User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/15

Echoes Cool Edit

i'm sure some eyes have developed to the point whereby you can convert a amplitude waveform to a clear auditory representation, but i'm afraid the rest of us are still catching up. how on earth you could think that solely represents echoes with no frequency or time data represented is beyond me. i've removed it since a)it adds nothing to the article, plus it looks out of place, b)ripping tracks from CDs is dodgy (no way this is a fair use case), c)it is not clear that it is a representation of the track in question d) why not add an audio clip to make the same point?? Thanks. Jw2034 (talk)

Absolutely no need to be snarky. The point of the image is to represent the dynamic variation exhibited across the various sections of the piece, as has been done in some other musical articles; to explain this in words would not be reasonably possible. I argue that it is a fair use since it in no way compromises the rights of the copyright owner since it would be impossible to reconstruct the recording from the image. As for ripping tracks from CDs, where do you think most of our fair-use audio samples come from? It is asserted that it is a representation of the track in question; verification requires that to be checkable. In the same way that if I take and upload a photograph of a shopping centre anyone who wanted to verify this could simply go there and see it for themselves, verification of the "Echoes" image is obtainable by repeating the work that I did. An audio clip to show that would definitely not be fair use since it would have to be all of the piece, and indefensible. However, have your own way. I don't care. I've had enough of my work here destroyed for it not to matter any more. --Rodhull andemu 12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'd disagree with most of that but the points that it addded nothing and was meaningless stand. Perhaps if you're having many of your edits reverted you should reread Wikipedia:How to edit a page? thanks.Jw2034 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i appreciate your distinguised wikipedia career, but perhaps after all that time a re-read is in order? Jw2034 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your prompt and tireless work as AWB gatekeeper - thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, but I'm only doing my job. Good to be appreciated, however. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Paul Newman

Actually, what she said! :) It takes a death to bring out this much commotion, doesn't it? And we had done such a good job moderating the article all this time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had no idea you were a lady! However, we get this all the time with deaths, and I have nearly lost count of the times I've reverted relinking of dates. Maybe it'll quieten down a little. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 16:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to make it an issue right now, but I will likely end up challenging and removing the popular culture portion of the article. While the part about the Green Lantern can be integrated into the main article somewhere, the fact that he was mentioned in a song or a song title just doesn't seem relevant to me nor to the scope of Paul Newman's life. I'm not a huge fan of popular culture lists that try to include each and every time a celebrity's name is mentioned somewhere. I've made some efforts in that direction - limiting popular culture to specific depictions, publications, works authored, etc. I see no point in arguing it out right now, however. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, it's already been deleted a couple of times but these days I go by WP:N guidelines, and almost every famous person has a song about them by some obscure band, or a reference in The Simpsons, and I think we can live without that. --Rodhull andemu 11:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if you noticed, but the 92.8.40.83 IP with the gay sex with Robert Redford addition is probably one of the IPs in the User:Harvey Carter sock list. A traceroute for 92.8.40.83 and 92.8.51.201 are identical up to the point where the trace stops. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually notice, it was just unsourced nonsense, but 92.8... is HarveyCarter. It scarcely matters to me anyhow because by this time tomorrow, I should be all but gone from here, and indeed, anywhere. Thanks for your input, but you'll have to carry on without me. I shall be finishing off A Boxful of Treasures (album), and that will be it. --Rodhull andemu 01:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear that, it was nice to find another seemingly like-minded person on WP. There is a lot of finality in that statement. I won't ask, but I only wish you well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For approving me for AWB, it certainly makes things easier! Thank you—Ashanda (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's part of what I'm here for. --Rodhull andemu 23:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul O'Grady

hi there im edward beatan one of the editors of channel 4 the imformation we posted in wiki was correct unfortunatly mr ogrady past away less that 10 hours ago that imformation was put there to notify the general public we would ask you to refraim from removing it thankyou channel 4.

Somehow, I have serious doubts that what you say is true. For one thing, O'Grady does not work for Channel 4, and for another, television companies tend to employ people who can spell correctly. On the other hand, if you would like to be blocked for disruption, you've made an excellent start. --Rodhull andemu 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

You have blocked my Ip adress 5+ times now. I don't know if my opino offends you, or if something I do you don't like or what ever. But now that I have rememberd my password I can finally log in and explain how annoyed I am.

If you continue to abuse your power upon me, If you keep blocking me without reason I will report you for it.

Please leave me alone. And a good bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtheOwlx (talk • contribs) 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't issue blocks for no good reason. It would help if you could explain what message you see when you try to edit, as it may be you are caught in a block intended for somebody else. I see that you are interested in editing articles about the BNP; if so, you should be very aware of some of our core policies, particularly having a neutral point of view. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 04:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently my IP belongs to someone useing a bunch of sock puppets. I don't see how sock puppets have any use on this website? Yeah I do, I find it silly how it is obsessed with petty name calling and stuff. I also don't see how a party can be White nationalist, British nationalist Right wing, Ethnic nationalist and fascist all at the same time. That is impossible lol.

Sockpuppets tend to be a fact of life here, they appear for various reasons. As for what the BNP is, it's governed by what reliable sources say, and they will tend to have different labels. However, you are obviously able to edit using this account; let me know if you have any further problems. --Rodhull andemu 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I just looked at this sock puppeteer you mistaked me for. He seems to have 100's of sock's! I cannot understand why he has so many? what adsactly can this achive? Or does he just enjoy haveing a convosation with himself? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtheOwlx (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something odd happening on my user page

Can you check it out. I don't really know what to make of it. — Realist² 14:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see anything wrong with it. Can you be more specific? Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 14:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he seems to be adding names that are blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. — Realist² 14:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked him not to? It's your page, you can do that, and revert the edits. If he doesn't stop, I'll give him a warning for disruption. HTH. --Rodhull andemu 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked. — Realist² 15:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalar is back with IP's. Block time. — Realist² 19:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week for edit-warring and adding unsourced information. Another Checkuser, I think. --Rodhull andemu 19:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although it's an open and closed case. Jamalar seemed to enjoy every moment of that. When will she just ~~get lost~~ depart into the full moon nicely? — Realist² 19:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you block Jamalar please. I'll go do the clean up work. — Realist² 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yawn. --Rodhull andemu 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx buddy. Clean for now. Jamalar even left a message on my page. It's as if he doesn't care. — Realist² 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is alot of these sources come from journelists who have dedicated their lives to insulting right wing partie. Searchligh, the Mirror ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtheOwlx (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please learn how to use a talk page. Your comments mixed in with others make my work very difficult to manage. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 22:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'll clean the mess, you use the tools. — Realist² 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template for blocking a banned user

Hi, I noticed you blocked an anon following repeated edits to Gary Cooper and you noted on the talk page about it being a banned user etc. I was wondering if there is another template that could be used. The one that is used on that talk page says in part, "You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires." This is actually incorrect, as he is banned and will not be welcome. Is there another way this could be worded so as not to create a misleading impression that he will be welcome to resume business in 2 weeks? Rossrs (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a specific template for this so I've refactored the text. I'll make more helpful template. --Rodhull andemu 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{BlockBannedUser}} does the job, for future reference. --Rodhull andemu 14:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

So sorry, promise you it will not happen anymore. Sorry for the inconvinence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.141.129 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

It wasn't disruptive. It was neutral, factual, verifiable, useful and non-offencive. What more do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.27.249 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says right on the user page that we can edit it if we aren't vandalizing, and I wasn't vandalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.27.249 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page INVITES users to edit it themselves rather than bothering him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.27.249 (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point; that does not exclude reversions, and certainly not WP:POINT and WP:NPOV edits. You've made your point; I advise you to leave it. --Rodhull andemu 00:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to continue to block good-faith users, you are a detriment to the encyclopedia. Please forfeit your administrator powers for the sake of the project. Thank you. --142.162.19.109 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I have not the slightest intention of giving up my responsibility to protect the encyclopedia, and WP:RFC is elsewhere. --Rodhull andemu 11:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Rodhullandemu, is that your protecting of the encyclopedia is, in fact, doing the project harm by not letting good faith editors make improvements. --142.162.19.109 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DFTT; this conversation is over. --Rodhull andemu 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XTheOwlX

Can you please unblock my IP adress? For some reason I cannot even appeal. I accept that its a mistake and Im not your nemisis or anything lol. I really cannot understand the needs of haveing socks on this site but there you go. lol

My IP is 88.110.35.220 —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtheOwlx (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That range (88.110.0.0/17) is only blocked for anon editing, which you are not, although account creation is blocked. If you can post here, you can edit, and don't have a problem. So there is no need to unblock your IP address, as it might change the next time you connect to your ISP. Hope that helps. --Rodhull andemu 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

watchlist

Hi Rod, could you watchlist M.I.A. (artist) with me, very prone to vandalism, POV and racial edits. Probably due a spell of semi protecting at some point. — Realist² 13:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'll protect if it starts getting unreasonable. --Rodhull andemu 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block question

Can you tell me about this block? I watched several edits this user made and I commented about lack of edit summaries, but I am interested in knowing how to draw the sock conclusion. It would save time in the future if I knew what I was looking for. Thanks! Frank | talk 16:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this guy for over six months. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992; he's the Energizer bunny and just isn't getting the message. He usually edits infoboxes of UK actors/actresses in soap operas, making minor (non-)improvements. The full list of his types of targets is on the Category Talk page. It would be great if he were spotted earlier, but I can't watchlist them all! Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Frank | talk 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: would you suggest reverting these changes? Frank | talk 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually revert the lot because although there may be one or two good ones, most are not. If you have the "revert all" button, can you do it, otherwise I'll go through them all?--Rodhull andemu 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks.[reply]

Done. Frank | talk 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the odds?

What are the odds, my mortal enemy Bsrboy has the same IP range as Jamalar. — Realist² 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at it in detail, it's worth looking into, but 86..... is a huge UK range. It's sleeptime for me now, and I'll look at it tomorrow. If I wake up. --Rodhull andemu 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalar's IP range is very specific. Jamalar uses 86.25 and 86.29 according to User:Spellcast. — Realist² 23:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't edit similar articles, Bsrboy was into Devon and school related articles if I remember. However this is conclusive evidence that I do not mix well with people from that range. :-) — Realist² 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goodtimesevwr aka Jamalar. — Realist² 16:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown her the door; again. Can you do the reverts, I'm in the middle of something? Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverts already taken care of. :-) Noticed you have your own sock problem. Cheers — Realist² 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's a pest. He creates a new account each day so I've had to block account creation on his IP ranges. Ugh! --Rodhull andemu 17:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch this, Jamalar is trying to return. — Realist² 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Back

Here are proof of the two dance covers of Get Back:

http://www.discogs.com/release/239371

http://www.discogs.com/release/568343

Tardis32 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then they can be added to the article, if they are notable. --Rodhull andemu 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable?

Tardis32 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs is the most accurate music release site on the internet. The two releases exist, do you doubt that or the site's accuracy? They are "notable" as Beatles fans should take note of all the covers of the song, not just the most popular ones.

Tardis32 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some other user undid it again. I don't get this notable or non-notable crap. If this is a wikipedia page about the song Get Back, why repress facts because of some wikipedia notable rule? I thought this site liked to show facts about things. Why should two cover songs of Get Back be hidden from others' knowledge?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardis32 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are an encyclopedia, and a core policy is to include only the notable; this explains what some of the limits are on content. If your versions of Get Back charted in Italy, then they are probably notable, and can be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, chances are thin that they would be accepted, as you have found. --Rodhull andemu 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nicolosi Brothers (people behind Cockroach) are notable

Well, the Amen Corner cover that you have listed did not chart. Also, the Cockroach cover I noted was produced by the Nicolosi Brothers. The Nicolosi Brothers also produced for Sting, Stanley Jordan, Billy Preston, and Jan Hammer, all of who are very notable and have Wikipedia pages. The Nicolosi Brothers are also listed on their most successfully produced and created artist's wikipedia page, Valerie Dore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Dore

They are not hyperlinked on that page though. As you can see on her page, Valerie Dore had 6 charting singles in 5 different countries. Their own successful group, Novecento, had at least 5 charting singles, and have released over 10 albums. Here is the Nicolosi Brothers webiste: http://www.nicolosiproductions.com/index1.htm

I'd say the Nicolosi produced Cockroach cover of Get Back, is much more notable than the entirely obscure artist known as Amen Corner, who didn't have as many albums or charting singles as the Nicolosi Brothers were responsible for.

So, you know where my question is obviously leading: why is the Amen Corner cover listed, and not the Cockroach version? I can see if the E. Layne cover is not, as she is rather obscure Italian singer who only had about 4 singles, none of them charting, but the Nicolosi artist Cockroach really is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardis32 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Speight

Hi, would you be able to give the article a thorough look over? I've been asked to get people to help with it, since I apparently can't see any mistakes with it. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I have some other stuff to do right now but I'll get back to it shortly. --Rodhull andemu 14:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scott Mills Show Peer Review

Hi there.

Please could you review The Scott Mills Show? I've been working on this article for a while and thought it needs improving so I've asked for a peer review here.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsbury's

Fair enough. It's the truth though. I happen to know the pay rates for a night shift at Sainsburys. £5.70 an hour. Can you HONESTLY say that's not criminal?? That's slave labour. Now, I'm not some kind of activist but I do believe given the current financial climate that is piss poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obeyyourmind (talk • contribs) 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth taking a look at neutrality policy here. Your own opinions are not considered encyclopedic. In fact all retailers must comply with the National minimum wage, which is about to increase, if only marginally. --Rodhull andemu 15:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus yet?

What you think? — Realist² 17:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear which way it's going, but it is a major change and to be fair to editors who may not have seen the discussion yet, I'd prefer to leave it for the usual five days. For one thing, if you look at the change in WP:MOSNUM about wikilinking dates, it's clear that some editors aren't aware of it, although I haven't seen any edit-warring over it. Better to be cautious, perhaps, with such a far-reaching change. --Rodhull andemu 17:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firbeck Club

What do you know about Parkhill Social Club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.232.163 (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all. But what YOU know about it needs to be reliably sourced. This is an encyclopedia, remember? --Rodhull andemu 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Strawberry Fields Forever - peer review

Hello again. Firstly, I think it would be better to use a more established article than Video Killed the Radio Star as an example. I don't think "Strawberry Fields" has enough covers, frankly, to warrant its own section or sub-section. It could be mentioned, maybe as a paragraph, in the "Promotion and Reception" section, but I don't think that it's covered enough by notable artists for its own section. Still, mention of covers should be included to be considered "comprehensive". Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 02:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Speight

Hi, you commented on the (failed) FAC; please can you help me out by leaving some feedback at peer review? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll take a look at it. I've just read through the FAR and it seems that mostly the style is in issue. Shame about the lack of a free image. --Rodhull andemu 18:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just read on your user page "A computer once beat me at chess, but was no match for me at kick boxing." - It made me laugh :) That's all I wanted to say really! jenuk1985 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davros Connections

Thank you for fixing my reference for the Davros article on the Juggernauts. I know it is true as I have the DVD myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.160.31 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, as long as it's verifiable, it can go in. --Rodhull andemu 18:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "less stringent" proposal

Re: Genre fields. Any time frame on "making it so, Number One?" Wiki alf was "giving it 3 days" about 6 days ago. How long is long enough for this sort of thingamajigger? I can't wait to see a bot steamrolling that field out of all those pages...smiling as he types I can't even guess how pages that means? Thousand and thousands and thousands (he says in his best Carl Sagan accent) The Real Libs-speak politely 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of giving it five days, which seems to be the normal sort of timescale, to gave all interested editors a chance to chip in; however it does seem to be fairly clear so far. One thing I need to check is whether we actually need a bot to do this, because the infoboxes aren't subst'd and I think that removing the genre field will have an immediate knock-on effect, and I want to make sure that isn't going to break the Wiki. I'm pretty confident it won't, but I would like to check on WP:VPT first. If I get a helpful response, I aim to make the changes tomorrow. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Greetings Rodhullandemu. I've gone and put my foot in it by requesting another editor to stop gaming the system. It then occurred to me that there might be a Wikipedia article on that very issue, which of course there is. And another one on stuffing beans up one's nose... Could I ask you to keep an eye out on things and/or advise me on how to get back on course. Please. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it quickly, I don't think it's worth sweating over. The point at issue should deserve a citation or be removed, no matter who put it there or how long ago. There's nothing to stop you retracting your comments just be deleting them with an appropriate edit summary; we all change our minds in the light of fresh evidence- unless I've missed something? --Rodhull andemu 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. Will mull things over. In the meantime... Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've checked the RIAA database, and both versions are certified Platinum, so it isn't possible to say which sold more because they don't issue more detailed figures. --Rodhull andemu 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking!--Technopat (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the above centers on the Meco article and the claim that Meco's Star Wars soundtrack outsold John Williams' original soundtrack. In any case, if the RIAA database isn't sufficient to lay the matter to rest, would you know other possible sources which might present a quotable statement about this? __meco (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't of know any site that gives more detailed figures than RIAA; the natural alternative would be the artists' own record labels, which would hardly be regarded as unbiased. And of course the RIAA only counts (as far as I know) US sales; apart from that, I would think it would need to be in the Guinness Book of Records/Hit Singles, but then, they tend to only consider UK sales. I don't know any reliable site that collates global sales. --Rodhull andemu 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this claim isn't made up I would think it must have figured in the media, showbiz or record industry. Would Billboard magazine or some other periodical be a source to check out, do you think? __meco (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent: I don't know that much about US sources, but AFAIK, Billboard only maintains charts from sales, radio plays, and now downloads; I would doubt its authority on sales figures overall; in general, for a track that is over 30 years old, I would assume that anyone who was measuring sales has long since ceased to do so, unless it's an enduring classic. I spent a little while earlier Googling and managed to limit a search to 5000 sites, most of which could be discounted as mirrors, blogs or otherwise unreliable. In the absence of an authoritative source, it seems that the best we can say is that both went platinum as far as RIAA is concerned and leave it at that. The alternative would be to go through contemporary (pre-Internet) pop journals, and to be honest, is it feasible or worth the effort? Sorry I can't be more helpful, but this appears to be an unproductive backwater. --Rodhull andemu 22:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it's worth it ;-) There's no hurry here obviously. Yes, I was in fact thinking of pre-Internet publications. I don't mind spending a little time in public libraries, however, being from Norway, the most relevant publications would perhaps be hard to find here at all. Your assistance is appreciated all the same. __meco (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's often infuriating to me too, when I *know* something for sure but can't cite it for an article because I can't lay my hands on a source. I have, in storage, a huge quantity of material about pop and rock music, but again, it is not available to me at present. Also, I live in a small town with an inadequate library, which is very frustrating.

Det er ofte meget irriterende for meg også, når jeg * vet * noe for sikker, men kan ikke sitere den for en artikkel, fordi jeg ikke kan legge hendene mine på en kilde. Jeg har, i lagringsplass, en enorm mengde materiale om pop og rock musikk, men igjen, det er ikke tilgjengelig for meg i dag. Også, jeg bor i en liten by med en utilstrekkelig biblioteket, som er svært frustrerende. --Rodhull andemu 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide a better version and if you are interested in the Norwegian language, you might find an interesting point or two:

Det er ofte meget irriterende for meg også, når jeg * vet * noe helt sikkert men ikke kan sitere det i en artikkel fordi jeg ikke fysisk kan legge hendene på en kilde. Jeg har lagret en enorm mengde materiale om pop- og rockemusikk, men som sagt, det er ikke tilgjengelig for meg i dag. For øvrig bor jeg i en liten by med et utilstrekkelig bibliotek, noe som er svært frustrerende.

