User talk:This is Paul/Archive1

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gay Cavalier (film)

Thanks for the new article, and for correcting the link rot. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I linked it to American films of 1946. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings...

I see you like editing Traditional pop music/Jazz/Great American Songbook articles! I also lurk round that area, so feel free to ask for help if ye need it. Welcome to Wikipedia! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Glad to see you aboard. My musical interest is also in the late '40s and early '50s, so we'll be editing a lot of the same pages, it seems. You might take a look at my contributions and see if you can add anything of your own. -- BRG (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Little River Band

I agree with your comments about creating a discography page for the band - and also believe that given the band's significance in Australian musical history (were inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame in 2004) efforts should be made to enhance the article so that it is at least a 'B' grade/status. Dan arndt (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to see a discography page as lots of other artists/groups have them. I also now think the individual album articles should stay and be expanded. Unfortunately, I'm not too familiar with the subject but will do what I can to help. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

death in infobox

Just to save you some time in the future: any more additions like this you can just simply revert. If you look through the history of Tim Buckley and Buddy Holly you'll find that this user does has done this numerous times and ignores warnings that it shouldn't be there (look for IPs starting 86.4). An editor had been using IPs like User_talk:86.42.191.187 to make quite silly repetetive edits. Listing ten or fifteen random artists as an influence/follower of an artist is quite typical. I've tried various ways to engage with the user to zero avail. I can only guess he has some kind bizarre fondness for these short-lived edits or has little else to do. Good work on the reversions. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism (86. IP)

You'll see that i formatted the edits they made on The Times They Are a-Changin' (song). I've been checking their additions and fixing the formatting if they check out. I sincerely hope the user sees how productive edits remain in the articles. Call me optimistic but: this user keeps coming back, maybe they can bring some quality editing to wikipedia. I'll try to talk with them on further edits. I'm a tolerant guy so i'll make a last ditch attempt, if my approaches are ignored feel free to take the situation further in regards of the 3RR. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to July 16, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Songs of Scotland

Hi. I have moved your article (changed its title) to Songs of Scotland (album), which is more specific and is the usual format for articles about albums. I have also altered the link from Jo Stafford so that it goes to the new title. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved it back, there is no need to pre-emptively disambiguate articles :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, This is Paul. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'll take a look. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Hollies

Hi. With regards to your edit here, perhaps you believed that the IP was vandalizing, but in fact the article does contain substantial copyright violation that needs to be addressed. As the IP editor pointed out at the article's talk page, here, the article copies significant portions of an external site. Please be careful when removing administrative templates, as with copyright violations it is important that Wikipedia not continue to publish copyright violations once we are made aware of them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've replied at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Natasha Kaplinsky?

What was that message about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.139.63 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Don Robertson

Well, I am partly responsible here, for not fixing those links that now pointed to the disambig. Sorry about that. Shall we fix them now? :P rst20xx (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start at the bottom, you start at the top! rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Sounds good. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Haze

Hi
Regarding your recent edit to Jenna Haze, the guideline concerning to link dates has recently been deprecated which is why Tony removed the links a couple of days ago.
If you're interested, the very lenghty discussions about the change can be seen at the talk page archives.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it is a rather unexpected change.
Per current consensus it applies to all articles, unless the link target is relevant to the article. But I wouldn't bother manually unlinking them. Lightmouse and Tony are doing it script-assisted, which also converts all dates on an article to the proper format for it, i.e. either 1 September 2008 or September 1, 2008.
Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 20:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:April Showers

My apologies for that, at the time I came across that tag on the talk page, the article itself was still extant and didn't have a deletion tag on it that I could see. I see the page was eventually deleted under G6, which is fine, again I apologise for the misunderstanding. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC).

Lincolnshire tagging

Hi, thanks for adding the WikiProject Lincolnshire template to articles, the project has only recently restarted and so your help is appreciated. Just a note that the template uses the importance parameter rather than the priority parameter. Keith D (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in the tagging exercise. I've done all the geographic articles that are in the Lincolnshire template attached to the towns and district articles. Most ive not started assessing yet for importance or article grade except the high level ones that are covered by other projects and the grades looked OK at a quick scan. The plan then to read the articles and add maintenace tags (mainly related to refs as a lot have no refs section at all) There probably should be a discusion to decide on general criteria for importance from a Lincolnshire / project point of veiw. I've rewrote the Importance criteria on the project assemment page from the orginal priority description. BTW thers a project User box now on the Project page at WP:LINCS. Thanks - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

{{helpme}}

I'm having some trouble with a disruptive editor who appears to want to engage in an edit dispute and flame warring. Please can somebody help? Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi RetroGuy. Have you looked at our pages on the dispute resolution process? Let me know if that doesn't help you. [ roux ] [x] 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. MedCab can also be useful. [ roux ] [x] 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to deny the truth

An actress was axed from Emmerdale and the critics hated the character. Why do you keep editing the truth and then going off to the bigwigs at Wiki to complain?

I know how shows work and characters with huge entrances are never brought in for just a short time. This particular one was axed. It has been reported by multiple publications and that shouldn't be ignored. Nor has the character's fate been decided so try editing DarkPrincess' handywork before mine. I speak the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonshank (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think my version is a little bit more nearer to the truth - Moonshank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonshank (talk • contribs) 18:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Don't worry about it! I just pulled the Times transcript from the Andrew Sachs article. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I was actually trying to sort out a case of vandalism. Please check out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Melody Perkins for a history on this.

Decline reason:

The exception to 3RR only applies in cases of obvious vandalism, such that no reasonable editor would disagree, this is clearly not the case here. In addition, removing yourself from the report shows that you intended to avoid consequences for your edits. The block was correct; remember to discuss controversial changes on the article talk page rather than edit war when you return after your block is over. — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Note to reviewing admins: It's not clear that the edits this editor was reverting was vandalism. Either way this edit is highly inappropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the editor concerned is a sockpuppet of this user and was about to report it when I was blocked. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I actually feel extremely angry about the way I've been treated when I reverted the edits with the best of intentions. So much so that I'm seriously considering leaving Wikipedia tonight and not returning. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll let another administrator review your unblock request, but I should point out that even if you were correct, reverting repeatedly is edit warring and is not allowed. — Coren ^(talk) 00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why this editor was blocked Toddst1 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing based on a long comment on my user talk [1]. Other admins may wish to review this before making any decisions at the moment. Pedro :  Chat  09:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Pedro/TheRetroGuy. In summary the following;

• There is no question TheRetroGuy should have know better than to edit war over the article or the request for protection.
• There is no question that the IP is not a newbie, and also should know better. Wether this is related to sock activity is difficult to determine but not relevant to the block.
• Whilst better consensus needs to be found through talk at Jenny Agutter regarding the nudity section v. mentions thoughout the article this is not relevent to the issue of the block.
• TheRetroGuy made his efforts in good faith, but his edit warring against the IP was not what is expected of a knowledgable and active editor.
• The block was justified at the time due to the excessive edit warring.
• TheRetroGuy is urged to note that in future similar situations he should ask an active independent admin for page protection via WP:RFPP and leave the decision on the nature and duration of the protection to the administrator who deals with the request. Edit warring over wether a request is for semi or full protection smacks of wanting to be able to then revert to the editors preferred version, disenfranchising an IP.
• Editors involved in content disputes do not report each other to WP:AIV. Equally, they are not expected to remove reports. They are expected to let the blocking admin decide.
• Blocks are preventative not punitive.
• The block no longer serves any purpose.
• The block was not done in bad faith, nor was the decline. Both administrators acted in a way that would be expected, given the substantial edit warring.
• TheRetroGuy is urged not to leave Wikipedia over this incident.
• The block is released, on the understanding that TheRetroGuy acknowledges that whilst his edits were well intentioned there was a clear and valid reason for the block.

Note, I'm away from my computer now for a couple of hours. Pedro :  Chat  11:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do acknowledge there was a valid reason for the block as things were getting out of hand, and that several mistakes were made by myself during the course of the evening. Given the history on this page I really should have known better than to have got involved in the edit war on that page or on any others. I've not been involved in a situation where somebody changes the page protection request and really wasn't sure how to handle it. If this sort of thing happens again, I'll ask for some advice.

I tend to have a habit of resigning when things get too heated, but I would like to stay as a Wikipedian as long as this incident doesn't affect my future prospects here. I'd also like to work towards resolving the dispute if I may.

Finally thank you Pedro for reviewing my case. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)