User talk:Radiopathy

The Early Beatles

Sure I really don't care how they are categorized except to the extent that they are internally consistent: if the text and infobox of the article say that it's a compilation (and it's a Beatles album), it belongs in Category:The Beatles compilation albums. (Note that this was in Category:The Beatles albums and Category:Compilation albums prior to me ever getting there and cleaning up the former category.) Also note that Category:The Beatles compilation albums is a subcategory of Category:The Beatles albums, so it's still in there, just subcategorized underneath it. Again, I don't care about the specifics—this could be a compilation or it could be a proper studio album; I'm you could make an argument for either one—either way, I just want the article to be consistent. If you think that this is somehow contentious or tricky, I suggest posting to WT:BEATLES for feedback. Please respond on my talk if you want to discuss this further. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

edit summary is highly inaccurate

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lennon&action=historysubmit&diff=359670337&oldid=359670041

More accurate edit summaries are preferred. See WP:ES Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I linked to the Wikipedia article about the BBC, and that's what the edit summary says. I have no idea what you're on about. Radiopathy •talk• 01:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at that diff (link) carefully. You added a link to the BBC and you also changed the caption of a photo. The version that you changed it too makes it sound like Mendis Smith lived there, too. Mendis is the name of the house. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can see that, but the only actual change I made with my keyboard was putting the brackets around "BBC"; I don't know how the other got changed. I agree with your version, BTW. Radiopathy •talk• 14:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles

What on earth are you doing? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Your edits are unnecessary. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency: some articles say "English" or "the English", some don't. Radiopathy •talk• 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not just that. The whole purpose of Wikilinking The Beatles is to provide context that you are unnecessarily duplicating. If you really are stuck for work to do, please have a go at Category:Incomplete file renaming requests, but don't add stuff that really does not need to be there, bearing in mind that our readers aren't idiots. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 01:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bee Gees emigrating

OK. I'll accept the pedantically correct form, but it's still not the language either the Gibb family or most others around at the time would have used. I was a youngster in Australia at the time, in an area with a huge migrant population. People migrated. They didn't emigrate. May have been grammatically less than perfect, but that's how it was. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Interpol EP

Hey I noticed your message, and I don't see why my genre add/removal is breaking any POV rules or anything, "Indie" alone (as listed on the genre space) is not even a genre, although maybe the piped link that it directs to might be a genre to some people, and I'm willing not to remove that, just to change it to "Indie rock", (no matter how much I might disagree with such a genre existing). However, allmusic and multiple other sources list the band as being part of the post-punk revival wave, and allmusic's page on the EP only confirms the genre as being post-punk revival (along with Indie rock). Therefore, I've decided to source both genres based on this page (if it's possible to find more sources for both genres, it would be really appreciated). I'll post this on the EP's page. Cheers. --190.157.153.179 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Dashes

Please see here Re this edit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. So does that justify removing the line break? Radiopathy •talk• 14:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No WP:DASH is irrelevant to arbitrary formatting with line breaks. The reason to not do it is the fact that the infobox itself will wrap lines and so there is no need to break up text within these floating divs. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The formatting appears differently in different browsers at different resolutions without the line breaks. Neatness counts most over your opinion. Radiopathy •talk• 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly The fact that it formats differently in different browsers at different resolutions is exactly the reason to not insert arbitrary formatting. Let the browser and user figure it out rather than forcing someone to have some formatting that looks good to you on your computer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Still just your opinion. Uniformity matters. Radiopathy •talk• 16:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Right If uniformity matters, then that would still be an argument against inserting arbitrary line breaks; that is the very nature of arbitrary formatting choices. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for changing my contribution, now Wiki is telling me that my account will be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hievery1 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon

I think they have hopped onto another ISP [[[User:122.107.175.135|122.107.175.135]] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)], using another person's computer or illegally using someone's unsecured WiFi. Ignore the geo info on the IP's as Australian ISP's (except Telstra/Bigpond) limit the info, so the geo info isn't correct. Just keep an eye on the IP or any other IP which has similar edits to the original IP anon. Bidgee (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is actually the same IP, and it's blocked for a week. Did you mean to post a different IP? Is another IP making similar changes? If so, you could probably hit up the blocking admin on their talk and explain what's going on. Radiopathy •talk• 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have helped with I used the right IP. Found it 124.168.226.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bidgee (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Don't know how I stepped on that Ringo edit - sorry! Tvoz/talk 20:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Okay, so I do have to argue each image if I care to use it. Unfortunately, last time I did that, he just said my reasoning wasn't good enough, and they still got deleted. Oh well, it's not really an issue, since I'm retired anyway.99.39.88.159 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pete Best

Why were my 12 July 2010 edits to the Pete Best article, particularly those referencing Brian Epstein's A Cellarful of Noise, removed by you? If insuffient reason, I will revert the article back to my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.26.119 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Insufficient reason according to who? I reverted you for overlinking, not citing properly and making unnecessary changes to text. I will make the necessary changes. In the future, could you please not do "piecemeal" edits? It creates a lot of work for other editors when different things need to be sorted out.You can make multiple edits and hit the Preview button to see your changes before you save them. Radiopathy •talk• 01:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What criteria is used to determine what is an "unnecessary change to text"? I do believe the couple of quotes I edited into the article from A Cellarful of Noise add to the knowledge of the subject (by providing Brian Epstein's crucial viewpoint) and were cited properly. In fact, the edition quoted from is in front of me as I write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.26.119 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to your preferred version; I'll leave it to other users to make the editorial decisions on this one. Radiopathy •talk• 14:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I also will heed your suggestion about piecemeal editing. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.17.77 (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:99.39.88.159

It's not acceptable to spread abusive lies about other users. I have never abused either the NFCC or my adminsitrator rights; I'm enforcing a policy. You may not like that Wikipedia has policies, but, if you have issue with that, you're welcome to go away. J Milburn (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of policies, if you don't like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, then please take your own advice. Radiopathy •talk• 14:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour on MFSL

Thanks Duly noted and changed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Beatles lead

Thanks for the clarification. I've followed up on the article Talk page. DocKino (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Album ratings

You're correct, however, if the all the reviews that are included in the ratings template are in the prose, then it is simply a duplication of information and makes the ratings template redundant in those cases. There may be occasions when they aren't present and then the template could be used. This is one of those guidelines where it can be taken either way and is probably best left to the individual to decide which they prefer. However, they definitely shouldn't be included in the infobox any more. --JD554 (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Where do they go now? Radiopathy •talk• 10:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is a need for the template to be used, it should be placed in a reception (or similar) section, see WP:ALBUMS#Reception for further info. --JD554 (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert

Curious about the reasoning for this.[1] I was about to add a cite for Unterberger's book to support it, but if you don't think it belongs in the article at all I'll drop it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I undid my revert; have at it. Radiopathy •talk• 05:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do let me know whenever I screw up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Script

Does the script let you vet the results before saving? I notice it's changed some quoted material, which goes against MOS:QUOTE. Also, for example, there's no such thing as Category:People convicted of drug offences. PL290 (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it shows changes and lets you continue editing manually if necessary. Where are you seeing quotes changed? BTW, I have manually changed back to "drug offenses". Radiopathy •talk• 07:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

For instance, in the Lennon article: The new material, according to Schinder and Schwartz, found Lennon "passionate and reenergized, having found fulfillment in the stable family life that he'd been deprived of in his own youth." Two words changed spelling. I just happened to notice that example, but there may be others. PL290 (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get that one and look for others. Radiopathy •talk• 07:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Please explain For this edit, you removed non-breaking spaces apparently in violation of WP:DASH and the proper sortkey per WP:SORT; is there something you know that I don't? Please explain why on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you didn't remove my work on that article just so you could put in your bloody ndashes - that's progress! Radiopathy •talk• 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem Of course, that in no way answers my question and it's on your talk page rather than mine, but I'm happy to not undo your constructive edits. I just hope you'll do the same for me and not undo my constructive edits as well. Also, I partially reverted you here per the same concern I had on User_talk:Ohconfucius. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I really have no intention to create conflict. I just don't understand why you stalk my edits, undo the work I've done and then proceed to put ndashes in. I don't see where I've been uncivil towards you recently.

The John Lennon revert was simply an oversight; I reverted to the uncorrected version. Radiopathy •talk• 17:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Undoing work? What work of yours have I undone? As I've explained to you several times before, ndashes and hyphens are two different things and ndashes have non-breaking spaces before them per WP:DASH. I don't understand why you would take them out, but you refuse to explain it to me, so I guess I'll never know. As far as that John Lennon edit, I've no doubt it was a simple oversight and a very minor accident. That having been said, you were arguing against amending Ohconfucius' script and then did the exact thing that I said should be changed; I don't understand why you were posting to his talk at all or why you were arguing against this fix. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Track numbers

In response to the Abbey Road track numbers edit, it makes more sense to number track numbers in terms of individual albums, not sides. That way you get the bonus of keeping the track numbers identical to the CD release, which is the track numbers that most people are familiar with. The example in Template:Track listing does this, which, in fact, happens to be The White Album. sdornan (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been the long-standing practice that articles about classic rock albums are about the initial vinyl release, including track listings and track times. Radiopathy •talk• 22:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, then why can't they be numbered in terms of albums, aka pieces of vinyl, not sides? If they can't, does that mean that the example provided in the template being used, a different album by the same band, is wrong? If so, maybe you should ask for it to be changed. sdornan (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The numbering on vinyl records starts with one on side one or side A, then resets to one again for side two or B - that's just the way it's always been. As far as why the White Album example is given with CD tracks, all I can think of is that it was done by someone younger whose frame of reference does not include vinyl albums or who hasn't worked on classic rock album articles - but it certainly runs counter to Wikipedia convention. Radiopathy •talk• 00:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider another tack

I'm not even offended by your ridiculous (and redundant) template advisories on my Talk page. They're just childish. We both know the -ize vs. -ise arguments, the Oxford spelling vs. your-preferred-brand arguments, the applicability vs. nonapplicability of WP:COMMONALITY arguments. We also both know that you're way out of line doing what you're doing in the absence of a clear consensus in support of it because it's a plain, straightforward violation of one of our Manual of Styles's general principles: Stability of articles. The Beatles, Sex Pistols, and John Lennon are all Featured Articles where the spelling, in a proper British English style, is well-established. That's not going to change because it displeases you, however regrettable your displeasure may be.

And no more templates, please. I know you're capable of communicating like a human being. Things are a lot more tolerable when we don't communicate by form letter. DocKino (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well, here you go, point by point:

• This is not about Radiopathy versus Oxford spelling. There was no issue until you suddenly appeared at these articles and unilaterally mandated Oxford spelling. You are the only one who sees an issue here, and you have consistently violated policy and acted in a less-than-civil manner toward other editors who disagree with you and try to engage you in discussion.

• Oxford spelling is not the primary spelling in Britain; all of the major newspapers as well as the BBC consistently use the -ise suffices.

• You are still misinterpreting WP:COMMONALITY and you have been told so several times by several editors; your persistence borders on fanaticism.

• WP:RETAIN specifically says that " ...the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted." In the case of The Beatles, that variety was chosen in September of 2001, with the use of the -ise suffix ("epitomised") in the very first paragraph. According to policy, the article should continue to reflect that variety to this day. I therefore do not have to seek consensus for this, since it is mandated by policy.

• Calm down. Radiopathy •talk• 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• With regards to this and the above, I would suggest that you would avoid spamming. I take the opportunity to inform you that the discussion was adjourned to WT:MOS#WP:COMMONALITY, where it has already received some 23kb of comments. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles discussion

You may be interested in a discussion I've started on The Beatles talk page. --JD554 (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't care to participate as long as the term "edit war" is in the title. Radiopathy •talk• 23:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

According to your theory, I am free to eliminate every comment where you call me "fanatical" and accuse me of "disrupting Wkipedia to make a point", correct? DocKino (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to do that. Radiopathy •talk• 21:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

I thought that the deletion of those two sections on your talk page was inadvertent, due to a badly-resolved edit conflict. Your edit blanked a couple of talk page sections and replaced them with some content from somewhere else; I didn't realize you were aware of the messages you erased. Obviously, you're welcome to erase messages from your talk page once you've read them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine

In the infobox of the Yellow Submarine article, next to genre, it says psychedelic rock, which is why I added it to the category psychedelic songs. --John of Lancaster (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone sneaked that into the infobox. It has been reverted. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Radiopathy •talk• 23:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Sorry about that. --John of Lancaster (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

Take a look I've put a lot of effort into George Orwell bibliography and before I submit it to WP:FA, I'd like someone to ensure that it's written in British English. If you wouldn't mind, could you take a look at this article? Also, I had an admin create Template:Editnotices/Page/George Orwell bibliography and add {{British-English-editnotice}}; you may want to request this for some pages that you frequently edit yourself which might have non-British contributions. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to allow the script to run - that's a long article - but I checked for some of the usual suspects, found some and corrected them. This appears to strictly adhere to Oxford spelling, ie, -ize suffices rather than -ise, so I've left it that way. When I have more time, I'll do more. Cheers. Radiopathy •talk• 21:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks For what it's worth, I don't have any real preferences regarding a variety of British English (I suppose Hiberno- or Scottish would be inappropriate for an English author), but I would like to point out the bizarre "xXx"s that were inserted into your most recent (and otherwise helpful) edit. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The xXx's are indeed bizarre. Anyway, it looks alright now. If you notice anything odd, hit me up. Radiopathy •talk• 02:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal

ENGVAR taskforce I've been thinking about making a group of Wikipedians who would be willing to assist with enforcing WP:ENGVAR and doing exactly what you did above by taking requests for checking pages to ensure that they conform to a dialect of English. Responsibilities might include:

• Tagging talk pages of articles with the appropriate tag from Category:Varieties of English templates
• Requesting creation of/creating editnotices for national varieties of English (e.g. Template:Editnotices/Page/George Orwell bibliography.)
• Patrolling pages to enforce WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN.
• Mediating disputes about English dialects.
• Taking requests for checking pages to ensure that they conform to a national standard (maybe this could also be a step in the WP:GA/WP:FA process?)
• Creating and employing scripts or semi-automated tools to check articles for English dialects.

Does this make sense to you? Would you be interested in assisting with British English issues like this? I'm not 100% sure what the next step is, but of course, it would be nice to find (e.g.) a Canadian, Australian, or South Asian who would also be interested in making conformity for their own national English variations as well. Please let me know here or on my talk if that seems reasonable to you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. I appreciate your thinking. I likewise don't know what the next step would be. It should, of course, be open to anyone interested in defending a given English-speaking nation's grammar and spelling. Keep me updated, please. Radiopathy •talk• 14:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Followup I have posted to WT:WikiProject Grammar and posted a request here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/English Dialects. I suggest that you watch that page and post to it if you have more to say on this topic (also, I expanded the potential responsibilities slightly.) I hope this can get off the ground. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Excuse me...