:-) __meco (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template follow-up

Huzzah! its done. However. Can you go to the actual template page and rm the "how to format the genre field" section from the "how to" sections in the template instructions. I have gone ahead and rm'd them from the /doc page. Thanks. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only done {{Infobox musical artist}} so far, just to be sure there's no fallout, but I'll update the instructions now. --Rodhull andemu 13:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that when I click on some of the band pages the genre field still shows up? Their used to be a "template version 1". Could this code still be kicking around and causing the genre field to be grasping by its fingernails? The Real Libs-speak politely 13:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the currently cached page still has the old version of the template, that's what you'll see until the cache is purged. It'll work itself out in time. I'll also take a look at variants of the template. --Rodhull andemu 13:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a "clear data" from my browser but a few still showed up. But now... yes... you are right it is going bye bye. So now... hmmm... the song/single boxes.... how about... say.... December 1st for their genre fields ;-D... I know, I know... patience grasshopper :) . The Real Libs-speak politely 13:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good; I'll do the album infobox later; as for the songs, there would need to be a separate consensus for that as there is a stronger case to be made for retaining the genre field. That, I think, could begin in about a week's time. --Rodhull andemu 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to get a clear consensus on it. I have my buddy East718 blocking IPs daily over song genre edit wars. Some of them are just foolish and stupid. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artist box is looking mighty fine. When were you planning on sweeping the battlefield away from the album box? So far there has ony been one whiner on any of the music related talk pages and... guess what.... you're right... it was a genre field warrior who complained. We should have done this a year and a half ago :) . The Real Libs-speak politely 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (3rd nomination)

Have you not seen this? — Realist² 17:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have. Not sure what to do with it as it's not transcluded onto the AfD page. Obviously as an editor I have an interest so I can't revert it myself. Do you want to bring it up on WP:AN? --Rodhull andemu 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be pulled down as a clear bad faith nomination, none of his reasoning's are legitimate reasons for AfD. I will take to AN but actually no-one ever listens to me over there. — Realist² 18:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly disagree with his reasons, they are not based in policy, but as it stands, it's not a proper AfD since he hasn't complied with the listing requirements. I'll start an WP:AN thread.--Rodhull andemu 18:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I done one, feel free to add them together. :-) — Realist² 18:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason my connection is playing up and not fully loading pages, but I've added a comment there. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 18:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Genres

Yeah, I know. I was simply taking 10 minutes pleasure in deleting the pesky things. Labour-intensive, but made me happy :) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it seems to be working out well so far; I was expecting the Spanish Inquisition. --Rodhull andemu 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High five!! ~~No more~~ less genre wars! I think this is the first time I've helped change policy on wikipedia. — Realist² 00:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far. It needed doing. I sleep now. --Rodhull andemu 00:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afd for Honorific titles in popular music

I knew when I supported your WP:RFA that you knew what you were doing. Heartwarming. Now, if you ever visit the UK, count me in as a free guide. --Rodhull andemu 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! When I saw the new message alert and then saw in my watchlist it was for an AfD, I was a bit worried. I've been a bit IAR on the "oh for the love of common sense" side of things. There are some that *really* don't need 5 days. I'll definitely consult you for travel ideas the next time I'm in the UK. Have a good evening. And on an unrelated and not copied from my own talkpage note, love your vandal warning. TravellingCari 00:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help! (film)

Hi. Well, I'm still here plugging away and , in fact, just passed my 2500th edit mark. LOL. I have no ambitions (like some) to be King Editor. Anyway, I can't say that I've done "alot" of edit work on Help! but what I felt ought to be. Keep the synopsis section under control and, yes, I think it could stand for a "good article" citation; such as I understand these deeper technical aspects of the Wiki world. I just add or subtract and leave the arcanery to my betters. However, what I notice about the synopsis is that people seem to want to over-detail it. Keep it pruned and it'll be OK. Cheers--Phyllis1753 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why??

Why did you revert my work on Peter Kay? It is his new show!!

Cite? And if it hasn't happened yet, he can't be notable for it. --Rodhull andemu 18:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it exists, but it did look like what we call, in technical language "a load of bollocks"; strictly shouldn't be in the lead because it hasn't happened yet: WP:CRYSTAL. --Rodhull andemu 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh it is a weird name for a show lol. Oh right sorry about that didnt know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.141.226 (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the warnings on the basis of my misunderstanding; sorry about that. --Rodhull andemu 18:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did everybody suddenly find some new, common sense altering drug?

I am absolutely blown away by the sheer "ignorance of grace" that Wiki music pages have had for the last 36 hours. I have said this in the past... and there are numerous side conversations about the subject... how on Earth did user:journalist ever become an admin. I have seen his abuse of the mop many times in the past. Coupled with one of the worst attitudes I have ever come across in 4+ years of editing... that he has not been de-sysop'd many times over actually surprises me more than the crybaby whining over the missing genre field. I know long term IP vandals who have a better character than this guy??? At least the vandals are predicatable. This guy's snit over the missing field has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion at all. A few months ago he proposed a new field for the infobox... and before any discussion had taken place... he went ahead and created his own personal Infobox for his own personal use... and got all snippy and ignorant when the eventual overwhelming consensus rejected his new field suggestion and everyone cried foul on his personal POV infobox... he stormed off in a snit and has never returned to th music project to take part in any other conversations.(he never took part in any before either.. other than trying to steamroll his POV infobox down everyone's wiki-throat) He blocks editors whose opinions go against his own... he abuses his create/delete tools to serve his own purpose... he violates WP:CIVIL so often I don't think he knows it exists... between the loud, but still minority, genre field whining and his added in attitude to boot... this has been one of the most frustrating days I have had in a long long time. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only gets worse. What exactly is the procedure for having the tools taken away from someone who is displaying such a me-me-me ignorant uncivil anti-Wikipedian attitude? He may have deserved/earned the toolbox at one time. But apparently he seems to have sat on his toolbox too hard and will now have to have it surgically removed from his "brain cavity" The Real Libs-speak politely 12:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that bad (and I haven't had time to look into it in depth), you'd need to open an WP:RFC and see what he has to say. If he's criticised for abuse of Admin tools, it can then go to Arbitration, and the ArbCom could desysop him. It's not so obvious and gross conduct that they'd do it without some dispute resolution first. --Rodhull andemu 12:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate red tape. But I will observe. Abuse of tools would be an obvious no-no. He did a little of that when he created his little personal POV infobox and then rv'd any user who tried to correct his box and also used threatening "un-admin-like" blocky-blocky tones against them. At that time I had concerns that he was using a sockpuppet because there was another account that was mirroring Orange's edits on several of the same pages he was trying to push his POV box into. But I believe that second account was eventually blocked for NPAs and other uncivil disruptions.(not that Orange doesn't have any of those vios in his current modus operandi) His sh*tty attitude has not gone unnoticed by other users at the WPP:MUSIC talk page as I see he has been officially "called out" and asked to politely shut-up this morning. Wesley Dodds has been extremely civil in all of his unproductive pleas to keep his favourite field. He is a genre warrior himself but he is extrememly discreet about it and usually hides behind his alternative rock project discusions as a back-up. Even if the articles in question aren't alternative rock pages. There have been a lot of oddball posts showing up on that talk page from editors who haven't edited a music article in several months (if at all) It's becoming a bit of an RCU nightmare trying to figure out who's legit and who's a "drawer-mate" The Real Libs-speak politely 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The words of a trustworthy admin? Petty, childish, ignorant, Anti-wikipedia... there aren't enough adjectives to describe how foolish he is getting. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be Black Hole Sun

