What do you think? I asked Newtatoryd222 but they said they prefer working, which I understand. I don't know if Tkbrett would like to chime in. DannyRogers800 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Now that I think about it, I might want to help. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Although I do want you guys to help me create and improve Paul McCartney/Wings articles, including articles i've created. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I can only do so much on specifically Beatles stuff, as I don't have too many Beatles-specific books. It would be nice in general to get all of Paul's solo stuff in better shape (especially Tug of War ); not necessarily FA or even GA, but just better. I mean, look at Driving Rain for example. On Wiki, I'm also preoccupied with a Metallica project atm, and irl I'm heavily invested in Red Dead Redemption 2 , which is why I haven't been editing much the past week. I could help in some ways on a Beatles project, but I honestly doubt anything major. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey, I saw that you had access to Rock's Backpages from DannyRoger800's message asking you for the Abbey Road track-by-track NME article, and I saw on Rock's Backpages that there is a review of The Essential Dolly Parton from Record Collector, and I created the article for the compilation, so i was wondering if there was a way you could send me the Record Collector article here on Wikipedia. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

You could Email it to me. if you want to. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Another article I would like from Rock's Backpages is an Uncut review for The Essential Bruce Springsteen. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

One more I would like is the Uncut review of The Essential Mary Chapin Carpenter. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

All sent! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

What were the ratings of each of those compilations if they were rated by those publications? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

They didn't have star ratings listed. If they do it's usually in the title. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't know, I figured it was worth a shot. I've been editing Wikipedia articles off and on since 2003-ish. You? PJtP (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

You thought it was "worth a shot" to add an unsourced and biased opinion to a Wikipedia article? I'm sorry to be brash, but seriously? For an editor of 23 years, even on and off, I expected more. I've been a consistent editor for 10 years. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey, do you think it's a good idea to nominate "Dear Friend" for a good class article promotion? Seeing as you did help the article get to its status. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm sure it could pass GAN in its current state. I personally don't like nominating articles unless I know it meets the scope requirements and I don't believe there's an underlying issue. In that article's case, there may be some more info to add from sources I just don't own, but I'm sure it could pass currently. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't mean to interfere, but I will open a review the minute "Dear Friend" is nominated. DannyRogers800 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Nominated :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey, I was wondering if you were going to participate in the GAN of "Dear Friend"?, seeing as you did nominate it. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Um... yes? There isn't a time limit unless specified by the reviewer. It's a little rude to ask that, considering it was grabbed for review only a day ago. If I wasn't planning on participating why would I have nominated it in the first place? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sorry. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

You also didn't even give me a chance to reply over there; you've just taken over the review yourself. If you were going to do that the whole time, you should've requested to nominate it yourself. Not cool man. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just wanted to help, sorry. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I realize now it was stupid to think you weren't going to help, since you were likely busy and couldn't. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello zmbro, how's it going? There are some images of sheet music covers of Beatles songs, such as File:Polythene Pam sheet music.PNG, composed solely of elements in the public domain. The cover I mentioned, for example, has the Abbey Road image (which is uncopyrighted) and some text and basic shapes (I suppose there is some text overlaying the image, but it shouldn't matter). Should such images be moved to the Commons? DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not sure tbh. I'd ask someone over at Commons who's more knowledgeable on the subject! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I've placed a question at the help desk. It looks like they should make the Commons because the sleeve for "I Want to Hold Your Hand" has already been moved. DannyRogers800 (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Glass Onion sheet music 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 non-free 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) 17:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Zmbro,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC , which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox ^{(talk |contributions)} 16:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Dear Friend (Wings song) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Every Little Thing (Beatles song) sheet music 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 non-free 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) 17:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey, I just wanted to apologize again for not asking if I could help and just going into the "Dear Friend" GAN review improvements without your permission, but I was wondering if you think that if I were to nominate the article I created for "Hey Diddle", an article of which I am the only contributor to, do you think it'd pass for a GA in its current state? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also, how do I nominate an article for GA? Do I have to do so through its talk page or...? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for apologizing. You can follow the GA instructions at WP:GANI. Personally, no, I don't think so. You have solid basic info, but in terms of scope, it's missing compositional info from tons of sources that could be quite helpful (i.e. Perasi, Perone, possibly Jackson, etc.). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't have access to Perasi's books, so you may have to add information from those books to the article. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply