User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/42

Click here to leave me a new message. If you start a new thread here, I'll reply here. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with ~~~~

Tip of the moment... Wikipedia in brief The Wikipedia in brief page provides a concise explanation of the online encyclopedia's purpose. Wikipedia aims to be a neutral compilation of verifiable, established facts. This basic information is valuable to everyone: readers, editors, journalists and the general public. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more: Wikipedia:Five pillars   Wikipedia Introduction   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

Beatles genre

Quick question about the Beatles genre issue. I know it's been discussed ad nauseam, but would you say it's a bad idea to make this edit to the article infobox (a seperation of "genre" and "style")? I know that many people would probably argue that the Beatles are equally pop and rock, but:

1. According to Wikipedia itself, and many outside sources, pop music isn't a genre, but rather a blanket term for mainstream music (there are, however, various genres of mainstream/non classical music, which includes rock, R&B etc);
2. According to Allmusic, the Beatles' genre is Rock (though it's the mainstream/pop style, along with various other styles).

I can see many advantages, including added precision. Also, the "genre" field will allow for generality, while the style field would list the various inflections of the particular genre performed by the band. Also consider that the "musical styles" field does not list any genre not discussed in the intro of the article, so there should be no dispute. And Finally, everything is sourced from a comprehensive music database.

I don't know a lot about the Beatles article, or the issues it has had regarding this issue, so I'll take your word for it. Thumbs up, or thumbs down? One editor has already disagreed, it seems, (see article history), but they're more blind reversions than considerate ones. Orane (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My initial thinking is that it's easier to be terse and general; for one thing, once we start specifying more detailed genres and styles, people will come along and think "Oh, why isn't XXXX listed here", and add it. Before long, the list gets hopelessly long. It's arguable for The Beatles that out of several hundred songs, you would have very nearly that many genres/styles. The White Album is a case in point. My experience of watching consensus develop on that article is that it takes ages, out of proportion to the text being discussed. So I'd be inclined to say "Less is more". --Rodhullandemu 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, Rodhullandemu!

I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help with belligerent user

Hello Rodhullandemu, I contacted you a long time ago about being helped with a user who was harassing me outside of wikipedia. This was resolved very quickly and effiently and I thank you for it which is why I am coming to you once again for help. User:Swampfire has been consistently making bad faith edits to the article Forrest Griffin. At one point he was removing information that was referenced by four different sources from official sites. Bitter over being shown wrong, he has been spamming my talk page and giving me unwarranted "warnings". He tried to warn me over breaking the 3 revert rule policy because I reverted recent vandalism on Forrest Griffin where someone blanked the page. This would have fallen under an exception to the rule but he seems not to understand any of the policies he is stating. He spouted off over half a dozen policies but other users have agreed with me on this subject. Can you please make this user leave me alone? --Xander756 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talk page. If he starts off again, please let me know. --Rodhullandemu 21:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems he has not heeded your warning. He recruited another user to his cause and believes that if him and one other person agree that they have reached a "consensus". Using older references than the ones currently on the page they tried to "update" it and remove the current information. I requested admin arbitration and he replied there saying it was resolved and no longer needed so I don't think an admin will help us if you don't. You might not know much about mixed martial arts but please review this and help me here. He is trying to hide information that he does not like insisting that a fight decision was not controversial when I have provided references from the biggest mixed martial arts site as well as several others. The entire MMA world was aflame when this decision came down so it is a very strange thing to say it was not controversial. I guess you could consider this a request for a 3rd opinion. --Xander756 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey I am sorry to bother you again but I really need an administrator to help with the Forrest Griffin article. My appeal to have an admin arbitration has gone unnoticed for days, my request to have the page protected because of an edit war somehow got deleted and it seems that User:Swampire is not going to stop. --Xander756 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you actually look into things, you will see he has been going to a bunch of admins pages trying to state the same stuff which isn't true. In fact most of them have ruled against him and everytime they do, He goes to another ones page and asks for help, as if noone can see. Also, I also found a new personal attack on me here [1] yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me. In fact I can provude plenty of links to other misbehavior. In fact this matter is already on the admin board of incidents with an admin taking care of it. But if you check once that admin started ruling against him. he refused to accept it, and started going to other adminsSwampfire (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander756 (talk • contribs)

3RR

I had posted on one of the pages that if his 4th was to revert a blanking that he did not break 3RR. But that still has not stopped him ignoring other policies and making personal attacks. Also if you check almost every post I made to his talkpage was in response to him posting on mine. Until he broke WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL which i had warned him for.Swampfire (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to these personal attacks, please? Meanwhile, I'd advise all parties to take a breather and chill. Two wrongs do not make a right. --Rodhullandemu 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll be right back with them. As they are hiden in his talkpage after he removed the warning. Also what I had removed went against several policies, and as stated in those policies, does not require a consensus to remove. I'll brb with the attacks.Swampfire (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

He violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL twice by making personal attacks here [2] in the discussion and here [3] in his comment while removing the warning for for violating policies by making the first personal attack. In the first one he calls me a fool, the after i placed a warning on his page while he was removing it, he said what i was doing by placing the warning, was spamming his page and i was childish. Both were unprovoked personal attacks.Swampfire (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is that all? Whilst I accept that "fool" is arguably a personal attack, it's hardly threatening, and WP:NPA has some good advice about how to react to that sort of thing: with a dignified silence. As for the second, I think he had every right to be offended. WP:DTTR explains why your templating is considered rude. I think it's time everyone found something better to do for a while. --Rodhullandemu 22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all. It is not a matter of is that all? The fact he did it at all breaks WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA and it does not have to be threatening. Also you try to cite this DTTR well you as an admin should know that an essay page does not negate a policy if it did it would be written into the policy.Swampfire (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you stop Wikilawyering. Not every breach of a policy demands a sanction and in exercising my discretion, I decided that in the circumstances one would be pointless and even vindictive. As for DTTR, good advice is good advice wherever it comes from. I suggest you stay away from User:Xander's talk page and discuss the relevant article on its talk page. If the two of you can't agree on sourcing for the Forrest Griffin and Quinton Jackson decision, WP:3O is your next step. Probably better than being blocked for edit-warring and disruption. --Rodhullandemu 22:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: email

Great, thanks for taking a look at it. :) I guess it isn't all that silly then, but I'm still expecting my passport to be looked on twice if I'm visiting the UK! :D --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, how are you?

91.109.49.77 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer

It's a pity that this was removed from Video Killed the Radio Star. The official line-up of Buggles was Trevor Horn and Geoff Downes. For the recording of Video Killed the Radio Star there was session work on vocals by Debi Doss and Linda Jardim, and keyboards by Hans Zimmer. All three can be seen in the video. The question is not whether this is correct, but how to source it. Is this [4] OK? --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! Linda Jardim! How many people remember "Sixty Miles by Road or Rail" now? I'd say the reference is as reliable as we can get, so no problem if it goes in with this as a source. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 13:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. At 2:57 in the video, Zimmer is shown standing in front of a modular Moog synthesizer. There is a screenshot of this in Hans Zimmer (a better picture of a Moog modular is at [5]). It is an interesting piece of Zimmer trivia that he appears in this video. There is also an interview with Zimmer fresh out today on the BBC website at [6]. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting

One of the downsides of being an admin (or at least, it would be for me) is having people always ask you, can you delete this page, can you delete that page? Well, um...could you delete this page? ;-) It's redundant now that I changed my system (I like the little pluses and stars on top of my user page), so I'd be thankful if you could delete it. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, it's actually an upside since it doesn't involve any controversy or drama. But it's gone anyway. --Rodhullandemu 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

my talkpage

you chose to get involved with a discussion on my talkpage a few days ago over and editor and his actions. Well the page was rewriten by another editor to place the page appropriately, And now that user is back to reverting work, That has been disproved along with the valid sirces citing as such. And I had avoided his talkpage, but just as i said he would do. He returned to mine to try and start thing again. This time not just going against me but another highly valued editor on the subject.Swampfire (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest I lock the page down for 72 hours while the three of you seek a third opinion, because it seems pretty clear you ain't gonna reach agreement between yourselves. --Rodhullandemu 18:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you revert it to Aktsu's edit before doing so, because he is the one that wrote it. And he did it to include all sides in an encyclopedic maaner. Of which Xander just refuses to accept.Swampfire (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because if you read the differences between the 2 you will se Aktsu's is more encyclopedic, along with the fact the Xander removed valid citations that goes completely against what he was stating in an effort to hide them.Swampfire (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot revert before protecting; that way I am judging content, and I am not qualified or permitted to do that. Take a look at the link from WP:WRONG on that one. That's why you have one last chance to sort it out between yourselves. --Rodhullandemu 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It has done been tried. With Aktsu placing the page at a NPOV in an ecyclopedic manner. But Xander refuses to accept things.Swampfire (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Aktsu has since had second thoughts about his edit that Swampfire continues to tote. The fact he is attempting to pass Aktsu off as his unwitting ally in this is very disturbing. Please see the discussion page on Forrest Griffin for details. --Xander756 (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also found a third and new personal attack on me here [7] yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me. You asked me to stay away from him and I did, and yet he refuses to let things go, and stop attacking. This thing goes far deeper than you now now as other admins have joined in. He jusy refuses to stop. In fact one admin asked him to please go away, because he just keeps on and on.Swampfire (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Who told me to go away? --Xander756 (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw it in the edit summaries on your talkpage by Hersfold it stated (go away) if he was referring to something else I dont know, but it was there. That still does not discount you trying to use admins against each other. I am pretty sure there is a policy against it. The whole mommy said NO so i'll go to daddy thing.Swampfire (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That edit note was on him reverting someone who vandalized my page with vulgarity three times that he ended up blocking. Curious why you would try to distort that while lying to people on here. I am not trying to pit admins against each other, I am trying to draw you to their attention. --Xander756 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol

I don't suppose you could reorganize any vacations you have planned according to when MJ is put on the main page. I think I could do with the extra support, rumor has it that semi protection is removed when an article becomes the days featured piece. Oh the joy. — Realist² (Speak) 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Vacation? Vacations are for wimps! --Rodhullandemu 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also find this interesting, the nomination was withdrawn, I think it needs closing. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination). — Realist² (Speak) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Leave it with me. --Rodhullandemu 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheer, you might also want to but the article on your watchlist Honorific titles in popular music. There is a lot of WP:POINTY activity going on. Someone nominated it for deletion again, I just reverted, it's getting absurd. See the talk page, people are just nominating it continually without break. Alternatively we can just all bury our heads in the sand. — Realist² (Speak) 20:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since he left this edit on the talk page, I honestly don't think he has good faith, but that's just my opinion. :-)— Realist² (Speak) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I was the person who nominated it for deletion the first time, I'm certainly not loving the article, but if it's here to stay we may as well make the most of it. The sad thing is, this editor is acting in good faith, but he is making his own article worse, giving people even more reason to delete. — Realist² (Speak) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know anyone that would be interested in making an Audio version of the Michael Jackson article, much like the Obama article? — Realist² (Speak) 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be useful if it's going to make it to the next educational CD/DVD that we issue; but I'm not so familiar with how these things are done. I'd volunteer but it's a dead cert that my voice wouldn't be up to it; can you follow the links from the Obama to the project that does this stuff? Meanwhile, Martinez needs focussing on the theme of the Honorifics article, and it's good that he's accepted the removal of the "Notes" section; a deadly kiss, if you like, but try to cut him some slack; it's his pet and he's received some stick for it. To keep with it, in the circumstances, is creditable, and if the article can be kept free of irrelevant material and, frankly, fancruft, it might have some merit. Problem is that I see it as always being a target for deletionists on the grounds of indiscriminacy; personally, I think that sort of article is just what we should be doing, because you won't find it anywhere else, and our standards make sure that it's properly sourced. It surely can't be original research to to write an article to fulfil what would otherwise be achieved by a mere category, can it? Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to look into it, for some reason I think it should be a female voice over a male voice, not sure why. As for Martinez, yeah, your right, but I feel like he isn't taking good advise, he seems oblivious. I know there are people sharpening their knives for that article, it won't be long before there is another nomination. I gave him a list of web links that needed changing, if he can get those corrected then he stands a chance of long term stability. I'm going to continue to revert poorly sourced and unsourced material strongly, otherwise it will turn into that "List of the worlds best selling artists" article, which should be burnt and started from scratch IMHO.— Realist² (Speak) 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Something spiritual that I can't pin down tells me you're right about a female voice for the spoken version of the Michael Jackson article, and only two spring to mind- Joanna Lumley and Fenella Fielding, which is somewhat bizarre since neither is particularly appropriate, image-wise. For the Honorifics article, grief, I only closed its second Afd yesterday! Give the guy a chance, but he needs guidance, not pressure, he's had enough of that. I'd say you've put your cards fully on the table, but should back off a little and give him some space. You and I are lucky (is that the right word?) in being here all but 24/7. He probably has to fit it in where he can. I will resist pressure on him to "work like a nigger" to get it up to scratch, but he knows that he is under that pressure to make it a viable article. A week, I think, would be the minimum. --Rodhullandemu 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it will take him about 10 days to sort out those web links only. I've seen people talking and I know people (who I won't name) are probably preparing a long essay for the 3rd RfD on why the article is doomed to fail. I expect plenty of Bad Faith nominations to be made every week or so, I feel reluctant to revert them because I'm probably not allowed (I already did once). — Realist² (Speak) 23:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking of bad faith nominations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson. Can you believe this nomination was made by an Admin? I've considered taking this to the admin noticeboard, it was clearly done in either bad faith or was highly unprofessional. — Realist² (Speak) 23:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus so far seems to indicate that it's a worthy article, despite the title; I wouldn't sweat it. People tend to latch on to minor things; panic ye not. --Rodhullandemu 00:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He's got enough people telling him where they think he's going wrong. He needs time to get the article up to scratch, and I'm prepared to give him that time, to the point where an Afd in the next seven days I am likely to snow-close as too soon and arguably an bad-faith nom. Articles do not happen overnight, particularly in the face of resistance to the very premise of the article. If he can take it beyond mere fancruft to a disinterested, dispassionate, article, fine; losing the "Notes" was a good move forward, because it focussed Martinez on the article he was intending to write, and is defensible in policy terms. It may not end up being the greatest article we have, but it's not without any merit either. --Rodhullandemu 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source

I'm of the opinion that this is not a reliable source for the Lisa Marie Presley article. I'm not familiar with the source so I didn't want to remove it right off, but it looks home made. Thoughts? — Realist² (Speak) 01:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we don't have a clue who's writing it, and Tripod is one of those sites like Geocities where you get a free page and can put what you like on it, within reason. I wouldn't trust it as reliable. She could have copied it all from some dreadful tabloid rag for all we know. Or just made it up. --Rodhullandemu 01:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. — Realist² (Speak) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock 88.109.128.0/18 my IP

Thanks (Butters x (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

It's an anon-only block, you should have no problem editing as long as you are logged in. –xeno (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Other people use my computor who do not have accounts. Please un-block. (Butters x (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

The range is due to unblock later this evening, but I might as well do it now. Tiscali are being utterly stupid about blocking the offending account for the time being, but if it comes back I will have to block individual IPs until they get the message. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Rodhullandemu 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. (Butters x (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Abbey Road (album)

The reason Richard Starkey was listed by his full name in the composer column is because George Harrison was also listed by his full name in the same column above Starkey's. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support. Im trying to make the best of it whether its stays or gets deleted. This is my second article since list of best selling remix albums, but I'll have that one at least lol. I'll try harder to make it better. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I read what you said on my talk page thank you. Out of curiousity could you change the title to list of titles in popular music which would completely take away the honorifics. Honorifics was definatly not my idea. My original page was called Popular Music Royality . Realist(talk to Me) was the one behind the idea but Technophat thought of that title(Check out the articles talk page). Besides the point. I never liked the honorific title but I let it stick because didnt know how to redirect to a new page. If not notable, perhaps the title can be transitioned into Special titles In popular music. Though this article stands for a great debate, especially on the AFDs prior, I would still wish that getting rid of the honorific might ease down a small portion of the debate but I think its very worth it. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It can't be called "Royality" for the obvious reason that none of them belong to a royal family. Not even the Jackson's. :-) — Realist² (Speak) 01:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya royality was not a good idea but I still think the title should just be changed for possible existence purposes of the page. Its a minor thing. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Godfathers

Source it in the honorifics article, too. That way it can stay. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Hi, there are three requests waiting at WT:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, when you have a moment. Cheers, MSGJ (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 13:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Arabic wikipedia

No arab (sunni) like what i'm writting, u think a consensus will emerge? though it's easy to find out my references, in the Interwikis (it seems for u, a kind of original study) hmm, i'll see, i'll put the edit wars perhaps, better for now. regards. --Stayfi (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)