I apologize if you were offended by the term "genre-warring," but my edit did not constitute a violation of WP:NOR, despite how I wrote the edit summary. I have recently reverted the genre on A Night at the Opera back to the way it was prior to an edit by 84.108.249.67 which unnecessarily added to the infobox "Hard Rock" and "Rock Opera." The difference, as I see it, between the two terms, is that "Hard Rock" is a valid subgenre, even if it's unneeded and bound to be controversial with someone eventually. I wouldn't say that "Rock Opera" counts as a genre or subgenre, as it has little to do with the sound of the music itself. So again, I'm sorry if I offended you, and I completely agree that your edits were, regardless, in good faith. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, at this point it seems as if you're trying to pick a fight with me over the article. The sentence that I recently reworded (a change with which you apparently disagreed) did not concern Channel 4 or the BBC. It concerned the generalization that people who vote for an album consist of "the British public." Everything else looks to be sourced properly. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I would like to know how what I was doing constitutes as vandalism. 75.57.75.150 (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, here is what WP has to say on the subject:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see edit warring). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.75.150 (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing the genre section from an infobox and making broad changes to genres without discussion are not constructive edits. I promise you it won't continue. Radiopathy •talk• 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I stopped. But my point wasn't that. My point was if you're going to block me (by all means, if you think that's going to help preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, go ahead, I don't have a problem), at least don't do it on the grounds of vandalism, because I wasn't trying to intentionally diminish the quality of any article. 75.57.75.150 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dizzy Miss Lizzie

Hi. In my edition in Dizzy Miss Lizzie I just wanted to specify that the cowbell is a musical instrument, it doesn't need any references.

I was looking your contributions and I found a lot of reverted edits that were valid, please be more careful.

Roberto de Lyra (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

David byron Biography link

Why was this deleted this is not spam this is a request to get the 2nd edition published which has been endorsed by mick box and ken hemsley of uriah heep and the byron family--Steve5915 (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rarities

I have requested a move on Talk:Rarities (The Beatles American album) and it has been 7 days but there has been no discussion. I move the page to Rarities (The Beatles US album) as per convention but you moved it back for no reason and now it won't move without administrator assistance. Can you please comment on the page so the move can be made? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Availability of The Beatles in Mono

Hi. Please see the discussion of availability at Talk:The Beatles in Mono#Availability.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed

Your revert at Coldplay and the snarky edit summary which suggests you are following some sort of political agenda. Please read WP:OVERLINK, revert yourself, and resolve to make no further silly edits of this type. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Agenda? Radiopathy •talk• 23:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ob La Di Oh Bla Da

Just a question, I haven't cited anything... does that mean a source of where it came from? Because I have found some proof (if that's what it means.) Can you please reply on my talk? If you want to reply here, I'm fine with that. P.S. I Rock Wikipedia! (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)DJ WikiBob

Yes, the arm and leg bit was cited from one of Mark Lewisohn's books. If you have a reliable source that talks about Lennon saying 'Thank you' at the end, please use it. Radiopathy •talk• 01:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Would Youtube count? P.S. I Rock Wikipedia! (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)DJ WikiBob

Usually, no, unless they are posted at an artist's or label's official channel. See WP:ELNEVER. Radiopathy •talk• 01:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the Apple Corps official Youtube channel but, they didn't have Ob La Di, Ob La Da uploaded yet..... but why would people upload fake Beatles music? P.S. I Rock Wikipedia! (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)DJ WikiBob P.S. Could you make an acception?

Roger Waters The Wall Tour

Actually yes, the show is off, look on his fucking website you dumbass.

Morrissey

very diplomatically put! However, I'd say that the current picture isn't a very clear rendering of the subject - the one you reverted from was better, although his expression is a bit duff. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please help

Hi R. Apologies for doing something wrong. Could you please show me where the guideline is that we don't remove vandalism or personal attacks just because they have a sinebot signature attached. I know that I would prefer that other editors remove such attacks on my talk or user page rather than adhere to such a guideline. I hope that this doesn't sound like I am angry because I am not, I just want to learn something about this. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, you didn't remove the "personal attack", just the bot-generated signature. I thought you meant to leave the message, and I thought the message should contain a sig if it was to remain on the page. Personally, I'd let Rod remove it if he wants to; I don't really know if it really fits the strict definition of a personal attack. Radiopathy •talk• 17:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see. I had meant to remove the whole thing. To quote Bugs (the original not "Baseball") "What a maroon". Funny, how no matter how long a person has edited the simplest slips can still happen. Thanks for straightening me out. Thanks also for your vigilance on several of the pages that we both have on our watchlist like "BBC America". MarnetteD | Talk 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hollie (album) edit reversions

If you can find a source that lists the songs and the order they are on the album that makes you happy; be my guest and substitute. Please do not remove citations which back up contributions by other editors unless you have an alternative source.1archie99 (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I offer to you this compromise. One of my sources only to remain as a citation for the order of the track listing; you can decide which one.1archie99 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have found a source that supplies more information and is preferable to either of the links you reverted. Please go to the talk page for the article and join the discussion. The wiki links to the song listing adds a lot to the educational value of the article. It lacked the order of the tracks which I supplied. With the new link I have found the time of the tracks could be added also.1archie99 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry

Okay, sorry, i forgot that that's how it is in Britian, i changed them back though, sorry again, also, i wasn't trying to start an edit war, i just noticed that there were some things i improved on the articles and i didn't know that that was the reason you reverted my edits, so i just re-did mine, sorry again, i hope you can forgive me.

Hey, i'm really sorry again, i took it way too far, i just got so mad, i'm so sorry, i know you're probably not gonna like me or forgive me for what i did but i'm sorry :). --Chickenguy13 (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

UM, not a big deal, really. Just another day at the Wiki Ranch. Radiopathy •talk• 20:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

fixing refs

I like to cite my content just like that,no worries but I got a bit attached if you want to follow me round altering them you will be fixing hundreds. As I understand it there is no need to attribute a writer just the publisher and the writers name is there is people go read it. Perhaps you like to do it different. As I understand it both are fine? Off2riorob (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be having a spate of thin skin around here lately. Both are fine. Revert mine if you don't like them. Radiopathy •talk• 02:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Please at least have the dates conform to the UK standard, i.e., day/month/year (3 September 2010). Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 02:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

—fetch·comms 02:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Candy Store Rock

Sorry, I simply call it disambiguation !

Lurulu (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

WP:YESPOV Please learn your policy before removing cited materials. "Material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", but it must not give undue weight to a minor point of view."

ELP has been a much criticized band. This is one tiny sentence to what is more than a minor point of view. What you have done is a clear violation of wiki policy. I would strongly urge you to study policy more before trying to teach others.

Thanks you --UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Instead of considering a point (backed by wiki policy) and intelligently discussing it, I instead receive some ready made template on my page. This is not at all what Wikipedia is about.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

More wikipedia policy you are violating . . . "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive."--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Hollie (album)

The page was protected, and the issue was discussed on the talk page. If you are not happy with the conclusion, that's fine, but please discuss it on the talk page, don't just sneak it out without comment. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Beatles discography

Hi Radiopathy! Might we get you to vote on this matter if you would concerning the song "Something" (peak position), please? Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul is dead

Please stop reverting my edits - they are well founded in reasons which Wikipedia supports: to use US spelling in an article dealing with US sources, and to improve sentence structure, including the use of active voice, direct verbs, etc. You don't own the article and I am not changing the substance of the facts. You have not provided any reasons on the Talk page of the article for your reversions.Parkwells (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles were an English band; you use UK English when writing about them here. I respectfully disagree that your edits constitute an improvement to the article, but if you want to revert, please do so, but leave the UK spellings intact. Radiopathy •talk• 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm restoring the British spellings, so please allow me time to complete that. I'm continuing to correct grammatical errors, as well as to correct cites to include author, title, publisher and date, per WIKI MOS, delete OPED language and other changes in line with WIKI MOS. I saw that the article had failed the FA review in part because of the writing, so am trying to help. Thanks for your interest in The Beatles.Parkwells (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Why do you find it necessary to revert all of my past edits without any consideration of the actual edits, instead frivolously labelling me as a genre warrior? Please justify your edits next time which you have not done at all. 75.85.53.84 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of adding a template to my page, please explain to me in your own words why you are reverting all of my edits. 75.85.53.84 (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Move for Me. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 75.85.53.84 (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Random Album Title. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 75.85.53.84 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems you're not even reading the sources which I have cited. And you are also restoring material that is uncited. You are clearly just reverting my edits without considering the material whatsoever which would constitute vandalism and wikistalking 75.85.53.84 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Radiohead

Radiohead's OK Computer is Progressive Rock, always has been, there are more sources that say it's Prog than there are that say's it's Alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.41.105 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Provide sources; don't just change the article to suit your taste. Radiopathy •talk• 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sex Pistols and Sid Vicious first appearance with band

Thank you for pointing out the need for a reference to the date of his first public appearance with the band. The fact that they are in The Punk Rock Movie (1978) is a matter of factual (and notable) film credit, it would seem.

I am wondering if this is an adequate reference, which points out that the Screen on the Green appearance would appear to have been his second appearance with the band, though his first appearance at a public concert.

http://www.jungle-records.net/index.php/home/1-newreleases/52-sid-vicious

Dreadarthur (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If the movie was released on DVD, you can use the DVD information; go here and click on ref number 2 and see how it's formatted. I'm restoring your info with a 'citation needed' tag, which is what I actually prefer over deletion. Radiopathy •talk• 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked anons

In the first case the block had expired (it was for only 24 hours). As for the block-evading IP, he hasn't been given a final warning (although I do hear quacking). Can we do both of them before we block again? Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked them both for 48 hours, and tagged both user pages for suspected sockpuppetry. I doubt that will provide us with anything but a temporary respite. We may find page semi-protection works better in the long run ... can you give me a list? Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

96 hour block this time, plus that page is sprotted for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Number 9 Dream

I wasn't trying to make the case that there's such a genre as 'proto-dream pop' specifically, more noting that it's a dream pop song years before its time. Hence why I put seperate links to 'proto-' and 'dream pop'. I know how to use Wikipedia, thanks. Jonchapple (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

A warning you gave...

... here unnecessarily created a new section, so the level of warning is probably wrong too. Bigger digger (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

They're blocked now. Radiopathy •talk• 03:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Err

Now, now, no need to bite. Per WP:Album#Chronology, "In a studio album article, the chain (for most artists) should include only other studio albums, excluding live albums and compilations; these other types can also have their own separate chains." I am curious, as hell, by the way: why do you insist on linking "England" everywhere? Do you actually think somebody reading up on OK Computer would want to know what England is?!—indopug (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

UK spelling

Hi, and well done for being aware of the various English spelling conventions out there. It's worth remembering that for most verbs (exceptions include realise), the z variant is acceptable to British spelling as well as American. Best wishes and thanks again for caring about spelling. --John (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

1970/1971

Queen seriously formed in 1971? That's weird, I have never heard that before. If the official site says it it's probably right, but I thought they were already doing gigs in '70... 80.101.212.102 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Queen discography

All singles which charted on any of the world's music charts are considered notable, this is why I restored the article proper. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They should be re-formatted; my appologies there. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hay..you messed up!!

Hay moron, dont delete that again...whats your problem?? do i have to send you a damn link to the song twist and shout for you to listen to it!! It's a english version of la bamba, duh!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorHawke (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, sorry, did you think i vandalized? (Since you're 1st undoing was the one with the auto tag summary) I thought those where all useful edits. The Category:Unidentified people seems to only contain real persons. The "see also" in Duclod Man could also include Graffiti or Spam if you choose to add autism. Only on the ORC edit I'm not sure, but since there are only 75 google results (most are wikipedia and clones), it seems there will never be a senseful article about that. Former IP 89.196.43.97 -- 89.196.45.235 (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please provide edit summaries when you revert an edit as you did to Jealous Guy and Michelle (song). When you click on "Undo", it states "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." By using the default message, you are saying edits are vandalism, and in turn calling the editor a vandal, which most editors do not appreciate and could be considered a personal attack. Aspects (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply vandalism, but since you brought it up, you should know that changing genres without a source or discussion is quite frowned upon around here. Making repeated changes without discussion is considered vandalism. Please stop. Radiopathy •talk• 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am removing "Ballad" from the two articles because it is not a music genre. It is impossible to have a source for removing a genre, so your edit summaries of "uncited genre change" make no sense, and my edit summaries were the start of the discussion, which I have formally tarted discussions at Talk:Jealous Guy#Ballad removal and Talk:Michelle (song)#Ballad removal. As for vandalism, "Making repeated changes without discussion is considered vandalism." If you would read through Wikipedia:Vandalism, this is incorrect, "Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." and "However, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, but edit warring." Aspects (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Genre warring is vandalism. I appreciate you finally following protocol, and I won't revert your edits if consensus says not to. Radiopathy •talk• 21:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: November 2010

The genres which I removed from the Hail to the Thief article were added with neither references nor talk page-discussion. So I am not sure how my edit was a violation of our NPOV and WP:V policies.—indopug (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. You have a habit of making WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT-type genre changes, and I wrongly assumed this was another instance. Radiopathy •talk• 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I stand by my edit, will remove the ad hominem aspects of you posting on my talk page, and truly wish you would have buttressed your argument with citations and examples showing that your edit is indeed "'more' correct" and "the preferable usage." That would have taken your statement beyond opinion and into substantial argument, something I always welcome. I hope good faith assumptions prevail between us, and hope for personal insinuations to have no role to fill in our dialog.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC

Why can't I put "Progressive Rock" in Radiohead's OK Computer?

Everybody considers it prog more than alt rock.

Pablo Honey and The Bends are Alternative not OK Computer, well somg songs.

Or can I at least put Art Rock?

Radiohead's new work isn't Alternative either.

Let me change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.41.33 (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WP ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Radiopathy's violation of indefinite 1RR restriction. Thank you.

1rr - blocked again

You're still under an indef 1rr restriction yet you've broken the bounds again. Moreover, you've called good faith edits WP:Vandalism, which many editors take as a kind of personal attack. So far as I've ever been able to tell, your edits show you want to build content and I know breaking the habit of edit warring can be hard, but there has been a standing consensus that if you want to edit here, you can't make more than one revert a day. However, you've been blocked for breaching this thrice now (once with a sockpuppet).

As to music genres, if a genre is disputed, it must be sourced, but putting up an unsourced or even utterly mistaken genre in good faith is not vandalism, hence one can't skirt the edit warring rules by calling a back and forth over genres "vandalism." You've been here long enough to know there are many other ways of dealing with such things, albeit they're often slower and may even need a bit of thinking through before hitting the save button.

• I've blocked you from editing for two weeks, for breaking the bounds of your 1rr restriction.

• Since all this has wasted so much time put forth by volunteer editors for so long, I'm putting you under an indefinite 0rr restriction. This way, all an editor need do is show you've made one revert of good faith content and you'll be blocked again. 0rr means no reverts at all, other than reverts of edits showing straightforward bad faith harm, see WP:Vandalism. If you want to change the content of someone's edit, rather than reverting or undoing, you'll either need to come up with some wholly new way of wording it or take it to a talk page and gather consensus. Some harmful WP:BLP edits also have some exemptions to edit warring rules but I don't think many editors are going to put up with any gaming of that by you, so please don't try. This is happening because you've shown you can't be trusted with the revert button.

• You can be unblocked straight away by any admin if you promise to abide by 0rr from now on, such as by posting something like this: {{unblock|I will abide by 0rr from now on. ~~~~}}. You can appeal the 0rr restriction, or any revert restrictions at all, here or at ANI, whenever you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)