User talk:R. fiend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here are my old discussions:

Everything else is below.

I used to do ping-pong conversations, but I don't anymore. Look for replies here.

Contents

[edit] Stop vandalising

If you have time read my talk page, read PI.EXE and if there isn't enough proof for you to be able to recogonize what I am saying about my copyrights, and you are quite welcome to consult with a copyright lawyer to check, but anymore deleting as I have done all I can to point out to you that these are not dan brown's copyrights I have no choice and will report this to wikipedia to cancel your account or have you blocked untill you can tell that dan brown AIN'T COPYRIGHT HOLDER OF THE BLADE AND CHALICE,

Don't care. The sheer amount of irrelevancies and non-sequiturs in your inane ramblings makes them inappropriate for Wikipedia. Have you considered purchasing some TV time? -R. fiend (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First you delete as crap then you say "fraud-o", then you go on about something different again to delete this article, how's this? because that book/movie/author uses copyrights that belong to someone else if you/wikipedia do not want to keep it in articles, I will give DMCA notice and have all pages removed as it's promoting copyrights that belong to another person and can be taken down as that is a rights of the copyright holder, what's it going to be? So leave it in article or loose entire article that promotes infringement? Neights (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats will get you nowhere. Take it up with Danny and his publisher. Besides, you're about as coherent as that insane guy at the bus station. -R. fiend (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep thats me!! Take it up with wikipedia and stop vandalising, gotta go sing Elvis Presley songs to everyone down at the station with chewing gum and shoe strings as my instruments. Neights (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI Notice

Hello, R. fiend. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI#Admin using his admin privilages to edit a protected article whilst involved in edit dispute. regarding your recent edits to Easter Rising. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm less than inclined to care about such inanity. -R. fiend (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The AN/I thread is continuing, and the consensus appears to be that you have misused your status as an administrator in this instance (and perhaps another noted by Alison). You may wish to participate if only to provide your point of view - otherwise it is possible that the issue could proceed to an RfC. Avruchtalk 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] RFC/USER discussion concerning you (R. fiend)

Hello, R. fiend. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/R. fiend, where you may want to participate.-- Alison ❤ 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the consensus of the RfC is to open a ArbCom case considering your conduct above, I have requested the Arbitration Committee review the issues. The diff of my request is here. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Light Relief

I borrowed your essay for this RFC: Talk:List of Cuban Americans#Opinion by Uninvolved. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, glad you appreciated it. I wrote that ages ago; nice it's getting some use. -R. fiend (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section for RfArb reply

Hi, R. fiend, since you're not familiar with ArbCom, I have set up a section for your reply at this link.. just write your statement in that section. SirFozzie (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to follow through with resigning your administrator bit, see here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship. You will need to head over to Meta and post on a steward's board that you are resigning your bit, and they will take care of it. For what it's worth, I applaud your actions. SirFozzie (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
To request a voluntary desysopping. leave a note on your talk page here confirming it, then post at [1]. Hope everything works out for you. Thatcher 03:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I want to make it clear that I am stepping down under the conditions that the Arbcom hearing be dismissed. I don't want to resign only to still have to go through an entire complex process just as if I hadn't; it would sort of defeat much of the purpose. It seems this shouldn't be a problem, but I'd like it to be official nevertheless. -R. fiend (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a motion on the workshop to that effect, R. fiend, I'm sure if everyone who was listed as an involved party (which is just you, me and Alison), endorses it, it'll pretty much be a fait accompli. SirFozzie (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As a clerk and long time Arb watcher I feel confident the case would be dismissed or closed rapidly, but if you want official confirmation of this before you post to meta, you should email the arbitrators yourself, arbcom-L at lists dot wikimedia dot org. Thatcher 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please DO get an official clarification on this before making the request at meta, so that whatever steward handles the request is not put in the position of having to decide if you "really mean it" or not, or if they don't know about the clause, turn you off and then you perhaps later turn up and ask a 'crat for it back because you decided you didn't get the clause you seek. I hope that's clear :)... (I won't be the steward handling the request, this being one of my home wikis) ++Lar: t/c 05:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've offered a motion (see the top of the proposed decision page) to try to resolve this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. So once 7 arbitrators sign off, I resign on meta and the whole ordeal is dropped, correct? -R. fiend (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup, the case would be resolved with the notes in the proposed decision. SirFozzie (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend injunction