WOW did he ever bust a gasket. Just letting you know he also edits under the accounts User:Superunknown and User:Fell on Black Days (he has admitted to them on both my talk page and on admin East718's talk page as well) Perhaps as admitted socks they should get the boot as well? Just thought you'd like to know. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll deal with them. Re User:Journalist, I'm still thinking about that, although he does seem to have calmed down a little. --Rodhull andemu 14:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and unblocked based on the good faith assumption that it was his brother who had gained control of the account. Hope that's ok. –xeno (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rian13

Hi, just letting you know that it looks like Rian13 (talk · contribs) is continuing to avoid his/her block via the IP 82.46.178.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP has continued with the problematic edits that got Rian13 blocked (e.g., replacing free images with copyright images [1] and adding replaceable copyright images to BLPs [2]). --Muchness (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another three months in the cooler. --Rodhull andemu 13:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block needed

Hi Rodhullandemu, your name came up top on the block log. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore and indef blocking Bilodeauzx (talk · contribs)? Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done same old, same old. --Rodhull andemu 14:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll tag etc. Darkspots (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiscali rangeblock

Would there be any danger in making your rangeblock on that Tiscali range used by WJH1992 a soft block so users can at least create an account? That's a pretty big range, and there's already two unblock requests from IPs: here and here. Blueboy 96 16:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can try it, but the last time it was soft-blocked WJH1992 created new accounts daily. I'll give it a go. --Rodhull andemu 17:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Rodhull andemu 17:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you might be right--that account was created within two minutes of 88.110.159.162 being allowed to edit. Is the hard rangeblock already restored? I would think at this point, it's time to call Mike Godwin. Blueboy 96 20:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't restored it yet and will see how it goes. I've given up on Tiscali doing anything, they just don't seem to be getting it. Not sure Mike would want to be bothered with this however, all he could do is write to Tiscali setting out what they already know. Leave it with me. --Rodhull andemu 20:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an abuse report here: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/88.109.x.x range and 88.110.x.x range and 88.111.x.x range --Rodhull andemu 21:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the genre-field discussion ....

heya Rodhullandemu - is there any way to "freeze" the now-obsolete discussions that preceded the current RfC about the genre field in the info-boxes? i see people keep haplessly adding "votes" to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Less_stringent_proposal_by_Rodhullandemu despite the labels on it stating that that discussion is over now, so i wonder if archiving it isn't in order. i could try to nudge those folks (on their talk pages) to chime in on the current RfC discussion instead, but it would no doubt be easier to get them (and others) to do that if the earlier discussions were esconced in some kind of brightly coloured "don't edit this, it's an archive" scenario. sorry to trouble you with it, but since the main part of that now-closed discussion is the section you created for your noble less-stringent version, it didn't seem right to ask anyone else. thanks and swing on ... Sssoul (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's now gone to RFC, I'll put an archive box round that bit, thanks. --Rodhull andemu 21:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you - that looks very nice. 8) and on second thought i reckon it's more prudent to leave it to those latecomers to find the RfC for themselves. swing on Sssoul (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones WikiProject Now Open!

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles' filmography

Thanks for your suggestion. I don't have a lot of time right now (I am in the middle of a huge project with rapidly approaching deadlines), but I went ahead and created a short Wikipedia article for "The Beatles at Shea Stadium." I didn't have time to make it very comprehensive. I can add more at a later date, although I suspect a number of other people editing the article will greatly improve it. MCB/Boulder 10/11/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.195.177 (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scream/Childhood

If you have time could you copy edit this. I have a lecture today and a seminar to prepare for, I'm a little busy in real life this week. I'll be checking in every few hours or so though, briefly. — Realist² 11:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Mind your langauge. Spaek the queen's english if you will. --140.203.12.243 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you will spell and punctuate it correctly, and learn how to read sources. --Rodhull andemu 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

make that 3

I mistakenly also edited that he was dead until I noticed the difference in name 3 minutes later and fixed it. Oops. Chergles (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easily done. A better source would help. --Rodhull andemu 21:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it like to be an admin? I don't think I want to be one but I'm curious to how it's like. Does it take away time from editing? Or have admin run out of ideas so it's a way to keep active in WP? Do you become angry at people? Do you like being an admin? Chergles (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Abuse reports/88.109.x.x range and 88.110.x.x range and 88.111.x.x range

Can you post specific examples of vandalism as you see them so that I can have recent dates and times of the incidents, Thanks «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I reverted your edits because the justification you gave me was not only a WIKIPEDIA article but a red linked wikipedia article. --140.203.12.240 (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your manner disgusts me. You justified yourself inappropriately as I've explained above. It isn't very civil of you to insult my profession and those of my colleagues. You quite clearly do not avoid upsetting other editors. I should hope you are not an administrator. --140.203.12.240 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit was unprofessional in the least. --140.203.12.240 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be professional? I don't get paid to edit here, and you are a disruptive troll. --Rodhull andemu 15:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Amy Winehouse

This response makes my super secret "that was funny" list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We aim to please. --Rodhull andemu 15:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe the Plumber

Has been recreated. Grsz ^X 02:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Coogan

Ok thats fair enough Rodhullandemu,i will always try to give accurate information to Wikipedia as I respect and like your organisation and its purpose.However,although my comments on Steve Coogan may not be deemed acceptable for Wikipedia,they are infact the general concensus for many that attended his concerts at the Liverpool Echo Arena recently.For such a high entrance fee,the quality of the performance was not considered acceptable.I hope you will allow that opinion to be reflected in your Wikipedia page.Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.39.126 (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a reliable third-party source for that. --Rodhull andemu 11:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion

I can't guarantee 100%. But I would bet you a shiny nickel that Russian Airplay (talk · contribs) is perma blocked Be Black Hole Sun. I have suspicions of others who are not quite so obvious and will take time to nab. But that account is either BBHS or it is someone sitting beside him following his instructions :D . The Real Libs-speak politely 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some similarity, yes. I'll keep an eye out. --Rodhull andemu 11:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd be willing to up my ante to a dime... maybe even a quarter. The more he edits... the higher my bet :D. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Be Black Hole Sun has now been unblocked, so it remains to be seen whether this is an alternate account or someone else. --Rodhull andemu 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Airplay stopped editing at 10:37 local time. And BBHS started up at 10:40 local time. My guess is that we won't see Mr. Airplay again. It was pretty clear it was him. And, that being said, he was technically side-stepping his block. Regardless of whether he has been re-instated. I don't think he planned to honour any Wikipedia punishments and was going to edit.. block or no block. Many issues this person has. Aside from NPA, CIVIL, 3RR etc. WP:OWN applies to specific articles. But for BBHS I think it applies to his attitude towards Wikipedia as a whole :-D . The Real Libs-speak politely 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Well, the unblocking admin seems to have accepted the story about the brother accessing his account, and so as long as that account (RA) remains dormant from now on, I'd be inclined to be lenient and let it pass. If he's going to break the rules, I guess he'll do it sooner rather than later, given his history. That's when the permanent banhammer is more likely to stick. --Rodhull andemu 14:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I did not notice this thread prior to unblocking him. Nevertheless he does seem to make valuable contributions for the most part, so let's hope the good outweighs the bad. –xeno (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, my comments above. --Rodhull andemu 14:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he were put on under a strict 1RR sanction that would keep him out of trouble forever :D . That would be the good that would outweigh the bad :-D . The Real Libs-speak politely 14:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but WP:1RR is voluntary or an Arbcom restriction. Let's see how it pans out, but his block record is, er, unhelpful to him. --Rodhull andemu 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my explanation on this same subject. Canniba loki 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I was saying... Canniba loki 17:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that saves us an WP:SSP and possibly checkuser. Let's see if he sticks with BBHS. --Rodhull andemu 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just issued a duck block to encourage that... –xeno (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mvdbase.com

Hi.

Quick question. Is mvdbase.com a reliable source? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 11:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the content is largely self-submitted, so will tend to suffer bias; also, it's been going for ten years and has only 56,000 entries, so can't be complete. I'd say use it but only if you can't source it elsewhere. You may get a more informed response at WP:RSN. --Rodhull andemu 11:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reliable sources for all the music directors except for Dom and Nic. I can't find a complete list of their Supergrass music videos anywhere except for the odd video and an incomplete list, such as the company they are signed to, Oil Factory. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it; it's only likely to be a problem if someone contests it. I don't have a problem with it. --Rodhull andemu 13:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterfield article

Hey, ive just checked out a recent revert of an edit to the chesterfield article. You've reverted a good external link, because of a breach of copyright? Could you explain this please. Lunchscale ^Talk! ^Contrib! 16:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, neither Google Maps nor Kiano.net have licensed use of the maps for anything other than personal use, so I'm not satisfied that it's an appropriate link within Wikipedia:El#Restrictions_on_linking. If you can show otherwise, fine, but that still brings its encyclopedic value into question; how many other articles have lists of telephone boxes, for example? --Rodhull andemu 16:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read on the Google Maps Terms of Use, 'For business users, Google Maps is made available for your internal use only and may not be commercially redistributed, except that map data may be accessed and displayed by using the Google Maps API pursuant to the API terms and conditions.' The use of this map is perfectly legal and does not breach any copyrights.Lunchscale ^Talk! ^Contrib! 16:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you're happy with it. I tend to err on the side of caution where copyright is concerned. That doesn't address whether it's a type of link we should have; my feeling is that it's OK for TravelWiki, but perhaps not here. --Rodhull andemu 16:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't mind. Leave it as it is, and wait for the author to get in contact. Lunchscale ^Talk! ^Contrib! 16:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles album sequence

You might want to take a look at the specification for this template here. We don't include compilations. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 18:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take this to mean disrespect, as I know you have worked hard on the various Beatles articles, but I do have a question. Since when have compilations been excluded from the sequence, and, more importantly, why? Is this why Hey Jude is no longer listed in the US sequence between Abbey Road and Let It Be? I know that you are from Britain, but I should tell you that in America Hey Jude was never considered a compilation album. It was released as, and it was received as, "the next Beatles album." Although all of the tracks on it had been previously released, with the exception of "I Should Have Known Better" and "Can't Buy Me Love" (which had only appeared on the United Artists soundtrack album) none of the songs on Hey Jude had appeared on an album in America. I'm not sure that it is wise to exclude compilation albums from the sequence, but I'll accept Wikipedia's decision on that. However, I think it is absolutely misleading to not include Hey Jude in the American sequence, as it was not viewed as a compilation album at the time. (By the way, per your request, I did create a Wikipedia entry called "The Beatles at Shea Stadium." It does needs more work, however. If I get an opportunity, I'll try to revise and improve it.) MCB/Boulder 10/16/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.195.177 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember that the Template:Infobox album is used on thousands of articles within the Albums project. As such, consensus has previously been reached to include only "mainstream" releases by artists. To change that, you would have to start a thread on the project's talk page. You could always ask for comments as to whether the "Hey Jude" album is considered to be a mainstream US release rather than a compilation (which it would have been had it been released in the UK). I'll take a look at the "Beatles at Shea Stadium" article. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 19:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I do want to point out, however, that Hey Jude is a compilation album that was released in Britain. Parlophone issuied it, I think, in 1979, which would have been nine years after it came out in the USA. In many ways, it parallels Magical Mystery Tour, which was also considered a "mainstream" release in the US, even though side two consisted of nothing but previously-issued singles. Magical Mystery Tour came out in the UK in album form in 1976 (which was also nine years after its release in America), and it would certainly be considered a compilation album in the Britain. So, what passes as a compilation album in Britain sometimes counts as a "mainstream" album in America."

Incidentally, there was logic to releasing Magical Mystery Tour and Hey Jude in Britain, and I think a lot of people were disappointed that they, and A Collection of Beatles Oldies, were not included in the 1978 Beatles boxed set. If one owned the thirteen "mainstream" British albums, as well as A Collection of Beatles Oldies, Rarities, Magical Mystery Tour, and Hey Jude, one would own every studio song recorded by the Beatles, although alternate versions of "Love Me Do," "Get Back" and "Let It Be" would be missing. Of course, one could have dispensed with A Collection of Oldies, Magical Mystery Tour, and Hey Jude and still had the entire song collection by picking up The Beatles/1962-1966 and The Beatles/1967-1970, and had the alternaten versions of "Get Back" and "Let It Be" (but not "Love Me Do") as well. MCB/Boulder, 10/17/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.176 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cowell

...so you'd rather leave the real facts untold? It took me less than a minute to find the sources, even though I knew them anyway. It's not a big deal, Rodhullandemu, and I do like your preamble here in this discussion page above. Ok, apologies for being a bit sharp, but I did think the reader should know about it. We are all in this together as Wikipedians, aren't we? Dieter Simon (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree totally, but it's not about truth here, it's about verifiability. We have to live with it. --Rodhull andemu 00:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cilla Black

Quite agree with your ref template. Whole article needs an overhaul. I stumbled across it via, bizarrely, the John Birt entry. which is somewhat similarly challenged. Must rush off now to catch Lidl before it shuts. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key your eyes open

