Talk:Keane (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Keaneshaped.co.uk

Apologies for making a total mess of this - I'm a wiki newbie. The idea that Tim Rice-Oxley created the name Coldplay is FALSE - as verified by Tim Rice-Oxley here > http://217.154.142.24/keane/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31937&start=15#800697.

I'm also slightly disappointed at how much my site (http://www.keaneshaped.co.uk/faq) has influenced this page, is there any way of crediting this? (to keaneshaped.co.uk and/or Chris Flynn)

--ChrisFlynn 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC) --

Hi Chris! It's very nice to see you here. Sorry for taking info for your website. I'll as soon as possible include credits for you at the bottom of the pages, on a "References" section. The link to your site is on the bottom of the page on the "Fansites" section of the article. However, if you don't want your info on the article, just post it here and I will remove all information from your site. I will also post a message on the edit page for avoiding that info from your site to be posted here on the future. In this very moment I'm retiring facts on both Keane and Coldplay articles about the names. Hope you like the place and decide to stay :) Fluence 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Early Years

Again on the subject of names - there seems to be little consensus about Keane being called Coldplay originally. Still, the June 2 article from the Irish Times does indeed contain a quote from Rice-Oxley that says, "We though the Coldplay name was too depressing so I ended up giving it away to a guy I knew at college - Chris Martin." However, the citation #1 is not for this article, though it appears to be citing the information I just quoted. That citation is irrelevant or possibly should be used in the next paragraph. The correct citation should be [1]. It's from the Irish Times June 2, 2006.

Charts confusion

• "..."Everybody's Changing". This single quickly reached no 3 on the UK charts."

I removed the preceeding text from the aritcle. I assume that it was supposed to say, "Somewhere Only We Know", as this was the first single released from Hopes and Fears and it reached #3, but I'm not sure. Can anyone provide more information?

Acegikmo1 06:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Keaneshaped discography may shed some light. The site is linked to from the official Keane homepage, so it carries some weight.

Greg K Nicholson 03:28, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could someone protect this page for the time being, so that the same person(s) don't continue to vandalise the page? Thanks. Vandalism blows, especially when it's of the non-creative variety.

--Madchester 04:59, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

If the page is vandalized, you can revert it. Just go to the history list, click on the date and time of the last good version, and click edit, then save. If an article is protected, then no one can edit it. Arundhati bakshi 15:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OrigLink titlein of name

I could be wrong, but in any interview i've read of Keane, they have never revealed where they got their name from. The nurse connection on the main article page doesnt have a source.

I didn't put it there, but I'm fairly sure I've seen it mentioned somewhere on either the official site or the groups forums - JVG 12:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it somewhere too, but on TV. It was a while ago, during an interview on 4Music. - andy29 00:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Keane were originally called The Lotus Eaters, like the Liverpool band of the same name, but never gigged. The name "Keane" is a shortened version of "Cherry Keane," which they did gig with, and indeed supported Coldplay with. The lady from whom they took their name did not inspire their musical ability, nor was she a schoolteacher, dinnerlady, nurse; she was simply an old lady who looked after Tom and Tim when they were young. Gs83 07:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I read on the BBC that Keane were named after Roy Keane the footballer as they are manchester united fans. Luke C 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Check out www.keane.at and go to the biography section. Cherry Keane's mentioned over there as being a babysitter. But again i've read somewhere that she's Tom Chaplin's family friend.--Victoria Eleanor 16:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Keane

Since Keane is a very general term, I have restored it as the main dismbiguation page.... just like the ones for Kasabian or Joy Division. It covers more ground, since not all people typing in "Keane" are simply searching for the band, when I heard the name I always think of the two footballers. --Madchester 16:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I honestly believe that the band should be at Keane. I understand your point, but the footballers are obviously best at their full name and I think that most people wanting to view their article will search directly. Looking at the incoming links shows that most of them are for the band. Perhaps we should go through WP:RM proceedings, though I note that has almost ground to a halt. violet/riga (t) 09:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Most internal links are towards the band, because Wikipedia has a wealth of music releated articles; whether its chart results, award pages or simply lists of songs (starting with a certain letter, from the 2000s, etc.) The most important issue is that someone simply typing "Keane" into the searchbox is not necessarily searching for the band. Likewise, someone typing in "Athlete", "Travis", "Elbow", "Oasis", "Love", and "Kent" are not necessarily searching for the band; the band pages are tagged with the additional "(band)" label.

I find it interesting that an RM went forward, but all involved parties were not invited into the vote. I was the one who brought up the issue in the first place, yet I was never asked for my opinion before the vote was closed. --Madchester 18:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

There seems to be no good reason for a minor pop group to sit in the main name space; as the dab page indicates, there are many Keanes, of whom a number are at least as well known as the band. User:Violetriga's moves to the current situation have provoked something of an edit skirmish, including cut-and-paste moves, so I think that the issue should be sorted out more formally. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that my move was actually undoing a move that someone else did, and the Keane article has been about the band for quite a time. Calling it an "edit skirmish" is hardly fair, with two moves being undone, one because it was a copy/paste. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And the Travis article was originally about the band, but even the band itself has been move to Travis (band), which was more appropriate in the end. --Madchester 18:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support, for the reasons given above. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, for reasons given below. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Primary disambiguation topic for the unqualified name belongs to this well-known band. Jooler 20:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons given below. — Dale Arnett 21:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, keane (the band) should have this page as they are the most well known and full names should be used if thinking of the footballers Swedishdave 01:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Here are my reasons for Keane to contain the band article:

1. The band are not "minor", having an album stay in the UK album chart for well over a year.
2. There is only one other article that could claim to have the Keane name and that is Keane (firm), which is certainly not more notable that the band. The other articles would not usually be referred to by their surname alone, at least not in an enyclopedia.
3. The vast majority of incoming links are related to the band.
4. A search for "Keane" on Google massively favours the band.

I certainly think that this is a clear case for primary disamiguation. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

1. They're a pop group; their ephemeral success in the charts is unknown to most people, even more don't care, and it will soon be forgotten by everyone except pop-trainspotters. (I don't claim, incidentally, that the pair of pig's-bladder kickers are any less ephemeral; I don't have any interest [in any sense of the word] in any of the contenders.)
2. You seem to be supposing that the main criterion for deciding what goes where is the way articles are named, but surely it's what people are likely to be looking for. We wouldn't call an article on the footballers "Keane", but people looking for them might enter "Keane". My view generally is that the main namespace is best assigned as a dab page when there are multiple likely objects of search unless one article is clearly and hugely more likely to be that object. I don't think that that's the case here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Apply that to Yes. Jooler 20:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The same applies in principle, though Yes (disambiguation) offers nothing that's as substantial or lasting as the band, let alone more so. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I just now did some Google searches on "Keane", and found that the band may well be third behind Roy and Robbie! — Dale Arnett 21:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Keane" by itself: 11.4 million hits
• "Keane", excluding "Robbie": 9.06 million
• "Keane", excluding "Roy": 8.44 million
• "Keane" + "band": 1.71 million hits
• "Roy Keane": 2.42 million 1.1 million
• "Robbie Keane": 1.83 million 0.26 million

That really is some of the most flawed Google stats I've seen in a long time. violet/riga (t) 16:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it looks right. Love the band, but they really shouldn't be occupying the Keane article on its own. --Madchester 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of something to say to respond to that, but I can't think of anything more than "the Google stats presented here are a load of crap". violet/riga (t) 10:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it that under this circumstance the stats are crap. I followed the same keywords and garnered similar results. --Madchester 18:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The choice of keywords, not the results. As an example, if I search for "Dog" (143m results) and "Dog -corgi" (129m results) I cannot claim that there are 14m pages about corgi dogs. Likewise, searching for "corgi dogs" doesn't mean there are only 17,500 sites about corgi dogs. Dale has misused quotes and exclusions, leading to obscure results. violet/riga (t) 19:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)#

I think keanes next single should be The Frog Prince does anyone agree with me?

Decision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I should have been notified about this vote, since I made many edits to make the switch to Keane (band)... as you can see from my comments above, I would have been Supporting the request move. --Madchester 06:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Feud?

Hi. Just an opinion but I think the section "Feud with the Gallagher Brothers" should be removed as the title is the longest part of the section. There's just not enough text to warrant its existence. I would remove it but I don't want to be accused of vandalism. Maybe this information could be added to text under another section? Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.226 (talk • contribs)

I think someone the writing is childlike

and so I added a clean up sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghingo (talk • contribs)

and I have re-instated it as its still awful --Snecklifter 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The list of songs

The extensive list of all the songs Keane has ever done seems excessive and not in line with any other Wikipedia band profile page. Does anyone mind if I remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supdude (talk • contribs)

Put a list of albums and then, put the list of songs in the albums, all 'single' songs should be left. MrDark 15:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed from the list all songs that have been unreleased - the others can be found in the Keane's singles/album pages, as album tracks or b-sides. (Supdude 23:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Nothing In My Way

I haven't seen anything on the website confirming that this song will be the next single, all I've heard are occassional unfounded rumours saying it will come out next week which is highly unlikely given the lack of radio play, video showings, etc... - Burwellian 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

UK Chart Position for "Everbody's Changing"

can anyone tell me how this song has charted at #122 on a chart that only goes up to number #75, i have attempted to remove it once but i won't try again unless there is some kind of support for me removing it. If someone can defy the UK official charts and prove that such a chart position exists then all the better, but i doubt anyone can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by cryo_enix (talk • contribs)

The Top 200 is available to industry personnel I believe. Jim.

Message board quotations

Hi everyone, I'm sorry if I make a mess of this!

Can we please clarify whether it's okay to quote from the official message board or not, given the comment put at the top of the edit page to the main article? It's often the only reference point we have in situations and at least one point in the article (Tim R-O's response to Alexis Petridis) depends on being able to cite his post.

If it's a reason of privacy, the band's email addresses aren't publicised and their usernames are very obvious, so given the above point, it doesn't seem to me that citing them makes any real difference - whereas not citing them would make certain parts of the article very one-sided. (Obviously this doesn't apply to non-band members' posts, though.)

Just confused, is all. - --Flyingnelly 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Somewhere on a post Tim said that many reporters started leaking information from the forum. The wikipedia is, first of all, a public source of information, so everyone, including reporters have access to the articles. If the access to the forum is everywhere, it will make easier for people who wants information or private information (e.g the fact tim is married) from the forum, or the things the fans say or think.
And remember the forum is for Keane fans or people who likes them, so people really interested in the band will look for this forum and soon find it.

The point is to avoiding references (or links) to the forum since several information is found on Chris Flynn's site, Keaneshaped Fluence 22:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that the forum isn't in the public domain - which it is, anyone can read it without signing up. There's actually a pretty strong unofficial code of conduct amongst fans posting on there about the band's personal lives, which I think mostly prevents what you're concerned about, ie. tawdry gossip becoming commonly accepted as fact. Also, Tim's comment was actually that some journos were (apparently) using the forum as source material for tabloid fodder - not that previously private info was being leaked. Again, a side effect of the fact that it's a public forum, not a private one.

And as I said, it is very difficult to fairly document certain aspects of the band's history without referring to posts they have made with the intention of being public. People will go and find the forum of course, but if you're not going to allow those citations, then things such as the 'controversies' look like they've been unresponded to and potentially accepted as fact, which makes for a much more inaccurate article.

The forum has been invaluable in the past for the band communicating with their fans and the world at large, and any official responses to things (like Petridis) much more often than not come through there rather than in the form of formal statements or demands for newspaper retractions. As valuable as Chris's site is, when it comes to band posts I'm sure he would agree it's a second-hand source. And given that the first-hand source is in the public domain by design, it pretty much renders the 'privacy' argument moot.

However, I do agree that posts made by non-band members shouldn't be cited - too unreliable, and a lot of posters are far too sarcastic. :-)

--Flyingnelly 00:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Adam Tudhope merge

Any objections to moving this info to the band page? Richardjames444 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Tudhope is also a film producer: his bio does not dwell exclusively on Keane. Dev920 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

object as per above Chensiyuan 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keane

I realise that there are fans of Keane like Fluence and some others, who have contributed to this article.. That's great. But bear in mind that we are not making a publicity page of Keane and we are not obliged to conform with your wishes to have just that. I am trying as some people to have good and informative articles about these bands. Not publicity page with many info about what kind of shoes bandmembers are wearing. This information about just how well and where the band is received by the public is highly redundant and irrelevant to the type and goal of band's articles. If you browse in other post-Britpop and Britpop bands you wouldn't find any kind of information, found here. So, please, try to be reasonable and try to assume some good faith, as some people like to hoarse around. I know that it is hard to see all of you've written to go down the trashcan, but we are working on collaborative project and we are not obliged to conform with hard-liners, who want to have their "dream article", where the band are on high pedestal. The best thing you can do is to help us. But, please, please do not hinder mine and other people work.

I'm reverting the article back in form.

Regards: Painbearer 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Due to the recent re-revert war between me that of Fluence, I called for help at the Request page of the Wikipedian Association of Members' Advocates, where I hope that we will have some resolution. I am certainly highly disappointed by his attitude and the attitude of people, who decided to shut their eyes and ears and didn't expressed their normal opinion about the state of the article. I hope that as soon as possible we will have some real judge, who will tell what should we do (in case that it's only me thus so far, then it is I).

Thank you and no thank you.

Regards: Painbearer 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So, are you discussing again? I thought you said you didn't want to again. If people had "shut their eyes and ears" is becuase their opinion is contrary or neutral to yours.Fluence 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Chris Flynn (another person whose name I won't tell for protection) and me are the only Keane fans on the Wiki. All the other 42,715 fans think Wikipedia is a trash can but will act if Keane gets involved for a bad way here. However, you cannot block 42,715 IPs, can you?--Fluence 01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not true, Fluence - there are many fans using the wiki. I certainly don't think you should bracket yourself with Chris in terms of being knowledgable about the band either, considering the diligence of Chris in building his own off-wiki band FAQ has provided much of the content for this page. I think you seem to miss the point of the Wiki - that there is merit in the edits and opinions of others. While I won't claim to know exactly the details of this 'revert war', I do think that you can be rather over-protective of this wiki page in a way that is counter-productive. Bear that in mind. D-r-i-n-k-y 01:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot you. Of course I know there are many other fans but they do not reveal their names. I'll count. Chris Flynn, Victoria Eleanor-forgotting the protection-, Fanny Chaplin, Flying Nelly you and me. Sorry if I missed one. I do respect other people edits. Many other massive edits had been made in the past. For example, Badlydrawnjeff deleted several of my articles and mixed them with other. It was logical after thinking it for a while so I thank him for letting me know my mistake.
I asked Chris for permission to use his content after seeing his message and I consider himself as knowledgable about the band because he has took time to recollect several information about the band in a place. Part of the edits by Painbearer delete the message I posted crediting Chris also.
I don't know if you're the same Drinky we all know from the forum but I want to tell you about a comment you made some time ago about Tom:

“ Drinky wrote:Normal? What the hell were you expecting, an insight into how he loves to beat spaniels to death? ”

Your comment was, as you said, joking. However, someone took it seriously (or even joking) and posted it on the Keane article of the Wikipedia. This kind of comments are often taken very seriously by the external media. If you don't want the band to result affected, stop making sarcastic comments.Fluence 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Are you really a Keane fan? Because you don't look like--Fluence 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to revert the article at it past normal state. I am requesting permission from all the people, contributing to this page, who are in clear state of mind and who can see that this article needs great turnaround in the way it has been so far. I think that we needn't some pubescent uber-fans, who want it their way and can't see more than what they are seeing with their own eyes.

Regards: Painbearer 10:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all have your same state of mind. I think just the ones who are here becuase you told them to or the ones who linked the Articles needing clean up tag are with you. We don't need also pseudo-adults interested on things out of their bussiness. I mean, does it affect you? No. And neither the Wikipedia--Fluence 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fluence, you need to read WP:OWN, and wp:npa. 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Richyard 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Me?? COME ON. One. I do not own the article but now I wish that since SOME people is destroying it. Is the first time I do this. Two. Personal Attacks me?? I'VE BEEN ATTACKED BEFORE AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING. Now I'll need help...--Fluence 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fluence, please stop reverting the article back to a poorly written, non standard English version of the article that contains non verifiable content and personal opinion. Also, please see wp:3rr Richyard 16:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Richyard, the information is verifiable but since someone on the request for featuring told me not to post only references from Keaneshaped I deleted them. If you want to verify it ask Tim Rice-Oxley. Serious.

And it's not personal opininion, tell me where and I'll tell you why. Don't care if I get blocked. Thanks for warning me, didn't know that. Now I'm prepared but I'll let you know I won't give up. I've advised the forum. About the poor English, that could be fixed not deleting information you know. It's easier delete rather than correct isn't it?--Fluence 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fluence, please write on the talk page, the information that you think should be included in the main article, as well as references, and it is very likely that it could be included in the article. You could either write the text yourself in the main article, after the discussion decides that the text is relevant, or have someone else write it.--Atavi 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel this article is in severe need of clear-up. It is biased, in poorly written English, and makes a habit of not citing first-hand sources in favour of a second-hand collation of information. I have made a start by attempting to tidy up the 'Controversies and Criticisms' section today. I am frankly amazed that there was no real substantative mention of Tom's stay in rehab, as even by 'non-fan' standards it is one of the more significant events in the band's history to date, and potentially represents a crossroads for the band - so it needs to be represented on here in detail I feel.

Secondly: the message board posts from the band, which I know I've raised before but was never adequately answered. At least one such post - the open letter from Tim Rice-Oxley referring to Alexis Petridis - deserves to be cited in full, rather than merely having a quote pulled from Keaneshaped. To not do so would be to potentially change the bias of the entire article. As Chris makes every effort to cite his sources on Keaneshaped first-hand, so should we.

I disagree with the assertion that the equipment the band uses is irrelevant information. A large part of Keane's reputation is based on the fact that they don't use a guitarist - and especially with 'Under The Iron Sea', I'm sure those more musically inclined than I will wish to know exactly how they've gotten those sounds out of a piano. However, I do agree that country-by-country information is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Fluence - we're all here trying to make this page better. But if you will insist on reverting it to a poorly spelt, badly-referenced and biased article, that makes the band look bad. And personally, I object to your earlier comment to Drinky that because he made a sarcastic comment, clearly designed to be tongue-in-cheek, that he is not a fan. This is not a page you personally own, the whole point of Wikipedia is open use; please be reasonable and let those who wish to clean it up, do so.

Flyingnelly 09:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, finally someone reasonable who understood the point. Repair without deleting. Good for Flying Nelly. I hope we don't have this kind of discussions again. Peace and good night-- Fluence 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Painbearer: yes it needs clean-up. But you just deleted the clean-ups I spent 3 hours doing last night and so now I have to put them back. So boo to you. :-P

I think the controversies section needs to stay, at least in some form. Again, there is no way any unbiased article on the band could avoid the issue of Chaplin's current 'residence', as it's likely to have a major impact on the way the band do things from here on in. However, I reckon the feuds, saving Guardian which is an ongoing scrap, could all be merged into a couple of lines. Agreed? Flyingnelly 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree. This is getting difficult to revert as many good changes had been made. I'm trying to keep the information you consider important. If I made anything wrong let me know :)Fluence 01:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Painbearer, too much of the article reads like a publicity page for Keane. That's not the point of wikipedia.Richyard 07:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Even more than that, it's badly organised and very difficult to find the relevant info - which is much of what I've spent the past couple of days trying to sort out, before it got reverted. I personally think the info about rehab needs a separate section, because its impact is threatening to extend beyond the Under the Iron Sea 'era' and there's beginning to be uncertainty about whether they'll even come back - to me, it makes sense to keep the two separate rather than repeating the same info in two separate sections. Can we agree on that possibly? I do agree the other things in that section are unnecessary and so could be removed, save for Guardian which is a running scrap with a history.

I'm a fan as well, but I am trying to make the articles as unbiased and fair as possible - I certainly agree with the majority of the criticisms levelled at the article about bias and grammar. After all, it doesn't do us any good to have a Wiki page that's impossible to follow and reads like a PR piece, does it?

PS. I'm pretty new to Wiki, so am still figuring stuff out - thanks for everybody's help so far. :-)

-- Best, Flyingnelly 08:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is finally at some normal state. Unfortunately, there are too many ill feelings between me and Fluence, because of his mulishness and refusal to acknowledge obvious facts. This revert war wasn't one of the most pleasent things that happened to me, but I think that it is worthy to have better article now than the the complete mess before. Anyways, from time to time I will hop in to see where it is. Please, don't make it shit again. I just hate shitty articles. Sometimes, I'm affraid of people's possible ill feelings, when I try to make some shitty articles to good articles.

Regards: Painbearer 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is no big deal, but I made some minor changes to the controversies section (mostly grammar issues), and they all got deleted, because the entire section was deleted. I think it was an interesting addition to the article and didn't necessarily need to be deleted... I just think it needed corrections for grammar and citations... can someone please tell me why it was completely deleted? Simon 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it had happened while I was editing the article. It is called edit conflict. We have edited the article at the same time. However, I have a stance of firm support of keeping the article out of redundant, bad-spelled and overburdensome information. I know that Keane are relatively young band. I don't have anything against those guys, but come on - we do have some sort of standarts of making meaningful and informative band articles. Let's make this to a band like The Who? Put all of the information of their antics in the article. It will be a complete mess. So, I just want to say in brief that whatever information we have about Keane's publicity - it just needs to be scrapped.

Regards: Painbearer 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting difficult to edit. Red is confusing.

I was just starting to agree with all of you before reading Painbearer's comment. For about 30,000 people, Keane is better than The Who. That's what I was exactly thinking about you. I got stronger for that and I will not colaborate with you.

Also, I've thought of something to make happy, I hope, all of you. I suggest to create an article similar to that of Madonna's "Madonna trivia" for Keane which would include some of the information you consider irrelevant. So, the article would be shorter and the information will be safe in another place. The Keane article would be longer gradually with upcoming information or releases. What do you think? :)--Fluence 00:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is pushing you to collaborate, my boy. You acted like a bitch, so you know, I am just not surprised you strut again like a little sissy. You expect me to drop on my knees and start praying for redemption? You are one hell of a muddled teen. Go get a life, possibly a girl, too. If you think that you deserve special attention and special behaviour, you are just very, very wrong, my boy. Nobody is obliged to you. Especially, not me, since you acted for weeks like a little snotty brat, crying for cookies, when I wasted my time trying to sound good, to assume good faith, to be as explanative and meaningful. But you just pushed to the boundaries, with your mulishness and refusal to see that this is not your article and it can't be always the way you like it. So, if you not collaborate - I don't care, as I feel perfect with that, you know. If you collaborate: I'm sitting on my ass and I'm watching. Till now it was all stupid chit-chat, but if you are ready for action: bring it on, babe. Just bring it on.

Painbearer 07:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You went down crying to the advocates. I didn't do anything and I'm still winning. And I can't stop now, I've got troubles of my own...

Clean up

In my opinion, 1) too much "de Vito is a big fan," etc and 2) references in main text about songs in commercials are confusing. The rest of the article also needs improvement. I will try to do the clean up myself, but the task is not small.--Atavi 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

I've changed some of the minor formatting on the article and thought it best to mention it here for discussion since the tag at the top suggested visiting the talk page before making edits. --Anthony5429 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I also removed Dominic Scott from current members as he left in 01. --Anthony5429 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Putting in a formal request so that this page cannot be edited without being logged in. The revert war is making it impossible to tidy up the page for those of us who want to do so.

Would like to revert to the previous version as it's much tidier, but am afraid I'm going to be penalised for it. Flyingnelly 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I support that. Richyard 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

North American Tour Cancelled...

Does anyone want to add info regarding the recent cancellation of the North American Tour due to Tom's treatment for drug and alcohol addiction...more info over at the Official Website :: ehmjay 03:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I already have done, in UTIS section, and Tom's rehab has its own section under 'Controversies'. The problem is that everything about UTIS is subject to change at very short notice, as both the UK and Europe tours are 'under advisement' (ie. they may not go ahead either). It's highly speculative at the moment, which makes keeping the section completely up-to-date difficult. --Flyingnelly 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Stability

There seem to be plenty of edits to this article in recent days, and there's one section marked as being subject to large changes as an event approaches, and according to the Good Article criteria, an article has to be stable. Is this article being edited alot now? Homestarmy 20:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm responsible for a lot of the edits, I've been trying to clean it up in recent days but as I'm quite new, I didn't quite get to grips with the preview button before now. ;-) It's currently in a state of being cleaned up, but kept getting reverted to a very untidy version. I *think* it's stabilised in that regard now.

I put the subject to large changes flag in - because it is. Because of Chaplin's rehab, their plans for the rest of the year are very much up in the air and subject to change at very short notice. (Example: Thursday night they were touring the US, Friday morning they were not.) There is no way of knowing anything in advance at the moment with this - it's teetering between them going back out on the road next month or going on 'indefinite hiatus'.

Hope this helps explain the situation. Best, Flyingnelly 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't sound too destabilizing... Homestarmy 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and that POV dispute tag, is that back from August? If the discussion is dead, you can remove that, might help a reviewer out. Homestarmy 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I do spot a few problems, can you try to fix the following sentences:

"The band became very popular in other European countries like Holland, Austria and Germany." "In December 2002, Simon Williams of Fierce Panda Records was asked by a mutual friend to attend a Keane gig at the Betsey Trotwood in London and was so impressed that he offered to issue the band's next and first commercial single,...." "It is worth noting that as of September 9, 2006...."(This is near the bottom)

These sentences make presumptions that editors unfamiliar with the subject probably wouldn't understand or appreciate, and their fairly large on the positive POV. I'd put the article on hold but these shold be easy to fix. Also, try to get rid of the trivia sentences, if that information is notable, surely it can be worked into the article somehow. Homestarmy

Hey,

Simon Williams: the info about Betsey Trotwood is relevant as it's ultmately what led to them getting signed. No BT gig = no Fierce Panda release = no Steve Lamacq = no deal = probably no Keane. ;-)

'Other European countries': ITA, in fact I've removed that info before I think...

What would you consider a better way to phrase 'It is worth noting as of September 9...'? Chaplin's rehab is the reason the UTIS section is unstable at the moment, personally think it needs to be explained as such. It's problematic because the situation is changing on a daily basis and on very short notice, all that can be done really is to give the most up-to-date info - which is that as of now US is off and it's basically 50/50 as to whether the UK/European tours will happen. And after that, who knows?!

Thanks for your input. I am trying! :-) --Flyingnelly 14:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not that the actual information on the second one isn't ok, it's just the words used are too positive and presumptuous, what is a "mutual friend" exactly anyway, and how is being impressed measured. On the worth noting one, the problem is who determines how much information is really worth, you could just cut the "worth noting" part of the sentence out. Homestarmy 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the 'worth noting' thing is really only intended as a heads-up to say 'please bear in mind this information is changing rapidly, this is the most recent info' - it's a turn of phrase. Not intended to say that particular information is worth any more than anywhere else in the article - if anything it's less valuable, as it's changing so quickly. As for the other comments - I've reworded those sections, I hope this works better now. Best, Flyingnelly 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to protect the page from the inappropriate reverts by the user Fluence. He wants to turn the page into something like this. You see that this is not a page to be featured anywhere. It's have a lot of redundant, unverified, bad-spelled and bad structured information. It is complete shit and unexplainably (perhaps spending too much time in porn-sites), this guy (and a couples of others green teens to mention) want their shit. But, we just can't let him, can we? So, I certainly hope that for the sake of me, Flyingnelly and other forward-thinkers, this article won't get the axe from the hands of Fluence and some other little monkeys. I pray for this not to happen, you know. I pray before every time I visit the page not to see the past shit. Thinking about it make my stomach unease.< /br>Anyways, apart from the joking I think that we are on stable ground... for now. I think that the article will progress if you start working on the quality of the material and try not to mess with the quantity. Because if you mess and start doing the past shit, may the almighty god of rock 'n roll strike on you. No, really if you mess, you will cross my path. And I am not going to tolerate such a working behaviour.

Regards: Painbearer 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad the article is better now; it's taken a lot of work! The other problem, as already mentioned, is the fact that courtesy of certain band members the band's current state of play is unstable in itself - but that will just have to be dealt with as and when it comes up, I guess. Best, Flyingnelly 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I made final edits and added the MIDI samples on , what I think, a nice style. Is a pretty article now, very superb to that of Painbearer's. I won't revert anymore. Just a few things to add, like the citations. Poor Painbearer... you're going nuts. And your English is not professional, maybe a 4.2 or .3. Mistakes, mistakes. I moved the controversies to Keane's controversies. The sections need to be expanded but maybe that will take time--Fluence 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No it does not need to be expanded into a separate article. Bands have scraps all the time, it's not noteworthy to detail them all. The only 'controversy' of direct relevance is Tom's drink/drug problem. Beyond that the Guardian is noteworthy, only because certain allegations made in the original article have now come to be accepted as fact. PLEASE leave well enough alone, the section was fine as it was before and we are now just going around in revert circles. Painbearer had the right idea, whereas all I've seen you do is insult him for trying to fix this page. And as for criticising on the basis of grammar... Flyingnelly 10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, the article was deleted. I just mentioned on the page their feuds with "they also had feuds with another bands, most notably, The Darkness and The Libertines".

I hope you're now glad with the article because I think it looks good now--Fluence 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Rehab section

Have corrected this for emphasis relating to the Guardian article - the thrust of the article was that the 'cool' reputation of cocaine was ruined by Chaplin using it, not that Chaplin's reputation was ruined by using cocaine! There's a quote that perfectly illustrates this, which has been lost somewhere along the line - please do not amend this to what it was before, as it's wrong! Will most likely move this to the Guardian section in future, as it's part of the running scrap the band has had with this particular newspaper. Best, Flyingnelly 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Midi Files

Just wanted to say I think the midi files for the songs on this page are very well done. Good job, Fluence. What do you use to create the midi files?

Simon 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Simon! I only use a Yamaha Clavinova CVP-303. I don't edit that on the computer since I haven't got an editing software. I've got ready Snowed Under--Fluence 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Keane message board

an anonymous posting from a message board is not a reliable source that can be cited on wikipedia. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS Richyard 10:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Page protection (15.09.2006)

Seeing as we seem unable to resolve the problems with Fluence laying claim to the article and repeatedly reverting it to grammatically poorer versions, I would like to propose that I revert the article to the last version I personally know was good, being the version I published on the 11th. I then intend to request the page be protected until such a time that this calms down. The article is not stable, gramatically poor, lacks NPOV, and I believe has now fallen prey to content forking with the unnecessary expansion of the controversies section into a separate article by Fluence.

It seems to me that the article cannot be improved while Fluence is allowed to edit it. Despite several attempts on the part of myself, D-r-i-n-k-y, Richyard and Painbearer - amongst others - to clean up the article and make it a good, impartial article, Fluence has consistently reverted edits in order to perpetuate a biased POV. When tackled on this, Fluence has then gone on to accuse people of not being fans, or of having a personal vendetta, and proceeds to revert sensible edits even more. Fluence seems unwilling to work with other Wikipedians to make the article a genuinely good one, and instead seems interested only in promoting a personal view of the band - despite other people's attempts to collaborate, we are usually accused of being inaccurate by Fluence when in fact we're being neutral. As a result of this, I am requesting that Fluence be blocked from editing any Keane-related articles, at least for a time until we can get this sorted out and for Fluence to calm down sufficiently that editing it does not become impossible.

I'm not very happy about needing to request this; nonetheless, I cannot see how the article can hope to meet Wiki standards while Fluence is allowed to continue editing it to a poor standard of grammar and content, with biased POVs. --Flyingnelly 11:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No page protection

See: this essay... we don't protect pages frivolously. It's fundamental to Wikpedia that "anyone can edit", that's our strength, our joy, our modern marvel, our touchstone, and the solid rock to build on!!!.

To all the contributors on this article: You need to find some way to work together. Nobody can be allowed to own this article, all articles are collaborations. If you cannot work collaboratively, you will constantly be seeing this article destroyed by the work of others. If you CAN work collaboratively, you will constantly be seeing this article be improved by others.

It's your choice. These other editors are your colleagues, not your competition!

Try rewriting a bad passage to make it better, instead of reverting for grammar problems.

Try adding a source for information that you include, get rid of those ugly {{Fact}} tags by citing sources.

If a passage needs to be deleted, copy it to the talk page and discuss it with your colleagues like a real editor! This is not a fanzine, and its not your personal article!

Try this:

Ambiguous passage

"Keane are currently patrons of War Child, and in September 2005, they contributed a cover of Elton John's Goodbye Yellow Brick Road to Help: a Day in the Life."

This passage seems to me to be ambiguous, what is meant by a 'cover'? An album cover or something else? Does anyone think it would be appropriate to change that to cover? I don't know, so I'm asking here, maybe its a rare album cover... also Help: a Day in the Life is a piped link, but it's a redirect, does anyone mind if I change it to Help: a Day in the Life? Also "Keane are currently patrons" seems awkward to me, would it be better to say "The members of Keane are currently patrons" or "Keane is currently a patron" or something else?

Get the picture? It's not my article, it's not your article, it's our article and it will never be good if we are fighting over whose edit is best. If the page has to be protected, it is a truism of page protection that the wrong version of the page will be the one protected so don't let this happen to our article. Work together!!! 17:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

This is being copied here from WP:AMARQ. Our request page is not the place to discuss this. As an advocate, I have to keep an open mind, but it seems plain to me that the editors on this page could get together if they tried. That's my official recommendation, and until I see some real effort at collaboration from all the editors, I'm putting this request on hold. You don't need an advocate to sort this out. I'll be keeping an eye on this article, and I expect to see some improvement soon. I have confidence in all of you working together. User:Pedant 17:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I agree, and think you have very good points. I really am for everyone being able to edit this. As Painbearer has stated in his comments below though, it seems that Fluence is unwilling to work with us. I've assumed good faith all along, but after two days away from the net to come back and find that pretty blatant disregard was being shown by Fluence towards the points other contributors had made, once more... well, it's very frustrating.

Unfortunately I do feel like we need an advocate - I think the four or five of us who have been attempting to improve the article over the past week have been getting along and making a real effort to improve our article. I don't think it's that people object to Fluence editing the article per se, but Fluence seems to object to anyone else editing the article. (See comments to D-r-i-n-k-y above.) If one party is effectively claiming ownership of the article and pretty persistently insults others who are trying to improve the article in good faith, I don't see how the article can do anything but continue to get worse. --Flyingnelly 08:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Painbearer Request for advocacy

In brief I wanted to make the article of the band Keane, much simpler, to trim in my opinion highly redundant and highly overcumbant information on it. I wanted it to be as informative, as short and as good as possible. I wanted it be like this. Well, an ultra-fan of Keane, called Fluence doesn't want that. He wants his article to be his vehicle. That's why he is reverting my edits, saying that Wikipedia is "a place that storates all human knowledge" and apparently can't give any kind of justification for his edits. That's why I am refering here. I try to assume good faith and try to explain as thoroughly as possible to Fluence, but apparently to no avail and he with indifferent tone say that we will probably revert each other till the end of time. That's highly annoying for me, really. I know it's hard for the guy to see his own material, cut out of the band's article, but as far as I'm concerned I as well as many people are not aiming for for biography/books or publicity pages about these bands,but rather extensive, informative and well-formed articles. Thus I really need someone's help, because things get to blows too quickly. I am trying to be as amiable as possible, but my patience also has it limits.

Thank you for your time

Regards: Painbearer 07:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You have my support. I have undertaken a few sweeping changes on the article as its a mess at the moment. From my position I can see you have taken the necessary action to resolve this diplomatically. Fluence has even nominated this article as a good example which is in very poor form.

Regards --Snecklifter 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want that becuase you're wrong. I may accept there's some redundant information that I've tried to eliminate. However, on its FA nomination nobody mention about an ugly poster or the extra photos or even the list of countries Keane have visited, so that is purely your opinion and it doesn't affects the Wikipedia community. I think you two are the only ones on all the communtity that think that way, so I'm not giving up. And I only reverted the edits you made to the article because you eliminated also important information.

This is not a publicity page for Keane also. They are an important band so they don't need to be published here.
About the Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales said that, not me. And the next time you wish to protect a page, make sure is really protected--Fluence 01:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing else to say but that I support Fluence. Victoria Eleanor 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds dull. If you have nothing to say, than why saying something at all? Anyway, I request some advocate to come to help to resolve this conflict quickly, because things are getting ugly.

Regards: Painbearer 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

---

GA Failing

This is very well written article that is, in general, very good; however there are still many things scattered through the article that still require referencing, some with the {{fact}} template some without. Until the article referenced better it cannot pass GAC let alone FAC

†he Bread 00:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...

I don't think that I can come to terms with Fluence. His stubborness and ostensible refusal to acknowledge my edits are really frustrating. Most of the reasonable people here probably can imagine, when I have worked my ass through editing and doing work and next, when I sit here, I see all of my work gone, because of him. We can't scrap one article, because of one person. I seriously want an advocate on this issue. It's really, really bad we have to come to this, but I just can't take it anymore with that guy. I cannot work with him, really. With his constant reverts to bad structured and biased versions he is antagonizing me and other editors from the article. I really want to ask the advocates to consider this matter. I am amiable person you see, and I fervently try to "assume good faith" as we all like to boast around. But some people doesn't want this. They are irritating and antagonizing personalities with low self-esteem, who can't work with other people. Unofortunately, we have one of them right here.

Regards: Painbearer 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the only one who keeps this going. You started and you don't want to stop it. About you're work... I'm not really sure... "when I'll meet my end... in a better time you could be my friend"--Fluence 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fluence, until you understand that your contributions are of an extremely low quality and learn how to fix them, you will simply be an annoyance to Wikipedia. All of your updates and articles are useless fan cruft. You waste time by nominating it all to be displayed on the front page, and you are are abusive to people who offer criticism, even of the polite constructive sort. You should perhaps focus your attentions on making a Keane fan site, and stop trying to turn Wikipedia into one. Nobody likes Keane, Fluence. They are terrible. The Mekon 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you know I've a fansite either? It's not ready but... Well, tell me who calls people cunt... And what a best example to show why is the page being destroyed than your Keane-hate. Without Flying Nelly and D-r-i-n-k-y's (who actually love Keane) contributions the article would be shit. I realized many of my contributions didn't need to be here but my version of the article looks good not that shit Painbearer wants. And I think it's not about grammar this time (he's correcting three or four words) but more like revenge--Fluence 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why you blame me? Why? Just plain, why you... you? Just have a look at yourself! Just look what kind of person you are, and after that you can turn the things around and point what the fuck I am and what I am doing! Why can't you people at least not agree that you are WRONG! Once in a life-time! I am used to do it every time I notice it. That's the best way.

Your version of the article is bloated. Just plain bloated. Mine is trimmed. You want to bloat the things. Turn them into "My personal salutations-page". Ok, yeah, you agreed on some compromise. I just thought that we could communicate. But when I try to turn the article into fully developped and meaningful thing, you come and put the same old thing. This articles are supposed to evolve, Fluence. It's not about doing "my stuff". We are here to collaborate, dude. But, you just can't collaborate with people, man. So, you decide to just keep your way. Anything you don't like get the axe. This is very selfish way to work, I assure you. But once again, when I come and point that what you are doing is wrong and that you deserve punishement, you just fuck off and say that I am to blame.

Tell me people how I am supposed to act here?

Regards: Painbearer 14:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not just trimming. We're the only two left reverting. But just tell me, who works here more? Me adding information or you deleting it? Just tell me...--Fluence 23:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very, very immature. Just because you are adding more information here doesn't matter at all. The most important thing is the quality of information you put. If you do shit - as you do - then I just don't care how many information you have put. The most important thing about Wikipedia is the quality of the information and the articles, we are working. As I said, I am for quality, not quantity. You might as well put the Ulysses here - it doesn't matter at all. It's all about the quality. And your attempt to compare with me in order to depreciate and discredit me... well, I will just say that it just speaks for itself about your ability to communicate and collaborate with people, Fluence.

Painbearer 10:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you were really that "mature" you would fix what you think is crap, not just delete it. Is not about collaborating. I've collaborated with many people like Badlydrawnjeff, Bravada or JordeeBec. Again, is not about that. The thing is I think what you're doing is wrong. You think what I'm doing is wrong. Is a neverending story. You have to admit that, if this was the Radiohead page, you would fix rather than delete--Fluence 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I do have to admit or not. I think that The Mekon told you his view. I think... I think that I just can't say anything else, really. You would either understand me, either not. I don't care how many blockheads have followed you - it is your problem, not mine. These blockheads now are no-where to be seen.

Painbearer 05:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Website down

Their website is down... anybody know why?

It's running. Go now and see :)--Fluence 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, but this isn't a Keane chat room. The Mekon 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the Keane talk page. Only Keane here--Fluence 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Some comments...

Just some things I wish to clear:

• Which is the correct conjugation on Wikipedia, are or is? Ask this as I'm not really sure which one to use on the header. Taking

examples, the Keane articles reads "are" but, others like Coldplay's read "is".

• Here are some phrases or text Richyard has been keen on remove which a do consider relevant pieces of information. Let's say I'll cite the

phrase and below I wrote the reason I think it deserves to remain on the article.

“ The desire to form a band appeared when Rice-Oxley was still studing secondary scholl at Tombridge. However, being a

sports-related school, he and Hughes found very difficult to make it, something that has been quoted by Hughes: ""the idea of trying to

form a band in that sort of environment is quite challenging, if there's no bat and ball involved, you're seen as borderline insane."

”

Reading through the Q Magazine article is clearly Tim's wishes to form the band appeared studying there and not at UCL. Even I as a fan

didn't know that until I read the article. Really, so I think is an interesting fact to keep.

“ Being Hughes and Scott originally opposed to, Chaplin joined the band in 1997 ”

Some would believe Richard and Dominic actually saying "Tom, do you wish to join the band? We really need you". The truth is, they were

really opposed as Hughes has cited several times, notably on the DVD: "giving the loudest person I knew a microphone wasn't something I was really keen on". This doesn't happen with all bands.

“ With several songs of their own to play, Keane made their debut live appearance at... ”

“ ...the "Hope & Anchor" public house ”

First: people could think they were stil playing cover versions Second: people might ignore what the Hope and Anchor is a pub

“ The EP (Call Me What You Like) was reviewed by Bec Rodwell from eFestivals ”

There are other reviewers on eFestivals. The mention of Rodwell adds only three words.

“ A day after the release of the album, they embarked on their first world tour. ”

There's no mention of when the tour started anywhere on the article

“ The album has sold approximately five and a half million copies around the world. In the UK, it stayed in the top 75 of the UK

Albums Chart for 72 weeks, appearing again on its 115th week

”

Not all albums achieve 5,000,000 sold copies and stay on the charts for a year and half

• The "Controversies and criticism" section

OK, I admit it was pretty larger before Painbearer started editing the article but I think it's good at least to mention feuds they've had in the past. I mean, other bands have even separate articles for them...

• The trimming of Keane.at

If you know at least something about Keane (and if you looked at the Notes section) you'll find out how important is this fansite.

Fluence 22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed them because Wikipedia is not a collection of irrelevant information. See WP:NOT. Also, WP:EL says that fansites shouldn't be listed. Only official sites.Richyard 22:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly true, it doesn't say that. However it says that you should normally avoid linking to a site that you own or maintain. WP:EL is a guideline, though, and not a policy. Policy says that you must assume good faith, you must be civil and you must avoid personal attacks. User:Pedant 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of that information is entirely superfluous, and in the case of "Being Hughes and Scott originally opposed to, Chaplin joined the band in 1997", doesn't even make sense, in any human language. The trimmed down article is far superior, but still far from perfect. 82.31.151.135 22:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I said it, you must know something about Keane to see how those fansites are even more accurate than the official page.

OK, this was only to show how advocate are you on removing relevant information and to try to make you change your mind. I've given a coherent reason to keep it so I'll keep reverting until that stays. Get it? Ah, but only Painbearer and Richyard-related edits since they're who fuck all up. I'll therefore respect constructive edits like ReyBrujo's--Fluence 23:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still think that the information is irrelevant and unneccessary in the Keane article. I think the problem here is that you are too much of a Keane fan to be able to edit the article in a way that follows WP:NPOV and the other editing guidelines and policies that Wikipedia has. Also, your English at the moment is not really good enough to edit here on the English Wikipedia. It's not at all near a native level of English, either standard UK or standard US. It seems to me that you compose your edits in Spanish first then translate them into English using an on-line translator, which is how the article ends up with sentences like: "Despite the band's vocalist is currently in drugs and alcohol rehabilitation, Rice-Oxley and Hughes keep working on their future releases, like the upcoming single Nothing In My Way." or "Being Hughes and Scott originally opposed to, Chaplin joined the band in 1997, and took on both vocal and acoustic guitar duties" or "With the release of their first single, Keane reached some fame in the United Kingdom and began to be known in the United States with the entry of This Is The Last Time to this country".

I mean, I can see what:

"British newspaper The Guardian has keep on critisizing Keane, notably on the articles We're gonna make you a star, saying the band were styled and Not so Keane now about Chaplin's cocaine addiction and how the "drug's reputation" was ruined by his fault."

is supposed to mean, but it is dreadful English and is almost gibberish. Apart from that, there is nothing notable or unique about the Guardian article in the first place and Wikipedia is not the place for it to be referenced. You took the information from a Keane fan site anyway, and that is where it should remain.

You don't own this article, no one here does. If your attitude towards editing and other editors is to be disruptive, offensive and insulting towards them and their edits, then you will end up suffering the consequences of your actions. Richyard 12:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the point is this information will be relevant for some people and irrelevant for others so is hard to agree in something. For me, irrelevant, would be Chaplin's father was headmaster at Tombridge (this is even unverifiable) or that they were called "Cherokee" at a gig, or that their neighbours put their houses up to sale during the "Wolf at the Door" recording sessions. That is irrelevant. Even some information I had previously added and removed by Painbearer and FlyingNelly that now, after considering it, is irrelevant also for me.

But there are a lot of articles out there including similar sections to that of Keane's that I've based on to edit the article, so I suggest you to first go for that articles, otherwise I'd believe this is not about Keane but against me--Fluence 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of Fluence's fluency or grammar, he is trying to have a discussion here about article content. That's what this talk page is for. If you feel that Fluence's wording is ungrammatical, fix the grammar. If you object to the content, discuss it in a substantive manner, without incivility and personal attacks. That is a requirement, that is if you wish to continue to work on the project. That goes for everyone. Fluence, too. All work together, or leave the article editing to editors who have the ability to work together. Everyone. Together. Team. You certainly don't want me working on this article, I don't know anything about Keane. Be glad, each of you, that you have someone working with you who is familiar with the subject. User:Pedant 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points. I have made a complete revision of the article, correcting grammar and spelling but leaving all information intact (where possible). I struggled slightly with the "song themes" section, which made no sense whatsoever and listed a print magazine that I don't have available as the only reference. I believe this edit greatly improves the article, I hope all agree? Mr. Scare 09:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edits by Mr. Scare and the anonymous user gave the article a new soul and I personally think quality is really superior to that of the trimmed version. I agree with the article on its current revision and that's what Richyard and Painbearer should have done, fix instead of deleting. And well, relevant information was kept, thing I'm happy with :)--Fluence 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Painbearer's edit

Fluence, Painbearer did NOT change a lot in the article, certainly not enough to warrant having to discuss the changes on the talk page first. Your protective attitude over your own writing is VERY obvious - and particularly harmful in this case as you are unable to make an accurate assessment on the quality of your own work. The Mekon 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