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a temporary injunction in this case. As you, the subject of the above-linked case, have indicated that you will resign as an administrator, thereby resolving the main issue raised by this case, if the case will then be closed. Accordingly, this case is suspended for a period of 72 hours from the adoption of this motion. If you are voluntarily desysopped during that period, this case will be automatically closed without need for a further motion or proceedings and with a pre-worded determination, viewable here in italics.

If you do not resign your adminship within 72 hours after this motion is adopted, the case will resume and this motion will have no further effect. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • If you're having trouble reading Daniel's comment here: If your resignation is processed within 72 hours of the adaption of the motion, the case will automatically close with a pre-worded determination. The case is suspended for the time being; if resignation isn't processed within that time frame, case will resume. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think this motion resolves the ambiguity that would have given a steward pause in accepting a request from you that was conditionally worded. For reference, you can ask for permission removal at m:Requests_for_permissions. You will need to provide crosslinking to identify and validate yourself, filling out and using the template at the top of the page to set up your request will do it for you. (a statement here on your own talk page that you are doing the request on meta would suffice as the "local request link" that you need to give the diff of over there) Please advise if that is not clear or if I can be of any assistance. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • As the arbitrator who made the motion, I confirm the above. If you resign within 72 hours, as you had indicated you were ready to, the case will close automatically; otherwise, the case will resume and be decided on its merits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Umm - because an arbitration case was filed?? This was never a "troubles" issue, and this was repeatedly pointed out throughout - Alison ❤ 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison - what happened to this ANI Thread? Aatomic1 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It was eventually closed by User:Violetriga and an RfAr was opened, as suggested and as agreed by many others. Details here - Alison ❤ 16:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I must respect your decision but take heart from from others comments. Aatomic1 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
A checkuser case of which you know nothing is not germane to the topic at hand here. Please try to stay on track and refrain from the snarky comments - Alison ❤ 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Your not above snarky comments yourself. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What's snarky about that? And why are you bringing it up here on User:R. fiend's talk page? This is my last comment here. Feel free to bring it to my talk page or yours - Alison ❤ 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My apology to R fiend ❤. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of access

Per agreement at Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Proposed decision, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop), I wish to step down as an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Thank you. -R. fiend (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done by m:user:DerHexer 16:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) - diff ... You have my compliments for having resolved this in a much more seemly and gracious manner than I feared would be the case. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I was one of those who expressed my concern at your RfC, I, too am impressed with your gracious response. After a suitable perood of reflection, I would be willing to consider any new RfA with an open mind. I wish you the best. Ronnotel (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm that's tough mate. I remember you from when I was a fresh outta the oven n00b. You were a good admin imo. We all make mistakes and we all take controversial actions. The next time I speedy a vanity substub I'll think of you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, though you seem to be breaking with general consensus when dubbing me a "good admin". Oh well. A bit too rouge, I suppose. Looking back on your noob days via the link you supplied, I'm curious as to what happened with the article in question. it made me realize one thing I am missing about being an admin and that's seeing deleted articles. So it goes. -R. fiend (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It's still around—Naomi Long Madgett—the deleted edit was at "Naomi Long Madget" and simply said "Naomi Long Madget, was born Naomi Cornelia Long in Norfolk on July 5, 1923, the daughter of a Baptist minister. She spent her childhood in East Orange, N.J, and began writing at an early age."
While I understand how/why people were upset with your actions, it doesn't diminish the fact that you did do a lot of good, at least from what I observed. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Because R. fiend (talk · contribs), the subject of this case, has resigned his adminship, this case is closed. If R. fiend wishes to seek administrator status again in the future, he may do so only through a new request for adminship. The Arbitration Committee finds that R. fiend's unexplained block of Ed Poor on October 1, 2007 was unjustified. An arbitrator will make an appropriate notation in Ed Poor's block log reflecting this determination.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of fact tags

