Jump to content

User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Rodhullandemu

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DanielDeibler (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 21 April 2009 (→User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu#Requests for review: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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...
Where to upload images and media files

Wikipedia encyclopedia articles may be improved by including images as well as sound and video clip media files. It is important to understand where to upload these files.

  • Images and other media files must be uploaded either to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons before they can be used.
  • If you do not already have a Wikipedia account, you must create one to upload images. The account will work across all twelve Wikipedia sister projects such as the Commons.
  • Wikipedia prefers free images that can be reused commercially and modified.
  • Non-free images may be used, but only in certain circumstances and if a free equivalent is not possible.
  • Wikimedia Commons only accepts free images, which can then be used by any of the other Wikimedia projects.

There is a how-to guide available at Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files and a picture tutorial that explains how to add images to an article.

Read more:
Become a Wikipedia tipster
To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

Legal article notability

Rod, I'd appreciate it if you could tell others this too, because I end up repeating myself a lot: if it's been reported, it's notable. The fact that there's not a Bailii transcript doesn't mean much, because that only began in 2001 and they're working backwards for old cases. They've done contract first. Also, I humbly suggest that if I'm putting it up, the case is notable. Wikidea 09:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your last point first, would that it were so; unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Of the many caselaw articles we have, only one is a WP:GA, which indicates the difficulty we have here. Whilst I would argue that House of Lords cases are inherently notable, because by definition, they involve a "point of law of general public importance", Court of Appeal cases not necessarily so. Many cases are reported, but few satisfy our notability guidelines. I suggest you take a look at the GA review of R v Bailey to see what we're up against here. --Rodhullandemu 12:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, I'm not sure what I have to reply. If you've got any specific questions, please ask - or you need help defending an article, then just tell me. It's a simple matter of flicking through a book - but yes, if it's reported, it's notable. If the guidelines don't reflect that, they're wrong. I would, however, if you're creating criminal cases, use the nicer infobox that appears on Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd and others. Wikidea 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis revert

Although I doubt those were good faith edits by the user, I loved your response back to the I.P. :) Have a good one! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh! Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden wholesale deletions at Heather Mills

Could you cast an eye over the activities of this new editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EAS1441 who has suddenly started wholesale deletions of referenced material, without any summary explanation. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted all and left a deletion warning. Seems to have stopped for now. Rodhullandemu 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very curious. There's definitely more than a whiff of revisionism about the recent edits. It's always possible to read more into these things than is the case, however I can't help but find several links between the edits and this article. http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/article.html?Angry_Heather_vows_to_clean_up_damaging_web&in_article_id=619391&in_page_id=7 David T Tokyo (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging this up; it's always difficult to tell whether we are dealing with a sustained attempt to whitewash an article or a good-faith editor, but I have it watchlisted. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 11:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Any chance you can help with this?. Unrelated, what is your opinion on using Digital Spy as a source? — R2 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done one of these, so I don't want to mess it up. Probably better to list it at WP:SPLICE, they're used to doing this sort of thing. As for digitalspy, I wouldn't trust the forums or polls, because they are unreliable and self-selecting respectively. As for their editorials, it comes down to whether they have a reputation for checking facts, and I don't know about that. Rodhullandemu 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSS feed

Is there a way to have a RSS feed for my watchlist? Please respond at my talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:Jimbo Wales

Larry Sanger added a section that was deleted by Jimbo. However in the section, Sanger tells people not to delete it. I am not sure what to do so could you please look at it. Thanks Griffinofwales (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear Jimbo doesn't want it there, and it's his page, so there's no problem reverting it.Rodhullandemu 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reverting edits

J.Delanoy has said that we should leave it alone (He is an admin, and several respected users [maybe admins] agree with him). Please help (and I have to log off soon). Respond at my talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Email sent. Best. — R2 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not received yet, can you resend pls? Rodhullandemu 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resent just now, let me know if you don't get it. Cheers. — R2 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just got it, thanks, and looking at it right now. Rodhullandemu 01:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I must have sent it incorrectly the first time, it didn't show up in my history, so sorry about that. — R2 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and the editor has been shown the door. Rodhullandemu 02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Probably the best way to deal with it, without starting drama. — R2 02:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatz00