He erased a word I tried to discuss here so deleting a section and all the references is something important. What painbearer wants is worst than a magazine article (even Q's are better)--Fluence 00:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You DON'T say "rv vandalism" after me reverting your edit back to Painbearer's. You are in effect accusing TWO people of vandalism, when in fact YOU are the one committing dishonest edits. Also, the majority has so far decided that Painbearer's edit is perfectly legitimate and fine - YOU are going against the grain. Painbearer's edits were minor - he fixed mistakes written by you. Your behaviour would be acceptable if you were grown up enough to be honest about your actions - but sadly, everything you do reeks of you wanting to protect your own badly written words and cause issues for people like myself in the process by constantly screaming "VANDAL!". I understand that you're just a young teenager, but that's your issue - Wikipedia should not have to suffer in the process. The Mekon 11:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To vandalise pages is not exactly a grown-up thing right Mekon? All the Notes section was scrapped, not Painbearer's fault. I respected some of his edits, like the music sample box but I don't think the template should be crapped. I'm not hiding my actions. That would be as easy as don't log in--Fluence 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. It isn't grown up to offend me and treat me like a vandal, either. Your complete lack of respect towards other people and their edits is highly insulting and this is not a sign of maturity. Untill you learn how to behave with proper respect and acknowledgement towards other people's feelings and their opinions you are nothing than one uncultured and bad-mannered individual, who doesn't deserve any good behaviour. I really tried to be as good as possible with you, but the problem is that you are not the type of guy, with whom people can be good. You just don't leave any kind of sympathy or consideration towards your persona and your dull and unsubstantial work. Really, we would be better without you here, Fluence. This article could be better without you, I assure you. Uncollaborative and disrespectful people like you really don't have much place on Wikipedia. My personal advice is to leave and let life take you for some time and then when you think you are ready to collaborate and start acting properly towards other people (like me, like Richyard and the Mekon and Flyingnelly), feel free to come.

Regards: Painbearer 19:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Really The Mekon don't try to reason with that brat. He just is unreasonable.

PLEASE. Just see The Mekon's talk page. And I must tell you, The Mekon is not "working with you on this article" because he really cares about it. It's just a bunch of actions since he offended a user and me trying to deffend this user.

I'm not arguing nothing against FlyingNelly. Even not to Richyard. Just against you now. Constructive edits like Mr.Scare's are the one you should had chose. And as Pedant said, you need someone who knows about the subject. I'm the only one constantly caring about the article. I'm not saying FlyingNelly or Drinky do not care about Keane, becuase they do but they don't do it as much as I on the Wikipedia. Also, I'm not talking about editing this page, I'm talking about several of The Mekon's edits in the past. But anyway, I don't care--Fluence 23:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't hide your own flaws by constantly complaining about me. Go look at my good edits, my good articles - at least I am CAPABLE of adding useful content, and I am honest about my actions. The Mekon 02:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't need you, dude. Your attempt to give yourself credit is trully pathetic. We can get the information from every fucking fan site on the web. We can go and browse if we want. Your help here is minimal. In fact you have helped very little to our work here. You have always tried to hinder it and to revert it. So, we just don't need you, dude. I want to make myself perfectly clear that WE DON'T NEED YOU. Because, we can find other people who "knows about the subject" and who are willing to collaborate, who are nice, who are well-mannered and overall kind and compassionate. You just aren't in that list of adjectives. So, we don't need you here. You can go and spoil the work of some other articles. And not to mention the fact that spoiling the article because of your personal animosity towards me is non-acceptable beforehand... Just that would be enough to block you for some time to cool off.

Regards: Painbearer 07:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They would be the right pronoun. I don't care about your opinion. You do need me.--Fluence 23:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Shut up!

Article version

From a quick look through the talk page, Fluence wants this article to be listed as featured article. An admirable ambition. The ultimate goal for all articles is to be a featured article one day. Now I have no intention of getting involved with this huge argument that seems to have been on this page for a while, but if you look at the list of featured music articles, and specifically at the articles on bands, none of them mention what kind of piano is used, or the location of the powerbook used to play back pre-recorded bass tracks. There is a reason why this article was rejected not only for featured article status, but also for good article status, and that reason is that it is not good. Now let's try to do this amicably, shall we? We work by consensus here at Wikipedia, so comments such as "I don't care about your opinion" is not only uncivil, but entirely inappropriate.--Dreaded Walrus 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Painbearer started all this. I had already reached a concensus with Mr. Scare and Pedant but Painbearer simply deleted the sections without a fair reason. The thing here is, as I've said before, what is relevant to some people, like me, might be irrelevant for other people, like you. Is virtually impossible to reach a consensus this way, I mean, we'll never agree. About the piano facts, The Beatles once was a featured article and had the information about the microphones models. So, if this is not a featured or even a good article, there is no damage including that information. I think what you want is a newspaper article, not an ecyclopedia one. So I'm reverting again. Also, I don't like either the magazine cover either at all but is the only magazine-appeareance of Keane I've been able to rescue.--Fluence 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall "reaching a concensus". I did my best to make this article make sense but you've continued to try to drag it back to the miserable state it used to be in. Endlessly reverting and comparing the utterly insignificant Keane to the greatest band ever just serves to make you look like an idiot. Shut up, Fluence. Mr. Scare 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact this article is far better than before, because that little punk Fluence finally stepped down and stopped reverting it. If you've seen it before it was very, very bad. People like Fluence are miserable little bastards and we don't need miserable little bastards working here.

Regards to Dreaded Walrus: Painbearer 08:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So, if you look at the message below's date, I wrote that before reading this. You're just encouraging me to continue. So shut up Mr. Idiot and Dreaded Bastard.--Fluence 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And, that demonstrates my first thought. Is just about Keane-hate. people like you shouldn't exist...--Fluence 21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

May I be so bold as to ask why the personal attack on me? I'm sure you're aware there is a policy regarding no personal attacks, and I would also like to remind you that I have made no such attacks against you.--Dreaded Walrus 22:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I got confused by the regards by Mr. Scare--Fluence 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to move on... with or without User Fluence

I am calling upon everybody who is in clear state of mind and has put his efforts into this article for it embetterment. I think that most reasonable editors here just cannot work in collaboration with Fluence. I call upon you guys (special mention for Mr. Scare, Flyingnelly, The Mekon, Richyard) to make concentrated attempt and turn into higher authority in order to continue with the collaborative work. It seems that the respective user Fluence just cannot collaborate with us, instead he is constantly antagonizing us and trying to hinder our work with his constant reverts. His behaviour is insulting. As you can see he is blaming us for the reverts and has a personal jab against myself. I have tried my best to overcome the situation, but Fluence doesn't want to collaborate personally with me and with other people. It is an insult for me and I personally think that user Fluence should either walk away or face the consequences for his behaviour (whatever they may be). I am calling upon user Fluence in a final personal effort to either leave us in peace to work on this article in the right manner or to start collaborating with us. I am seriously doubting however that he will listen to me, as he is constantly fucking off what I am saying to him, instead turning his words into insults and laments that we are to blame for the article stagnation. So, let us try to push that problem away and start thinking for the future.

I have to say that this is not because I have anything personal against Fluence. I am thinking more about the embetterment of the article and its future development rather this particular problem with that particular user.

Regards: Painbearer 19:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know to date who is actually on "my side", I don't specially care but, the thing here is not me who is not collaborating with you.

Painbearer, this is not about insulting or reverting, or even something against you, but more like two personal opinions.

I believe the article contains the necessary information about the band, and even, I fianlly agreed to what you first deleted, like the "worldwide popularity" or the three paragraphs on controversies. However, your opinion is very different to mine. I don't see my version causing any damage to the Wikipedia since it doesn't contain major grammar mistakes after reviewed by Mr. Scare. What you want is only a trimmed article of the band but see out there. This has been cropped and corrected. There are thousands of similar "trash" articles that aren't being corrected and stand worse than this one.

I think you think, what you are deleting are irrelevant facts for the band's article and people wouldn't find them important, so you want to make a "perfect" article. I learnt several things about Keane even before editing the article that now had been deleted so how can that not be useful?