The two week range block on Jamalar's Ip's (that User:Spellcast activated) recently expired and Jamalar is back editing. — Realist² 18:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 55h for now. Let's see if it flares up again. --Rodhull andemu 18:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci. Looks like her main account won't be unblocked anytime soon with this attitude. — Realist² 19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coogan

The way the sentence is structured ie 'mixed reviews in Liverpool...the Liverpool post thought it was awful' projects 'mixed' as being negative - to shoehorn in the Blackburn review implies that too was negative when actually it was nothing of the sort. The Liverpool audience did abuse Coogan on the basis of his Mancunian background - has been discussed on TV and radio reviews, a reliable source should be available somewhere. and how can a theatre review site with mixed +/- reviews be a 'fansite'? 81.96.248.32 (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mixed reviews" should cover the whole tour and that is why the Blackburn review should offset the others in that context. The review site did not seem to be authored by experts in theatre, rather by almost anyone, hence failing WP:RS. Remember we are dealing with a WP:BLP issue here and should be careful choosing both our sources and our wording. --Rodhull andemu 23:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre field in musical artist infobox

The consensus for removal was there because of lack of input from a wider audience. It is obvious from the discussion at Wikiproject Music that there is now no consensus for the change. Can you restore the Genre field? --Dodo bird (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into a ping-pong match on this and would prefer to let the dust settle; however, I would agree that at present it seems there is considerable resistance to the change. On the basis that process was perhaps flawed, I'll restore the field in both templates until Wesley's proposal has been fully discussed. --Rodhull andemu 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esotericist Legalism

Please excuse me for listing Oppenheimer's robbery-conquest theory of state on the robbery page. You say robbery doesn't apply to real property--then what is the right term for such stealing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've always understood it, land cannot be stolen, so cannot be the subject of robbery. In such circumstances, other offences will probably be committed. Within a political sphere, there are possibly war crimes, but I don't see the criminal law being otherwise applicable. --Rodhull andemu 16:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (and most people) don't understand what you are talking about. "Land cannot be stolen"--What? This is extreme legalese esoterism. If some criminal maniac or bandit and his henchmen invade my home, throw out my family, and occupy my house and land, you say that is not a form of robbery? What the heck is it then? "Politics"?

Is this discussion revealing indirectly the Nietzschean basis of international politics and its tendency to obscure its own Darwinian cynical violence through verbal-legalistic obscurantism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article is about a criminal offence. At common law, from which both UK and US law derive, land could not be stolen because of the requirement for "asportation", a physical removal of the property. See the Theft Act 1968, section 4. You are talking about "common parlance", and I am talking about what the criminal law SAYS. Could you sign your posts in future, please, because the resultant edit conflicts are annoying? Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, according to strict legalitarianism, what is the precise lawyerly term for the scenario described above, where a individual or gang violently appropriate one's home, land, etc.? Everyone knows "official" government tyrants like G. Khan, Stalin and Hitler were nothing but bandit-gangsters in power, so why not describe their violent conquests as robbery? Do we really have to describe their activities as "war crimes" instead of what they really are, robberies? It is well to call it a "war crime" when an organized aggressive government does it, but what is it called when the criminal and his gang are non-governmental, non-sovereign actors? Under what violation of law can the private invader and occupier of one's home and land be prosecuted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.196.182 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most jurisdictions have some concept of "aggravated trespass". --Rodhull andemu 18:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate the problem of moral imagination here--

How would you describe, in legal terms, the early medieval attacks of Viking war-bands (proto-gangsters) in France and Europe (or Hungarian marauders in Eastern Europe)? In many cases what would happen is that peaceful, unoffending French and English families and communities were simply murderously annihilated in blitzkrieg massacres, and their homes and lands violently stolen by these Viking brigands-turned-aristocrats on the Machiavellian legal basis of the "right of conquest" (i.e. jungle-law, successful gangsterism). If you were a lawyer of the Carolingian king at the time, how would you designate the prosecutable offenses? Does "aggravated trespass" really summarize the extent of the evil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.129 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I gave up doing history homework in 1968. This discussion is rapidly going off-topic, and ends here. And you're still not bothering to sign your posts, which is most annoying. Good evening to you. --Rodhull andemu 20:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You insolently say this discussion "ends here" as if the other speaker was somehow being coercive, when the person was just trying to illustrate a point--there is no moral difference between robbery of personal property and other forms of robbery. It is unfortunate that bad manners are so prominent in this day and age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my talk page; I am permitted to manage it pretty much as I like. That's policy and practice here. If I wanted to discuss it further, I would, but I don't. I suggest if you have issues to discuss about the jurisprudence and politics of Robbery, that you take them to Talk:Robbery. As regards "insolently", I refer you to WP:CIVIL; that is policy. --Rodhull andemu 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rv of Talk Page Blanking

My mistake. Even after I learnt that users are allowed to blank their talk pages after they read the warnings, reverting it has been a bad habit of mine. ~ Troy (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, it's somewhat disputed whether IPs are allowed to do this, but he's on an extended break anyhow. --Rodhull andemu 23:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I deleted had nothing to do with the article in the discussion page it was on. It was political propaganda that did not serve to clarify fact or even opinion pertaining to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Wikipedia policy even states that discussion pages are for discussion of articles and not for general topic discussions. 90.212.197.170 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at cunnilingus

Regarding your recent revert—I'm not sure what your rationale was, since the only message you left was "try harder." But anyway, I removed that item because the source for it was pretty shoddy (I mean, the usage example it gives is a joke from a movie); I don't know anything about that particular website, but it doesn't look like a reliable source to me. The only other place I saw the word "cunnilinguist" defined was at Urban Dictionary, which, again, is not a reliable source. I have never seen that word used except as a joke (ie, "we're cunning linguists!") and I don't see any encyclopaedic value in keeping that in the article. If you have a moment, could you please explain to me if I'm missing something here? Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a reliable source for its usage within a couple of minutes; my local library has a dictionary of slang, and I will go there tomorrow. You should not assume that because its current source is poor that better sources don't exist. It's, er, not a joke. --Rodhull andemu 01:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to call anyone lazy. I was removing the information not because I was too lazy to find a better source (I did a google search, and just didn't happen to come across your source), but because I thought it was irrelevant. Since you believe it is relevant, I won't mess with it anymore. But as an editor with nearly 30,000 edits, you shouldn't need anyone to ask you not to name-call. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but I'm here twelve hours a day, day after day after day, and I get somewhat tired of people just removing stuff which could be adequately sourced. Once it's gone, it's gone, and there is even less chance that the reference will get fixed. Sadly, I'm only one person, not seventeen, so I haven't the time to do all that work. --Rodhull andemu 15:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalar is still socking with this IP

