User talk:Uniplex

Double Fantasy

If you change something and another editor objects, do not revert it again. Take it to the talk page and discuss it if you don't like the wording. Remove the word "poignancy" if you feel it is not neutral. freshacconci talktalk 14:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As I explained in my 1st edit summary, I was restoring the lead sentence; therefore, by your argument, you (or the editor who changed it from what I restored it to) should talk it to talk. However, it's not a question of "poignancy" being neutral; it's simply not evident in the body, neither is it evident that reviews were "mixed" (which is vague anyway). Uniplex (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You're the one seeking to make the change. It is up to you to discuss it. See WP:3RR and WP:BRD. freshacconci talktalk 16:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I know perfectly well how it works (and it doesn't apply to every change). In this case, an unexplained (Bold) change was made that changed "poor" to "mixed" reviews and introduced an uncited and unrepresented opinion about the poignancy of the album; I reverted that change. So if BRD is to be applied here then the author of the bold change (not I; I reverted the bold change) should discuss. However, the lead shouldn't generally require much discussion—it's simply a summary of the major points of the article. By all means, if the prose is stilted then reword it, but don't embellish it. Uniplex (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

All Things Must Pass

hello,

please stop removing adequate information such as an album being listed on Rolling Stones Greatest Albums of all Time. WP:ALBUMS is a WikiProject guideline, and is those unreliable. It was built by only one person, see the first version, without reaching consensus. The sentence "Due to their proliferation and dubious value, lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s) may not be included." is still here. "Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s" is not similar to "Rolling Stones 500 Greatest Albums of All Time". The latter list is about all albums in the past since popular music that influenced for generations. It is not of "dubious value"; I can mention a lot of examples why not. If you still think you must remove it, then do it on all 500 articles! Good luck. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 17:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So, first you proclaim on the guideline without having even read it. Now that you've read it, it appears you fail to understand it (the parenthetical clause exemplifies, not restricts the definition of ‘lists’) but dismiss it anyway because your personal POV is somehow better. If you don't like what's written at the WP:ALBUM, I suggest you take up your grievances there. Uniplex (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I opened a discussion on WT:ALBUMS to see what other thinks.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 16:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

RE:Tight A$

EVERY Beatles site on the Internet (barring beatles.com) are fan sites. Where can we find proper sources? beatles.com sure as hell, don't give much info. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 16:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I probably only have 1 or 2 books there. Both don't contain info about Solo Beatle songs/albums/etc. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 16:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

CfDs

Here's another CfD which is appropriate, but didn't want to show it over that the discussion on wpalbums. Albums produced by John Lennon. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from The Beatles' Christmas Album with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Trusilver 06:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Given no indication of the content to which you are referring, and a clear summary as to the intention of my edit, I interpreted your revert/message as nonsense (maybe you are a wayward bot/script?), and reverted it. Uniplex (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism of A Day in the Life

Please stop vandalizing the article for the Beatles song, A Day in the Life. The introduction talks about how the chords in the rest of the song were re-done after adding the piano chord at the end. I do not know why people think it's funny to put a homophone in place of the true meaning. Please just Let It Be. --174.253.134.99 (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember folks, don't feed the trolls. Uniplex (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy Xmas

Thank you for your message. A quick search at Google Books for [Lennon Ochs "War Is Over"] found 22 hits, of which the first three (at least) made an explicit connection between the two songs. I'll add it to the article later. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories

I think there are two points here, one is that the article should not contain OR, which is fine, but there is no reason why having established a certain number of facts, that categories can't be created accordingly. This is why I still think some kind of wording to limit category entries are in order. Of course an alternative way would be to say "categories should only be added if defining for the album." We need to clarify to enable the reduction of fancruft categorization. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. It's just me trying to belt and brace it. Especially after by Lennon CfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Go it. I would, but the only half-baked opposition would consider it stalking if I did it. Once adopted then, if cited, any CfD deletions, renaming should go through on the nod. Did it myself on songs where the same names were populating all 3 songwriter cats. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't actually update WP:Albums...Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

All Things Must Pass

You might want to consider undoing that last revert. I think it's your fourth revert in 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All Things Must Pass (again)

Please stop reverting to your preferred version until consensus at the discussion at WT:ALBUM is clearly in your favour, should that ever occur. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 22:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand the situation: I don't have a preferred version. The discussion at WT:ALBUM can never be ‘in my favour’ as I have no POV. I just follow the guidelines, and at the moment, that is clearly that lists must not be included. If you or anyone else wants to change the guideline—perhaps define some lists which are exempt from the ban—that's fine by me. In the mean time, WP goes on; to suggest that editing per current policy/guidelines should stop just because someone has raised a question about a current guideline is quite ridiculous. Uniplex (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartney

There is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. CuriousEric 23:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Barrett Strong...

The article refers to him as songwriter, although later in the article it refers to him as a staff lyricist. Most of the articles merely refer to him as a "songwriter." If he never wrote the music then I would agree he should be listed as a lyricist, but as often happens, if he also wrote music then songwriter would be correct. If you have enough knowledge to get the cat renamed, (bearing in mind WP:Songs specifically says only one cat per songwriter) I would have no objections. A case in point is Johnnie Mercer, who is famously known as a lyricist who collaborating with composers, but, not only did he write the music for some of his songs, but even wrote music for other people's words. However great Mr Mercer was, he doesn't need 3 cats (presently there are two!). Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Run for Your Life

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Housewatcher (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please let us know what you didn't understand about the edit summaries. I notice other editor has already partially reverted your change. Uniplex (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 00:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Beatles. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please wait until there is a clear consensus in the ongoing discussion; a major change to an established infobox of an FA requires time, patience and discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 02:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have anything to contribute to the discussion (please note, the subject is activity, not a reunion), please do so at article talk. Uniplex (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether I do or not isn't the point. You've been reverted by multiple editors now; it's clear that the change still doesn't have the consensus you're hoping to get. Radiopathy •talk• 17:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's the point, isn't the point: as someone who has objected to the change, it would be useful to the community if you could let us know what your objection (to the term "activity") is. Uniplex (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Please familiarise yourself with the above concept. While you have made many helpful contributions, you have also tested the patience of many experienced editors. Your conflicts with other editors at The Beatles, All Things Must Pass and Free as a Bird, as well as your edit warring when you don't get your way, are wearing quite thin. If you continue to revert good faith edits and then justify your reverts by citing rather dubious personal interpretations of one policy or another, or to edit war when consensus is clearly against you, you will go to WP:AN/I. You could face a block or a topic ban. Radiopathy •talk• 17:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is misrepresentation by an involved, currently edit-warring editor. Uniplex (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the observation of one of several editors who have reverted your bullshit for lack of consensus and participated in your fruitless discussions when we could have spent our valuable volunteer time doing other things here. Radiopathy •talk• 19:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Things like "Beatles f/For Sale" perhaps? Uniplex (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Free as a Bird. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Stop reverting good faith edits, and stop calling them edit warring. Radiopathy •talk• 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE has a good description of this editor's behaviour. Naturally, edit warriors such as he believe their edits to be in good faith—it comes with the territory. Though he eventually did take his change to article talk, he was unable to do so without making snide comments, and his uncomprising attitude remained unabated: "My version is most certainly not wrong. ... Pay attention!"—sheesh. Uniplex (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" is a song performed by The Beatles.

There is a discussion here which may interest you. Radiopathy •talk• 18:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)