Why did you remove {{fact}} tags from Bruce Vilanch? oops, I forgot to sign --Thinboy00 @813, i.e. 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of {{tooshort}} template

This is the second time this has been removed from Conservapedia, and the lead is still too short. I hope you can provide a good reason for removing it, because I'm getting pretty sick of this. Richard001 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's no shorter than a billion other articles. Why do people think no article is complete until it has an ugly, obtrusive, nitpicky template at the top shouting out its minor flaws? -R. fiend (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that other articles have a lead that is too short is no excuse. Try telling a cop that all the other cars were speeding. If you're going to remove the template, put it on the talk page. I put it there myself but another guy removed it, thinking it isn't a 'talk page' template. I'm going to put it back there, and if someone removes it this time I'll cut them open and eat their entrails. Richard001 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages are much better places for these things, if they have to exist at all (which this one really doesn't, as the reader is 2 seconds away from discovering that for himself; I see little point in telling someone "hey, dude, what you're about to read isn't very long"). Talk pages are where discussion of how to improve an article takes place, not at the top of the article itself. -R. fiend (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That it these sorts of notice should go on the talk page is just your opinion piece on a controversial issue. I just took it to the talk page, and once again someone's removed because it's 'not meant to go on the talk page'. Clearly, you're both wrong, and you're both damn annoying. We have these things to note problems with articles and improve them. It's obviously not to tell the reader that it's short, it's to record the fact that it's shorter than it should be by a fair bit for the editors to fix. Sadly, most editors, even experienced ones who do GA assessments, haven't got a clue how long a lead needs to be. Richard001 (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the major problems with Wikipedia is that people constantly forget that articles are written for readers, not editors. Notices to editors about how to improve articles is exactly what talk pages are for. I really fail to understand the recent movement to make sure the first thing any article says is whats wrong with it in a big colorful template. Deletion, cleanup, and NPOV are about the only ones that are very significant, as they warn readers that there are significant factual content issues with the article. Really, who gives a shit if an intro is short? Back before Wikipedia got template-crazy, if an intro was short someone would say on the talk page "hey, this intro is a bit short, can someone work on expanding it?" (or, maybe the person might even expand it themselves, imagine that). Why such a discussion was ever taken from the talk page to the article itself is totally beyond me. -R. fiend (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I beseech you to explain this to Wisdom89. Richard001 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
R. fiend, you are a sensible person ;) Ceasefire joanne (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the compliment. -R. fiend (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody Sunday

As with most articles, there's always a few things need ironing out. But if you check the history of the article, very few of the so-called "Republican" editors have ever really done much to it. I added plenty of sourcing a while ago, but it's an article that's edited by quite a few British editors like Nick Cooper who don't let anything slip past them. Twobells has previously done the same thing on another article - see here. If there's anything that needs sourcing, tag it. But I think it's dubious to repeatedly claim an entire article is POV and yet be unable to produce a list of reasons why and say what can be done to fix it.

Other than providing sources on request, the article is pretty much on hold right now. Everyone seems to be waiting for the Inquiry to finally report before doing anthing major, as that's when the major work will need to be done. I don't think anyone sees much point in doing loads and loads of work that could become redundant in the space of a week. One Night In Hackney303 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Academy Award records