The block on this IP needs extending, Jamalar is still evading block. User:86.29.250.4. — Realist² 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to let it go; she did the edit to Taurus as she wanted, but if it continues, a further block would be warranted. Otherwise, nothing much lost. --Rodhull andemu 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and call for 'elp (yet again)

Sorry for imposing yet again... please help out on the following: User talk:What-a-helpful-chap-pete-is! Regs. --Technopat (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, clearly no indication of a willingness to contribute effectively. These accounts are all one kid or at the same school. One down... --Rodhull andemu 19:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many more to go? ShockingSharon99 (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only a couple yet, but they've gone quiet for now. If required, a CheckUser will root out the underlying IP addresses, and they're toast. --Rodhull andemu 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and another troll bites the dust. --Rodhull andemu 22:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Oranges_are_not_red_in_colour did not vanadalise my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oranges_are_not_red_in_colour , this is my IP and I am Oranges_are_not_red_in_colour please can you undo this warning as I would appreciate not being blocked 90.216.212.71 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, putting nasty stuff like that even on your own page is blockable as a personal attack, and I suggest you move on and start editing constructively. --Rodhull andemu 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bravehartbear

Perhaps you could leave a note for Bravehartbear (talk · contribs) about continued insertion of material sourced to inappropriate sources, as has been brought up at the talk page for Scientology - like you had left previously for the user Su-Jada (talk · contribs)? There seems to be a lack of activity to engage in discussion by this user(s). Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your actions in this matter are appreciated. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control (Girls Aloud album)

I'm glad to help. I hope that they see good reason for a wikitable. Girls Aloud always have so many songwriters that it just becomes too long.BambooBanga (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WJH1992/WH-007

Hello, I noticed WH-007 had been behaving in a similar manner to other users you have blocked for being a sockpuppet of WJH1992, and I have noticed others in the past. On each occasion, some edits look pretty innocuous (even useful in a few cases). So, may I ask a few questions? Firstly, I don't need to know why the user was banned, but I can't find anywhere that says what this editor's (or any other sockpuppet's) modus operandi is - that is, if I saw similar edits again, how would I work out that the editor was a sockpuppet so that I can warn someone (without going to CheckUser every time)? Is there a page for a particular sockpuppet controller? Secondly, I notice you've rolled back some, but not all, that user's edits. Given the possibly useful nature of some of them, is that an implementation of a general principle (which I am loathe to follow as if the user were not a sockpuppet, it might look like I was stalking a particular user!) or are there usually good reasons for doing so anyway? The idea is that I can hopefully help out a bit in future. Thanks! Stephenb (Talk) 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His MO is described here, but there are little clues I don't want to make public- I'll email you if you like. Generally as a de facto banned user, I rollback all his edits; some are OK, but some can't be trusted; it's just I haven't had time to do the others yet. --Rodhull andemu 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the MO list is very helpful; I doubt I'll need more than that to notice, warn an Admin and/or help rolling changes back. My email isn't currently enabled for other users as it is my work email address... I don't know what might eventually go through our Mail Marshal if I enabled it! :) Stephenb (Talk) 15:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography do no harm badge

Hello, could I borrow that badge? And, Ummm, and how do you edit to desplay it? Evolutionzen (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy {{user do no harm}} on to your user page, it should show the same. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thank you. Evolutionzen (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

I thought BBHS's "fell On Black Days" account was disabled? He has now been permanently banned again and has still sworn to use any/all sockpuppets he can create to keep editing Wikipedia(s). His Fell On Black Days username is still available/active outside Wiki-EN. Shouldn't it be blocked across the board? The Real Libs-speak politely 16:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, but only here; different Wikis have different standards for blocking and banning so someone can be banned here but able to edit elsewhere. There are load of examples of this. Of course, if he starts up the same elsewhere, he'll get banned there as well. --Rodhull andemu 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oki-doki. I think Wikipedia(s) should all conform to the "here an a**hole, there an a**hole", everywhere an a**hole". :D The Real Libs-speak politely 16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing laptop out the window

this one is testing my patience. — Realist² 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity (album) - a million ways to say Pop music? — Realist² 18:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're styles, not genres, and I have removed them. Further discussion should be directed to the talk page. --Rodhull andemu 18:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that almost every song and album by Hillary Duff has this problem. I think we are fighting a losing battle here :-( — Realist² 18:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why??

why did you remove what i put about Britney spears under Princesses of Pop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilplayboii (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it went into too much detail which is already addressed in her own article. That's not the purpose of this article. --Rodhull andemu 20:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2008

Thanks. Sorry if I offended you mate.--86.165.62.102 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Whereas I would prefer the truth, we are somewhat constrained here by what we can get from reliable sources. Nothing lost. --Rodhull andemu 21:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jew

It is clearly visible that you don't do it for some type of idealism. You do this for might. So I am here for my next block. 86.101.161.41 (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm not Jewish, and it shouldn't matter if I were. However, I'm perfectly willing to keep you happy, in a very simple way, if that is the only thing you understand. --Rodhull andemu 22:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Too late. A friend did it for me. Don't you wish you had friends? One friend? Yourself? Perhaps not. --Rodhull andemu 22:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Checkpage

I am approved to use AWB and have tried, but I believe that it is beyond my realm of knowledge. You can take my name off the checkpage list as I don't want to use the program without knowing what I am doing :) I don't want to use it and goof something up. Thanks for allowing the chance though. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 00:32

Pop icon

Another article here that deals with similar issues as the honorific titles article. Also a fly trap for POV pushers. Thought you might find it interesting, I've decided to watchlist it, only ip's seem to edit it. — Realist² 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Dryamaka

This user is being abusive and un-civil on Talk:Jennifer Hudson. Thought i would pass it on. Silver Dagger (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villages > Towns

Could you cast your eyes over this editor's actions and edits please [[3]]. He seems to have suddenly started a one-man-crusade of altering villages (some with only a few hundred inhabitants) to towns and adding them to the category of Towns in England...also deleting bona fide towns from the category. Several of us have left messages at his talk page and he has not responded. See what you think.... He has also changed the name of soccer club articles from AFC Sheppey for example to A.F.C. Sheppey although WP:MOS deprocates the stops in abbreviations and the club itself uses AFC on their website...that is only one example but there are others. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him to stop while the ANI discussion is pending, but I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhull andemu 13:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Joanmarshall.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Joanmarshall.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete a duplicate image please

Could you delete Image:TSEkovrmx.gif please. The user made a duplicate of it today (which I have tagged for deletion if you look at my recent contributions). Anyway, we don't need two versions of the same (disputed) fair use image. I'm also concerned by other images uploaded by this editor as they seem to be near identical copies of the originals. User:Giggy, an admin on commons, has already explained to me that such images, that are near identical, are not needed or supported by fair use. — Realist² 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Rodhull andemu 15:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nagendrapsingh

Hello, Rodhullandemu. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]