And the point here is you, Dreaded Walrus, The Mekon and Richyard are not exactly collaborating. I know Mr. Scare agreed with the version he corrected along with an anomymous user and which Pedant commented before. So which is the right manner? You had not gave your reasons for delete the information you want, and now I mean it because you're not correcting anymore (since there's nothing to correct) but deleting. Pedant however is an authority, he is an advocate and with his neutral point of view, he just wants to make the article better.--Fluence 21:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This information is highly irrelevant for the band's article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a specific function and this is not to provide overextensive information and to be all-inclusive. I believe that Wikipedia function is to give a specific amount of information about all topics, but one that doesn't turn into textbook or manual. It shouldn't have to provide information that can be read in books or in the proper speacilised references. In that case I am staunch Exclusionist, meaning that I am most likely to scrap this information. Exclusionism is a Wikipedia philosophy that seeks to maximize the usefulness of an article by removing superfluous information like yours, taking the stance of "quality over quantity." Exclusionists are often quick to delete unreferenced or questionably neutral content. I am an Exclusionist. Most of the guys probably aren't, but I am pushing it to minimality, informatory in the same time but quality and straight-to-the point material. In this case my friend most of us are exclusionists. Which automatically means that you will lose. No, I am kidding. You won't lose. You know what I mean my friend. Don't try to be stupid and say that we are not collaborating. We are collaborating man and we are doing work. You probably don't like it. I just don't care much really. You see, you have most of us against yourself. You either are very dumb or very obstinate, but yet again charming, youngling to oppose 5 people. I am not telling who I am or what I am. I let my work speak for myself. This work includes scrapping information that is superfluous, redundant and bloated and that can be found easily on articles's references and external links. I think what I am doing is right. I think this is what Wikipedia is for. This is our goal. You are hindering our work here by your refusal to acknowledge it and this... is what what Wikipedia is not. What you cannot be done. Either back off, or face consequences.

Regards: Painbearer 22:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. see WP:NOT wikipedia is able to keep more information than a paper encyclopedia. Regardless of you labelling yourself an exclusionist: inclusion is what makes wikipedia great. It is an irrefutable fact that every word in wikipedia is there by being included and that some of what is missing, that would make wikipedia better, are facts that have been excluded. This is axiomatic. User:Pedant 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, you're being more respectful than before. I still think is neutral, I see it relevant. You don't. What are we gonna do?

I will ask you just for two things:

• Please, at least mention the fact Keane use a Yamaha CP70 and the other instruments. That goes for the fact they don't use guitar but the kind of equipment they use in order to produce the so-mentioned guitar effects.
• And please keep the music samples. There are two more of them and I don't see it causing any damage.

This is my collaboration. Think about that. I will stop reverting in order to collaborate if that's what you want. Your edits aren't that bad but it's hard to see your own work trashed as you did first to me. Goodbye--Fluence 23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I call upon the other editors to say their opinion about the current situation. I cannot say much more, except that I am little bit disappointed.

Regards: Painbearer 11:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Further breaches of civility will not be tolerated

Furthermore, though I am not as Fluence has called me, an 'authority' (my position as an Advocate is purely voluntary, a function of the Association of Member Advocates is to make it unnecessary to inflict coercive procedures on other editors. I am not a sysop or admin, and neither need nor desire any "extra powers" to insist that other editors follow Wikipedia policies.), I, as does every editor, have a right, a duty and an obligation to the project, to both assume and insist that editors are here for only one thing, to make the internet not suck, by collaborating together to make the best encyclopedia which also includes making the best article on Keane. I have no interest whatsoever in the band which is the subject of the article, however I do have a great interest in not having this pot boil over and spill out all over the wikipedia, and I will not tolerate any more of this unhelpful bickering. User:Pedant The following supersedes any other policies:

Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community.

"Newcomers are always to be welcomed. "

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

"Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. ... Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. I must not let the "squeaky wheel" be greased just for being a jerk."

--- excerpted from User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, in which our founder, Jimbo Wales also stated flatly: "...these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them. This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run, period."

User:Pedant speaking again: I insist that all editors on this article: 1)Remain civil; 2)Respect each other's differences of opinion 3)discuss the article's content and proposed changes rather than discussing how much of a jerk some other editor is being, in other words stop making personal attacks on each other; and 4)work together in a collaborative fashion.

Consider this an ultimatum: I am no big fan of the need for formal coercive processes, and I regret that it has come to this but this has gone on too long to be cute and will not be tolerated. I will make it a priority goal to see to it that any further personal attacks or disruptive discussion is punished by appropriate measures. This means each one of you. Find some means of reaching consensus without breaching civility and do it now. User:Pedant 01:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever my stance. As I said I let my edits speak for themselves. I will not brag about aknowledgement. I am perfectly aware what Wikipedia is and what it should be. I know what I am and I know what I have done. You are speaking of civilisation, but I say that at this point it is pure bullcrap. Because we have reached the point where we can't talk in a normal manner. Well, most of us here cannot talk with Fluence in a normal manner. I think that we would have come to this nevertheless, because back again a month ago, things were already incredibly ugly and when I talked to you about it, you seemed oblivious of my complaints. I am not a dumb man, but I am behind every word I say. I cannot work normally with User Fluence under those circumstances. So, you see my dear friend I am just kind of short of temper and patience around here. Because the complete disregard of my work (call it inclusionism, exlclusionism or whatever the fuck that may be) I hold my work and my dedication here in a high regard. So, you see my dear man, I am off the wagon and I just can't think how I will be able to collaborate with User Fluence. I think that I am not to blame for the article stagnation. User Fluence should learn to live without his material being chopped out. I realise it is hard to see one own's work. But this is life and life is hard, sometimes. We don't have authorship here and anyone is free edit. It is painful I know, but we are at one position and we want this. User Fluence must either back off from reverting and let us continue meaningful work or he must gulp it and start collaborate. I want to continue with the work here as I said. It is the thing that matters most for me as I said. I don't care much about this particular problem with that particular user. In my eyes (I think in the eyes of other contributors) I think that what we want is right. I think that User Fluence is disrespectful and disregarding toward other work (whatever it is) and when we tried with the best of our intentions, we just didn't get anything. So, you see I am not very content to come to this, but I think that we would have anyway. His behavior isn't the best thing you know. But, no matter. I think I am not guilty and I stand behind every word I have said thus far.

Regards: Painbearer 09:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at my edit contributions and you'll see that I recently blew my stack as well, and was altogether uncivil. However, I apologised and stopped. That's the right thing to do in these cases, just stop it and apologise, and move forward.

As I said before, I expect, and am entitled to expect civility and helpfulness to prevail here on everyone's part. Read the recent stuff you've been writing and decide for yourself if its helpful. Whoever any of you have a problem with, whoever you are, in whatever circumstances you find yourself, there's simply no justification for incivility. Here on Talk:Keane, the topic is How to improve the Keane article and if you want to talk about anything else do it some other place than here. Again, I insist, and each one of you as well should also insist on this.

If you want Fluence or Painbearer or Pedant to do somethng, convince them that it's the right thing to do. Use your reasoning skills, and if you are right, you should be able to convince everyone, otherwise you should consider why it is that you cannot persuade others that you are right. That goes for everyone involved. If you can't settle a point, discuss it more. As someone once said: "Oh, my dear little hobbits, what do we have here? You should work like team!". Or as Jimbo said "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal."

Everything else? Just get over it and move on, or fight your way through the morass of dispute resolution procedures and keep hammering on each other until some of you are blocked. Then get over it and move on. Nothing else is possible to happen: you work this out or someone else will work it out for you, and after they do, you will still, again, need to be civil and constructive.

There is no other option in the long run and in the short run your anger exists only within you, and mostly harms nobody, until it interferes with the project and at that point it is simply not tolerated and will not ever be tolerated.

Sure, everyone flies off the handle occasionally, but it is not and will not be allowed to continue.

Remember that a clear-cut case of incivility is easily recognised. Being wrong about what should or should not be in the article is less easily recognised. The former will get you blocked, the latter will not. What should be in the article is a consensus matter, everyone decides together. What happens when you lack civility is not a general consensus matter, it will be decided arbitrarily by others. Which is preferable to you? User:Pedant 10:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)