I saw Gore receive the award. He may have been a co-producer. I will be getting my facts checked. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If I recall, Gore was on stage and made a speech, but his name was not read as a nominee or a winner (this is of course just my recollection, and not worth a damn in terms of WP:V). I know he's often referred to as an winner, but my recollection in the discussions beforehand was that he was not actually in the running to receive the award. I admit I could be wrong about this. -R. fiend (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ClancyBrothersFirstHurrah.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ClancyBrothersFirstHurrah.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - I sorted this one out for you. Silly bot :) - Alison ❤ 06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello R. fiend, I had a look through some of your contributions, and it seems you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like to have rollback rights to help you revert vandalism more easily? I understand you were an admin, so I assume that you know both how to use rollback, and know it's for reverting vandalism and not to be used in content disputes or to revert good-faith edits. Acalamari 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if it's that easy and uncontroversial. I'm not exactly rearin' to go through any sort of RFA-like process at the moment. -R. fiend (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Rollback granted. :) There isn't an RfA-like process for requesting rollback: just Wikipedia:Requests for rollback. All that needs doing there is to place a request, and then an admin will review some of your edits. No "supports" or "opposes" there. Of course, you don't need to file a request, because I've granted you rollback right here. Good luck. Acalamari 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well thank you. Admittedly, it's less important to me now that we have the relatively new "undo" option, but still nice to have. There's no non-admin delete function now, is there? ;) -R. fiend (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) No, no non-admin delete, though. :) Acalamari 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Don't Surf

Hi R. fiend, I have not reverted your edits. I've just reverted one of your edits because I was working on that article for a couple of hours (18:30–20:30). I just wanted to save the source and the contents until I was working on it. So I placed an {{Underconstruction}} template, and then I found your gift with the {{AfDM}} template. I'm going offline now! Have a good sleep. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that we were on the same article at the same time. When you redirected that article to the Sandinista! page, I was just trying to put some info on it. I'm really sorry for this. Anyway, there are 150 articles related to The Beatles (excluding subcategories) that have been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. For example, "12-Bar Original", an unknown song by The Beatles, has the same rating (B-Class) of The Clash and London Calling articles!!! —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 12:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize there is some overkill on Beatles articles, but lets face it, the Beatles are an exception. While I think 12 Bar Original is not an article-worthy song, and I'd be all for a redirect to the album or such for that, it has little bearing on Charlie Don't Surf. When it comes to Beatles songs, there is really plenty of extensive reliable sources on each and every one. This is not true of the Clash. For Charlie Don't Surf the sources we have are tracklistings on a couple albums, passing mentions in reviews of the album, and blogs. None of those mean much, and you can probably find equivalent coverage for just about every song that's ever appeared on any significant album by any significant artist. If we start making articles for every song by the Clash (with very little information on them), soon we'll have articles for every song by Sugar Ray or the Spin Doctors. Wikipedia has more than enough pointless articles; we don't need a million more articles on songs. For a peek inside my head, you can check out this, which I wrote about 3 years ago. Since then it's become de-facto policy to have an article on any single that any band has released. This has led to thousands of articles which do nothing but take up space, but I've resigned myself to tolerate that. Extending the criteria to regular album tracks that have no greater significance is too much. -R. fiend (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfCs of interest

You might be interested in two separate RfCs I've had to submit (one Sunday, one yesterday) on account of two separate editing disputes I've had with User:Domer48 and others. If you have a chance, you might take a look at RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? and RfC: Verifiability and reliability of sources used to produce Irish-language versions of subjects' names. Thanks.--Damac (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the RfC on the JFK O'Brein talk page, but didn't have anything to add that hadn't been said (to be honest, I don't really know anything about the ODNB). It seems like that matter has been pretty well settled in any case. I'll check out the other, but I have to tell you I know even less about Irish names. -R. fiend (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with this source or in using it on Wikipedia (indeed editors expressed their astonishment that such an issue became an RfC), the two editors, whose behaviour caused me to issue with the RfC, continue to issue questions on its use,[2] accessibility,[3] or question my motives in bringing the RfC.[4]--Damac (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clash of personalities

Hey R.fiend, hope you're well. I'm glad you're a Clash fan, I am too. Can you tone down edits like this one please? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not to be taken seriously, but I find these new footnote methods to be very irritating. Where a simple ref, /ref would do, we now have huge sections with large quotes, making it almost impossible at times to find the text of the article itself in the edit box. Making it worse is Pjoef's overuse of them, and inclusion where they have to relevance. After stating the straightforward intro to Sandinista, saying the basics of what it is (something that hardly requires a reference) there were 8 footnotes which we largely nothing but quotes of record reviews. Why are quotes being included in footnotes? I don't know of that being standard style anywhere. Well, that's my two cents. -R. fiend (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine and I agree with you. Just tone down the edit summaries a little, if you could. --John (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi R. fiend, using multiple citations, it makes sense to put the citation point at the top of the page (mainly in the lead section and in the most obvious point). You removed "irrelevant snippets" such as Gilbert, Pat. Passion Is a Fashion: The Real Story of The Clash; Gray, Marcus. The Clash: Return of the Last Gang in Town; Green, Johnny. A Riot of Our Own: Night and Day with The Clash; Gruen, Bob. The Clash; Needs, Kris. Joe Strummer and the Legend of the Clash; Topping, Keith. The Complete Clash; MTV Rockumentary; Levy, Joe, Rolling Stone The 500 Greatest Album of All Time; and many others for a total of 22 footnotes and 82 citations plus 2 new sections, some paragraphs and four hours of work! Can you please revert your edit on that article? So, I can remove all the info and cite templates you don't need on it. I'll try to make that article more accesible to all. I've no problem with wikicode because it's very simple (for me). I can understand that it should be cumbersome/irritant for many other editors, but it could be not a good reason to do what you did. If you want to change the citation style format, replace the cite templates and other things on that article please send me a message and I'll work for you, so, when you'll be satisfied, you'll be able to work on it again (and without irritation; I know you created the article). Wikipedia (IMO) must be a collaborative place and I don't know why you have a personal problem with me and why you must be offensive with me (horsewhipping and more)! Please, revert that edit and send me a list of unneeded or unnecessary things that you want to change or remove from that article. I remain at your disposal and thanks in advance. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need me to revert to earlier versions. If you want to edit and simplify/clarify the version you last edited, just click here: [5]. But my advice to you is to cut back on excessive footnotes (82 citations for such an article is well beyond excessive), and put the sources being used (at least the book ones) in a References section at the bottom, instead of introducing them all in the opening paragraph. Then you can cite them, when necessary, with with simple <ref> Gray, p. 3.14159 </ref> . I think I've stated on the talk page what should be changed. On another note, I have no personal problem with you, I just think some of what you're doing here is more suited to the The Clash wiki over at Wikia. It's in pretty sad shape and could use some dedicated editors ([http://clash.wikia.com/wiki/The_Clash see for yourself). The "horsewhipping" comment was a joke, and not directed at you, unless you made that footnote template, in which case I implore you to use it sparingly, if at all. -R. fiend (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I did a first step removing all the quotes in those templates and moving the bibliographies in a new section. Right now, I start to replace all the citation templates (it will be a hard work). For every question, send me a message and I'll reply here. Thanks again —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Looking much better. Thanks. I'll take a thorough look at it later. If I think any major changes should be made I'll say so on the talk page. -R. fiend (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's looking like the Charlie Don't Surf article will likely be deleted. If you have any desire to move its contents over to Wikia (which I think is a good idea), I advise you to do so now, or copy it to a user subpage for future transwiki. -R. fiend (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Bad news! Thanks, I've a copy. (IMO) cleaning that article, for example deleting the list of concerts and leaving just two or three of the most important performances... It was not worse than other song articles on Wikipedia. About Sandinista! I'm not so sure that the templates were so bad.
Westway REF code now look like this: <ref name="Westway_to_the_World">[[Don Letts|Letts Don]]; [[Joe Strummer]], [[Mick Jones (The Clash)|Mick Jones]], [[Paul Simonon]], [[Topper Headon]], [[Terry Chimes]], Rick Elgood, [[The Clash]]. (2001). [[Westway to the World|''The Clash: Westway to the World'']] [Documentary]. New York, NY: [[Sony Music Entertainment]]; Dorismo; Uptown Films. Retrivied on [[2008]]-[[February 6|02-06]]. Event occurs at 55:00–63:00. ISBN 0-738900-82-6. [[OCLC]] [http://worldcat.org/oclc/49798077 49798077]</ref>

Tl orizontal form: <ref name="Westway_to_the_World">{{cite video |people=[[Don Letts|Letts Don]]; [[Joe Strummer]], [[Mick Jones (The Clash)|Mick Jones]], [[Paul Simonon]], [[Topper Headon]], [[Terry Chimes]], Rick Elgood, [[The Clash]] |year2=2001 |title=The Clash, [[Westway to the World]] |medium=Documentary |publisher=[[Sony Music Entertainment]]; Dorismo; Uptown Films |location=New York, NY |accessdate=2008-02-06 |time=55:00–63:00 |isbn=0738900826 |oclc=49798077 }}</ref>

Tl vertical form (spaces excluded): <ref name="Westway_to_the_World">{{cite video
| people = [[Don Letts|Letts Don]]; [[Joe Strummer]], [[Mick Jones (The Clash)|Mick Jones]], [[Paul Simonon]], [[Topper Headon]], [[Terry Chimes]], Rick Elgood, [[The Clash]]
| year2 = 2001
| title = The Clash, [[Westway to the World]]
| medium = Documentary
| publisher = [[Sony Music Entertainment]]; Dorismo; Uptown Films
| location = New York, NY
| accessdate = 2008-02-06
| time = 55:00–63:00
| isbn = 0738900826
| oclc = 49798077
}}</ref>. IMO the templates, especially when there are a lot of datas/fields, are much recognizable than the other method. What you think about this??? I need your opinion before I continue this edit and I want to unify all of their articles. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I may have overstated my objections to the templates in question. While I find them kind of annoying, I shouldn't say they never have their place. My main objection was the overuse of them (and of footnotes in general, i.e. 3 or 4 on top of each other, particularly for a fact that isn't likely to be disputed). I see no reason to use them for books, but for websites and videos perhaps they may be useful. I think websites are best with a direct link and little else (though I guess retrieval date is standard now?), while videos are not ideal sources just because you can't pinpoint a page number like you can with a book. This is certainly not to say that videos are invalid, but maybe should only be used when there isn't a good print source that can relay the same information? I have to say, from a brief glance, it looks like my main objections have been addressed: the first paragraph no longer serves as a dumping ground for every source used in the article, extensive quotes from reviews don't appear in the footnotes, and there aren't single sentences of article text hidden away by being surrounded by 20KB of footnote writing. Beyond that, I'm not going to split hairs over the exact way the footnotes appear, as long as everything doesn't get completely blown out of proportion once again. So good work, it seems. Sometime this weekend I'll go over it for some minor style and tone issues, and I think everything should be all aces. -R. fiend (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"retrieval date is standard now?" Yes, when a bot found <ref>[URL]</ref> in an article it automatically add title, website and retrieval date to the reference TAG <ref>[URL Title]. somewebsite.dom. Retrieved on...</ref>. "good print source that can relay the same information?" Sure! A well written book is the best source, but we must know the page numbers (I wrote the chapters' time of Westway in this section). Pay attention to the first paragraph and the whole lead section. The lead section should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, .... The lead should be no longer than four paragraphs (15,000-30,000 chars; 1-4 paragraphs). Wikipedia plans to publish the lead sections in static version of Wikipedia (ver. 1.0) distributed on CD, DVD, or paper. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro tag

R. fiend - I'm not sure why you keep removing the tag on the Taxation in the United States article. Per the guidelines for WP:LEAD, this article should have a three to four paragraph lead that summarizes the article. It neither summarizes the article nor has sufficient length for an article of this size. The purpose of the tag is specifically for addressing this type of article/lead, so I'm not sure why you think it doesn't belong. Like any article tag, it is meant to get editors to address the issue and improve the article. Could you please explain your reasoning for removal? Morphh (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Then hash it out on the talk page, that's what they're for. There's no reason to yell to a casual reader WARNING! What you are about to read is brief!. Probably 80% of articles have leads that are "too short" by the outlined criteria. Are we going to see that same stupid template on 80% of articles? Not on my watch. -R. fiend (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats the nature of article tags on an encyclopedia that promotes reader editing. 80% of the articles do not have a significant article body that would merit focus on the lead. There is focus on lead in this article because it is much further along in development and article structure. Focus for this particular article needs to be given to summarizing the content (that is present in the body) into the lead. Morphh (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
All points that should be (and I see are) covered on the talk page, which is where discussions for article improvement take place. The articles are for readers; talk pages are for editors. People seem to forget about the readers pretty frequently here. -R. fiend (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you there, and if you want to form a consensus around moving article tags to the talk page.. I'm there with you.. but they are what they are and the tag applies to the problem. I think part of the reasoning for it being in article space is to draw the attention that you dislike. I dislike it as well, which prompts me to address it more aggressively and remove the tag. Morphh (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I've stuck the one on Shadowrun back on. If you've got a problem with the template, take it to tfd. Don't disrupt other people's workflows by ripping tags (and hence cleanup categories) off of random articles. If you've got a problem with cleanup tags in general, they can be easily banished from sight with some user CSS edits. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks :)

Thanks lol I knew I should have bothered to check the citation down there. I think the confusion, though, comes from the reader not necessarily knowing whether that citation applies for and refers to that whole paragraph or quite easily just that last historical sentence.
Take care ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring at The Da Vinci Code (film)

C'mon, mate, you know better than to do that... I should technically be removing rollback because you've used it to edit war, but I won't, because you're not going to edit war anymore and will seek to reach a compromise with the other user in the future. Right? :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I know what he was adding was totally crazy, but if he's just ignoring warnings then report him to 3RR or such. Don't keep warring. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
From one "R." to another, in cases like this, let someone know, you don't have to go it alone. . . R. Baley (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you allowed to use rollback to remove vandalism? (And is hitting "undo" really that much different anyway?) And I considered reporting him last night, but it was 2 AM and 3RR reports are actually a pretty big hassle. I guessed, correctly, that someone would soon notice this guy's lunacy and handle it. I wasn't expecting an infinite block, but, hell, I'll take it. Problem solved. -R. fiend (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects from merge

Please see the category for an explanation of why these should not be deleted--as I understand it, they carry the article history whichis needed fro GFDL> DGG (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC). Right. done. DGG (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Picture of Dorian Gray

just noticed you've removed the list of popular culture references. this is all well and good, but it leaves a sentence saying that "Numerous songs and band names reference The Picture of Dorian Gray or its title character" without giving any kind of example. also, i note you've left theatrical and film references completely intact. Can i have your permission as it were to revert them?

O keyes (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No examples needed, and the ones that were provided were the textbook definition of tedious subtriviality. In fact, the whole sentence is unneeded, but it's accurate and does no real harm. The film reference could probably use pruning too. I'll look into it. -R. fiend (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Already on top of it

Hehe, I saw Izzard on Carson Daly mention it and actually beat the vandals to Carson's page. :) ju66l3r (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh! It was Carson's page they were going to. I was only half watching and didn't catch the details of the show. I was looking at Izzard and the topic of the discussion, which kept changing (Jam maybe?). It's generally pretty predictable. -R. fiend (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I see someone did a pre-emptive protect on Izzard too. Good thinking. -R. fiend (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Carson was complaining that when he looked at his own page, it just said that he is "a tool and raised by wolves". So that became the predictable nonsense they tried to add to the article. Semi-protected now, same is Izzard's page. ju66l3r (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conan

Yeah, that was a crazy time last nite. Wish we had some reference to page views. I requested a protect for Brian's page early on. I guess it went through eventually. Seems like you and I were reverting over each other last nite. Thank God for Huggle. And good lookin' out on both Brian and Izzard. --InvisibleDiplomat666 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Pogues.

You are correct, I was looking at the edits further down and reverted without paying attention to more recent edits. That's what happens when I edit before I have had enough coffee. Thanks for the revert! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Easter Rising

Thanks for your changes. I'm glad, unlike the reactionaries who seem to dominate the page and discussions related to the Rising, you were able to see what I was getting at. One tiny quibble - could you change "lords" (see below) to House of Lords (so much more encyclopaedic looking and respectful).

"the Tories and lords were steadfastly opposed to home rule,"

Thanks lots. