- 1 WYWH
- 2 Earl of Onslow
- 3 Blake's 7
- 4 Chloe Smith
- 5 Edit to Unorthodox Jukebox
- 6 December 2012
- 7 WikiProject U2 invitation
- 8 Terry Wogan
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for June 18
- 10 Pink Floyd
- 11 Elton John
- 12 Welcome back
- 13 Talkback
- 14 November 2013
- 15 The Phil Collins sock
- 16 List of best-selling music artists
- 17 Michael Grade
- 18 Gary Barlow
- 19 Disambiguation page style - One bluelinked entry per line
- 20 Sean Harris
- 21 Phil Collins
- 22 Friend Request
- 23 Re: Phil Collins
- 24 Echo & the Bunnymen (album)
- 25 Human Racing
- 26 Re: So
- 27 Sean Harris Part 2
- 28 Sean Harris Part 3
- 29 Allan Schwartzberg
- 30 "Can't hurry love" = "The abominable Wiki troll"?
- 31 The Beatles Invite
- 32 Disambiguation link notification for January 7
- 33 A barnstar for you!
- 34 Elton John
- 35 Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Earl of Onslow
Hi, Rodericksilly, just a note regarding your addition to the above article. I'd like to include that review but you haven't provided a reference per WP:References, and therefore I've reverted your change. Please pop over to the article's talk page, or mine, if you'd like to discuss this. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
In answer to your edit summary question, in this case her appearance on Newsnight does deserve a mention, due to its nature and because it's something that will almost certainly be revisited. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit to Unorthodox Jukebox
Please use an edit summary before saving your changes to an article, which you did not do at Unorthodox Jukebox. It is good practice do so and helps other editors keep track of an article's history, while understanding an editor's intentions when making a challengeable edit to an article (WP:FIES). Your addition to this article was challenged and explained in this edit/summary. Dan56 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Rodericksilly. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Unorthodox Jukebox, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject U2 invitation
You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!
|Project U2 member list|
As I mentioned in my first revert, the fact that Wogan attended the Thatcher funeral is undue. Thousands (hundreds of thousands by some estimates) of people attended. This is not a fact worth mentioning on their WP articles. If you really think this is important in some way, please explain on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spandau Ballet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Composing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey, Rodericksilly. Thanks for your recent addition to Pink Floyd and double thanks for sourcing the addition in the citation style currently in use at the article (I spend way too much time correcting these types of mistakes). Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Before you revert my changes again, go here on the talk page for the reasons behind them. Please take a look at WP:PEA too and you'll understand where I'm coming from. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I see from your contribs that you joined five years ago and have had a big break since. Could I just point out that linking practices since that time have moved towards a more selective approach? In particular, commonly understood terms are not linked unless there's a strong reason for doing so. I noticed your revert here. Thanks and best wishes. Tony (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder why you are so hung up on adding more and more criticism of Phil Collins. Did he wrong you in a former life? Can you point to any artist on wiki who has so much coverage about individuals who don't like him? Can you point to another artist who has been making music since the mid 60s where the criticism was so important that it needs to be mentioned in the introduction as well as an extensive section. I will, in due course, once again trim the fat in the article. MrMarmite (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Criticism of Collins is very significant and he does have a very negative profile with music critics and large sections of the public, which he has acknowledged in many interviews. I genuinely can't think of another artist who has sold so many records and gained so little respect for it. I've also lost count of the number of barbed comments made about him by comedians, television personalities, in music publications etc. He admitted to Philip Schofield and Holly Willoughby in an interview on This Morning in 2010 that admitting to liking his music was a "faux pas". It would be wrong for Wikipedia to brush this under the carpet.
I could ask you, Mr Marmite, why after months of having it in the lead which you were not attempting to change, you suddenly decided you didn't think it should be there and removed it? That's why I restored it because there was a consensus of opinion for months that it should be there (and in fact the phrasing of it was not mine anyway).
The Phil Collins sock
If you notice the user popping up again, you can report it Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll here. The quicker, the better. I don't watch the Phil Collins article that often, so I am bound to miss it again. Cheers and thanks for keeping an eye out. Nymf (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
List of best-selling music artists
Your persistent undiscussed edits at the List of best-selling music artists are disruptive. Genesis do not have enough certified sales to suggest that they've sold 150 million records. The current 130 million is inflated enough. Feel free to open up a discussion thread at Talk:List of best-selling music artists to gain a better understanding as to how the list is operated.--Harout72 (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Stop trying to have a discussion in the edit summary and get yourself engaged in a proper discussion at Talk:List of best-selling music artists. To answer your question you have posted in the edit summary, have a look at the reversion of your previous removals of the higher claimed figures of ABBA, Michael Jackson and Elvis. That is done by Bluesatellite.--Harout72 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The 39 million in certified units for Genesis is barely 30% of the 130 million claim, compared to only 26% certified sales when 150 million claim is used. All other claims for the other artists on the list are supported by more certified sales than 26%, that includes ABBA, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley (which are the ones that seem to raise questions for you).--Harout72 (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This is your one and only warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring, as you did at Gary Barlow you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Virus101 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- It would be nice if someone could explain what was wrong with my edit, since no one has bothered.Rodericksilly (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
- This is a disambiguation page, for directing readers quickly to intended articles. For details, see the disambiguation page style guideline.
- Some noteworthy differences from articles:
- Generally only one navigable link (blue link) belongs in each bulleted entry.
- The full article name should be visible; do not pipe entry names.
- Entries are sentence fragments; do not end them with periods or other punctuation.
Note that there's a link to the manual of style entry for disambiguation pages which explains the differences between them and a normal page.
I removed your controversial statement on his performance in Jamaica Inn. There are many other references that attributed the quality of the sound to the BBC at the time of broadcast (as being too low, while the BBC blamed the actors with much finger pointing for the low ratings). One sourced opinion is not proof positive of the statement that Harris' performance was the cause of broadcast complaints. The quality of the sound is better addressed at the page for the program itself (both sides of the story), and not attributed to a single actor by a single news story from the BBC who received the criticism for a not well received program. For as many criticisms you may find of Harris' use of the accent or his "method", there are as many out there which blamed the BBC broadcast quality. It's opinion -- not fact.
I understand completely, and well thank you for all your edits. P.s Just to let you know I got Phil Collins autograph yesterday (I sent him a letter with a picture I had drawn of him). Best wishes and kind regards Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Rodericksilly, I'd like to add you to my friend list on my user page. (If you do so, it means I will discuss my edits more with you, and shall ask you for your help with edits, and I will if ever needed help you) Just let me know, all my best wishes and kind regards. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: Phil Collins
- Most seem to be constructive to me. However, I may not be the best person to ask as I have had many of my edits to various pages reversed by other users and have got into edit wars, even when I have added things that have been fully sourced (which I always try to do). I find that some people on Wikipedia are very "arsey" (Philip Cross is a good example - I seem to have got into a lot of conflicts with him) and square. One thing to bear in mind is that statements like "this may have been down to its voyeuristic theme" on Thru These Walls is a good example of a statement that probably doesn't meet Wiki standards as it is somewhat speculative and assumptive, which is not very encyclopedic. It needs better wording and a source to back it up (even though we both know it's probably true - Wikipedia is supposed to deal with facts, not supposition). Rodericksilly (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Echo & the Bunnymen (album)
Hi, I have recently done lots of edits to the page "Echo & the Bunnymen (album)", and well I hope you found them helpful.
Hello, my intention was never to "destroy" the edits of anyone on the So article and I appreciate your (and anyone else's for that matter) contributions to the page. However, there is no requirement for me to discuss changes to the article with you or anyone else, even if they are your edits, unless you believe my edits contravene Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and you should, as one of Wikipedia's old philosophies reads, expect "your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed". Best, —JennKR | ☎ 16:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I also appreciate your contributions to the article. They are interesting and informative. My only concern was the huge removal of information from the page, which I have never done to any article, and if I did I would fully expect it to be immediately reverted. Rodericksilly (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Surely it's OK to use quotes from print media article on Wiki? I've seen plenty on many articles, some on much more serious topics than albums. The quotes were a bit long, I'll grant you that, but they are reviews from professional critics in noted publications.
- No the sources in themselves are fine, its just that they're too long and haven't been cited/referenced properly. And because I don't have access to them (as they haven't been cited properly in order for me to find them), I tried to find alternative, reliable references, hence why I removed those articles. In fact, the Uncut piece looks very useful. —JennKR | ☎ 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Including pop, and providing the AllMusic reference, would be okay. However, the question you have to ask is whether So is a pop album? We use the most prevalent genres that are available from the reliable sources. Not all genres that the sources mention, reflect the actual genre of the album (or the closest thing to what the album is). If pop is one of the most prevalent, then it should be added.
- I was wondering—how are you accessing the Uncut source and the other magazine sources? And if you have the time, could you fully cite it? Cheers, —JennKR | ☎ 18:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sean Harris Part 2
I ask that we take this to either my talk page, discuss here, or Sean Harris' page -- as is supposed to be done. I tried to discuss this with you before.
1. My objection to your edit(s) (and now you did not add back the sentence removed, but created a different one -- more vague) has to do with the fact that it is subjective sound criticism and which cannot be proved as attributable only to Sean Harris. The BBC blamed the actors (then later singled out Sean Harris), the director blamed the sound techs at the BBC and the people blamed the Cornwallian accent and the broadcast and/or Sean Harris. It has no place on the actor's page as proof the he was the reason for bad sound quality of the broadcast.
2. The criticism belongs on the page for the programme itself -- not on one actor (unless you plan to lay blame with every actor who had a apeaking role) in Jamaica Inn. It already appears on the page for Jamaica Inn. That should suffice.
3. I frequently update his page as movies are released. It's old information to keep a release date up there once the movie is out. I considered this to be outdated material, and it was controversial as to who was to blame for the poor sound. I also removed his interview on the subject, along with your comment so that this dead issue was entirely removed from the page.
4. I object to your reference to me being sneaky. If I were being "sneaky", I would have only removed your contribution and left the Sean Harris' interview up, instead of removing both. If you examined the history, you would have seen that all references were removed and your contribution sentence was not solely singled out by me for removal (my link to his interview was also removed by me), along with updating and removing release dates.
5. You seem determined to place blame on one actor. Is it that you do not care for Sean Harris' because it seems to be, by now, such an old criticism (even if it were true that the poor ratings fell on his use of the Conrwallian accent)?
5. Your reference/footnote only presents one side of this disagreement -- which was the BBC trying to save poor ratings months ago. As I tried to point out, there are as many articles, as there are fingers pointing, supporting the blame for the poor reception of this programme, and that is already noted on Jamaica Inn's page.
6. If the "sneaky" reference about me in your comments is not edited out and you continue not to engage in "talk" (as I tried to do earlier with you), I will take this further to have an administrator moderate. The reference to "sneaky" is unacceptable. The reason for a comment section is so that it can be seen why something is added, removed, or changed. Your personal feelings about me have no purpose being noted there. If you had used "talk", which you would not, you could have called me sneaky in an open discussion and not placed it in the comments section of the history of the actor's page. It has no business on the actor's history if you will not discuss this openly -- and the reason why it's so important for you to place what I consider repeated vandalism on one actor's page. But a moderator can sort that out for me.
- Well, sneaky or not, removing that well-verified information was not OK ("moderator" speaking). Besides, "Viewers singled out Sean Harris, who played the evil uncle of Mary Yellan (Jessica Brown Findlay) for particular criticism"--so it's not the BBC or the director or whatever, it's the viewers who singled him out. It's not positive, but hey, they can't all be zingers. You earlier accused this editor of "vandalism", and you seem a bit too determined to keep negative information out--so perhaps you shouldn't be editing this article. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Sean Harris Part 3
I have an obligation to notify you of the following. Due to the comment about being me being "sneaky" left on an actor's revision history page, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboards/incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
"Can't hurry love" = "The abominable Wiki troll"?
What is your thoughts on that? You've dealt with most of his socks at Phil Collins (Styrofoam King (talk · contribs), Прискорбные (talk · contribs), 126.96.36.199 (talk · contribs), Jimbo: "Ooohhh" (talk · contribs), etc), so you should have an idea what he is like. From just glancing over 10-20 edits, it seems that he's back with his usual POV pushing, trying to disguise it with sources and a specific tone. Nymf (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mind some of the additions he has made and to be fair, he has also added favourable sources which offer balance. However, he is quite arrogant and doesn't appear to want to achieve consensus. If you suspect he is a sock and the same user that has been banned before, you should have him investigated by an administrator, surely? Rodericksilly (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The Beatles Invite
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morris Barry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old school. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Awarded to Rodericksilly.|
Hi. The source cited, and John himself, makes no distinction about AIDS affecting "gay celebrities", or specifies its impact particularly to the "gay community". So your repeated extrapolation into a label that neither source nor subject mentions is unsupported original synthesis. Please remove it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tomas Haake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Missing Persons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.