Saw the block, and agree with it, but wanted to comment that I don't think "vandalism-only" is accurate. He's an odd editor ... I've seen him go through and do large amounts of cleanup on articles, and then proceed to dump unsourced crap into the next set he edits. Indef is fine, unblock if he shows any sign of grasping the concept of a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a more appropriate block template. Rodhullandemu 02:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Profile: Lauren Crace

Thank you for overlooking Lauren Crace's profile and an appropriate profile picture will be uploaded soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadjet001 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's completely free of copyright; we do have ways of checking this, and you might want to look at our image policy just to be sure. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for this information on what pictures may be used. A personal picture is to be used, Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadjet001 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tools I need for greater justice, to right a wrong that threatens to unhinge the very principles of wikipedia itself!

This is concerning your apparent concerns over my character, and what wrongs I might have wrought if given the tools in which I seek. Please read over the current discussion, and reply there. Your word alone will seal my fate. Dream Focus 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

many fold/manifold

The first means it serves many purposes, the latter is that it is obvious. I do not know which is relevant to the piece, if either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"manifest", shurely? But neither do I. Rodhullandemu 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Two Pints...

I've made no controversial changes, just fixed what was broken. U-Mos (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inoysterbay

  • Hi, could you take a look at the above's contributions when you have a minute, they all relate to an audio tape produced about a walk in an area of New York Oyster Bay History Walk. Whether or not the walk is notable which in itself I have concerns about, many of the articles do not seem to be suitable/notable to me. I have prodded two to see what others thought but the author quickly removed the tags. I even reported his user name as it seems promotional to me but that was rejected. Having a name 'In Oyster Bay' and then creating articles that publicise an audio tape about Oyster Bay seems iffy to me. Thanks.--Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at some of this. I think the Walk itself is notable since it appears to have multiple reliable sources. Overall, the verbatim reproduction of the content of these tapes would seem to be a breach of copyright and/or unsourced original research, so they should be deleted. Doing that would leave a stub section which would only be promotional in nature, so I'd suggest those should be replaced with text along the lines of "X is featured on the Oyster Bay Walk" and let that link do the work. As for "Typhoid Mary in Oyster Bay" and similar, sourcing of these is poor at best, and I doubt they're notable enough to have separate articles; we don't do this for any combination of person and place as far as I know. I'd propose moving them to other articles; whether that would be, say Typhoid Mary or Oyster Bay, is moot. I would have suggested dropping a {{uw-coi}} on the editor's page, but I see he's already had one, and I think it's plain he's plugging these tapes. If he's removed the PROD tags, a deletion proposal is the next step for articles having no real notability. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 19:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken the article Fleet's Hall to AfD. I think some of the articles are worth keeping, some need merging as they are content forks and a few need deleting. I think it best to proceed slowly with this series as we don't want to turn off an enthusiastic contributor, so my thinking is to work through the series, one article at a time. What do you think?

P.S. I'm going to leave this message on Paste's & Moonriddengirl's talk pages too. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LFC Plagiarism

I have also reverted the main LFC article per your reversion on the "history of" article. What source was this plagiarising? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It had a heading "Leeds University Study", but instead of using a narrative style to discuss this, it was just the addition of a huge block of unsourced text. I assumed that this was copy-pasted from that study, without any other attribution. Difficult to track down without a link, I know, but it's the editor's responsibility to source it properly. Rodhullandemu 21:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got my wires crossed there. Waterspaces copy pasted the start of the history article into the main and I thought that was the plagiarism (which of course it wasn't). I've removed the excess info from the LFC main now. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note: fancy joining the discussion? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not that into soccer so I doubt I'd be able to bring anything to the party, but if you need an admin, get back to me. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's not really too footy specific anyway, more arguing with an editor that pasting daughter articles into the summarised main is not a good idea! We'll see how things work out. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I attempted a rewrite, and I thought I'd summarised the author's points quite well. However, he's just had another go at me on my talk page. I'd even apologised on his talk page for my earlier mistake thinking he'd breached copyright. I'm stepping away from it now. --GedUK  14:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water Space

Of course. I didn't think I was goading him.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't stopped, so I've blocked him for 31h anyway. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 16:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jagger

thanks for the note r.e. youtube and CR. Are you sure its a CR violation? Did you watch the clip? you see jagger is aware of the rumours and in the answer he is speaking the words himself - those are direct quotes i used. - Marlinnspike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlinnspike (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a tv interview, the copyright will be owned by the tv company and it should not be on YouTube. His words may well be true, it's just that we cannot use that clip as a source. Rodhullandemu 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre issues

Hello, I'm always seeing your name on my watchlist and am glad that I finally have an opportunity to address you. There is a discussion on the "Paranoid" talk page that could use your input (in other words someone else who will agree with me). Someone insists that because the song sounds like a punk song it should be classified as proto-punk, obviously he is citing no sources to support his opinion. J04n(talk page) 00:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look there and pitch in if I need to. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batt O'Keeffe - semi-protection request

Hi Rodhullandemu, I see you have semi-protected Bertie Ahern. I was wondering if you could do the same for another Irish politician, the current Minister for Education and Science, Batt O'Keeffe. It is currently being heavily vandalised. Thanks, Snappy (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I've given it three months. Rodhullandemu 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Castles (band)

Hey, over at the above article, an editor has added a huge section on a "controversy". Not only is it WP:UNDUE, but the sources are...shit. I've already removed it twice and issued the editor a warning regarding sourcing of material. I don't want to get into 3RR but the material, in it's current state, has to go. Any ideas? — R2 17:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it on to the talk page for discussion since there are also some WP:BLP issues. Rodhullandemu 18:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I have no idea why I watchlist articles that have no interest to me. I must have watchlisted it from the Jamalar episodes we had. — R2 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Castles

Precisely what policy issues did the posting of the facts raise on the Crystal Castles page? Everything posted there is verifiable through each of the sources. I hope you have taken the time to review each of them individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeslayer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are notable, reliable third party publications. Myspace and blogs really don't cut it. — R2 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I've explained on the talk page, but mostly the sources are unreliable. We don't count blogs as such, the links to sound files look like breaches of copyright, and a link to the band's MySpace is a WP:SPS. On either side of this dispute, the sources are self-serving or at best secondhand. The requirement for such sourcing is not met by these, in my opinion. You may want to ask for a further opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are reputable newsblogs of the Dallas indie scene and are reporting the band management's official statement and the official statement of the venue. Just because it appears on a newsblog does not mean it is false. The sound files are radio interviews with band members. How are the sources self-serving? For you to claim that, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the websites had an agenda in the posting of the material.
In addition, there is already a blog which is used as a source in the main article prior to today's edits. I assume you will remove the offending information since "we don't count blogs as such." Spikeslayer (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing of the Dallas indie scene, which is why I suggest you seek a third opinion. I am not getting into a content dispute, merely applying our policies. As to who is to "prove" what, please see WP:BURDEN; and as for the existing blog, I might look at it if I have time, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a very strong argument round here. Rodhullandemu 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I've commented on the talk page. Basically, we shouldn't be using "indie sources" we should be using "mainstream sources". A music bio built on indie sources would surely burn at AfD anyway. Using audio/video as a source doesn't cut it either imho, because such sources would not assert the texts notability. This is extremely important threshold when alleging the issue is some form of "controversy" or dare I say it "scandal". The sources provided thus far convince me that we are not dealing with a "controversy" at all. — R2 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So have I, and I agree. It's a fight between two bald men over a comb, in wider terms. Rodhullandemu 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently added an image to the info box of the Phil Spector article. Is it me, or does that look nothing like Phil Spector? Apparently it was taken in 2006. I don't know much about the guy, other than musical genius/psychotic gun wielding murderer. — R2 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, was starting to worry about myself then, no one else seemed to notice it. — R2 07:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Pretty obvious that 200.8.49.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading the block you placed on 201.209.224.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Probably a friend's house: different cable company, but both in Caracas.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Living people

A new wikiproject designed to help uphold WP:BLP has formed, you might be interested. — R2 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

My friend, I trust you have an answer prepared for anyone querying the "legal" aspect of your wording - there has been some recent issues regarding what is entailed by including that word in any communication, as I am sure you are aware. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. It's not a threat, merely a statement of fact. As far as UK law is concerned, publication outside a privileged audience negates defences of "fair comment" and "qualified privilege". Adding {{NOINDEX}} is to that editor's benefit, not that I suspect it would come to anything. You yourself advised him it would be unwise to move that material to any publicly (i.e. outside Wikipedia)-visible website. If people are going to have a go about it, well, there's no particular reason for me to be here at all. Rodhullandemu 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, statement of fact it is. I will be creating an MfD tomorrow when I have a clear head - tonight I am engaged in clouding it - unless it is removed in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I doubt it will go voluntarily, given that the author hasn't edited at all in five days. Rodhullandemu 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB abuse?

I gather that you're the person who gives out and takes back rights to AWB, please review this diff to see if the AWB user is complying with the rules; and if not, to consider appropriate action. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only one who does that, but a quick review shows that your diff may just be a glitch, since most of the AWB edits he's done seem to be OK. I'd just revert that one and ask the user to check his edits more closely. Since he's doing lots of tidy-up work, for which AWB is intended, I don't think there's a case to remove permission unless this becomes problematic. Get back to me if you have any further concerns; cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu

User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu, a page of which you are the subject, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rodhullandemu 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gibson players

In response to your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians where you said you posted on the talk page and got no response from the other user, I see the user posted his explanation there on 11 April, but I don't see a post from you. Maybe there is a misunderstanding, and you and he are posting in different places? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have made it clear that he posted on the 11th, with no response since. I have come to this only recently and don't want to get involved in the nuts and bolts of it, not being an expert. I only raise it in the interests of the article, and to save the editor from being pilloried unjustly for his deletions. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought you were objecting to the removal. I'll look at it again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Epitaths

Specifically, how soon they become relevant; I had surmised as much, and you have my services for as long as you can and wish to call upon them. I have, for no urgent reason, also decided upon mine: Lived, Loved, and was Loved. What else matters? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. For me, I think "He Came. He Saw. He Conked Out" might be closer to the mark. Rodhullandemu 13:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normal service...

..may be resumed as soon as possible, so if you have urgent requests for my attention, another admin may be better placed to help you. Against a background of increasing disillusion about our commitment to producing free knowledge for the benefit of the whole world evidenced by the continuing and seemingly unabated stream of vandalism that, for some reason, we tolerate for far too long, and inchoate criticisms of less than 10-4 of my total input here, I am bereft.

  • I learned yesterday that we had lost User:Pete Fenelon six months ago at the tragically early age of 40; I had met him at the University of York during my time there, and he was perhaps unique in that he made computer science genuinely witty whilst being extremely knowledgeable about it himself; he was the only person I know who got Christmas cards from five curry takeaways. His knowledge was both broad and deep, which from my own experience is rare in computer scientists.
  • I also learned within the last hour that we have lost User:Teenly, a young girl whose contributions were constructive and her spirit indomitable. I didn't know her even here, but to lose such an editor seems to make me question why we do this. If anyone can tell me, I'd be glad to hear your opinions, as long as you leave your god out of it. Rodhullandemu 22:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterspaces block

I'm not sure if he fully deserved an indefinite block but I welcome it regardless. I found it odd that he continually attacked my standard of writing as I'm pretty confident that I have an adequate level of English. Sure it's not perfect but I really couldn't understand Waterspaces' perspective. What was most frustrating was that he actually brought some interesting sources to the articles and raised some legitimate concerns. I fear you are right that he failed to grasp that this is a collaborative community project, and will continue to do so. I commend you for being bold. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indefinite here is not infinite; all he has to do is to subscribe to cooperation and our major policies; thus far, I'm not convinced that he's realised this. WP:TRUTH and WP:SOAPBOX spring to mind in his case, but he seems extraordinaly resistant to outside comments. No matter; we are not a purveyor of original thought, a point which he has signally missed. Rodhullandemu 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an IP range block may be needed [2]. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a rangeblock, it's an Assigned PA, but I have blocked for a month and advised hom to contest on his main Talk page; thanks for letting me know. Rodhullandemu 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They've emerged under another IP address (79.65.31.192) on Talk:Everton F.C.. Dancarney (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and blocked. Rodhullandemu 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking: Is it right to do edits like this for IPs of banned users? Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not normally if they are directed to improving the article, but the one you linked was a breach of WP:NOTFORUM, so correctly deleted. And he's not banned, only blocked. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Not banned, he's blocked? This is coming over all RFA... :) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back again - 79.65.104.128 Dancarney (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and blocked again; he'll either get bored or build up a nice rangeblock. Ho hum. Rodhullandemu 21:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band on the Run

Thanks for saying my revision was done in "good faith." A lot of editors automaticaly assume vandalism. I really didn't think a source was necessary, because I have first-hand knowledge of this. I remember the song being played on the radio, and I have a promo copy of the single with the edited version of the song (Apple P-1873). In some ways, I am as much of a primary source to this as Joseph Plumb Martin's 19th-century recollections are a primary source to the American Revolution. Nonetheless, I recognize that you and other Wikipedia readers have no way of knowing that I am 50 years-old and remember the song when it came out. Nor do you (or most modern readers, I presume) remember when this record was first release. So your call for a source is legitimate. I included a reference from Wiener. Is that okay? I could have just as easily included a reference from Cox & Linsay's price guide. (Perry Cox & Joe Lindsay, Official Price Guide to The Beatles Records and Memorabilia first edition (New York: House of Collectables, 1995), 218.) Thanks.

Best wishes, MCB in Boulder (8/21/2009)67.177.195.177 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's just that we cannot rely on first-hand knowledge because there's no way it can be verified. I'm older than 50, I do remember when the record came out, and your source looks fine to me. Rodhullandemu 18:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed on your bio that you're British. I just changed my revision to state that the shorter version of the song was played on the radio "in America" in 1974. I shouldn't have been so ethno-centric. I don't know what version of the song was played in the UK or elsewhere. Perhaps you always got the full-length version. All I know is that the first time I listened to the album with my friends (we were all in high school at the time it came out) the extra verse took us by surprise. We were so used to the edited version, which got full saturation airplay here in the States.
It's weird that, unlike "With a Little Luck" (in which the short version has been released on one or two of McCartney's compilation albums), the short version of "Band on the Run" has not been digitally released on CD. (Perhaps it is available on download; I don't know. Maybe I'm just too old, but downloads feel like cheating to me. If I can't hold it in my hand, I don't consider it a part of my record collection.) MCB in Boulder 198.11.27.101 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu#Requests for review

Your comments were moved to the discussion page where they should have been added originally. You were commenting on the virtue of the investigation, not contributing to it in any way. If you wish to contribute to the investigation, you are free to do so. Commentary on the investigation itself, or on whether you edit count is higher than mine, belong on the discussion page, if anywhere. Please refrain from reverting edits without reason, particularly when the edit in question clearly explains its validity in its edit summary. Edits like this hinder the investigation. Thank you. --DanielDeibler (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/42&oldid=285333494"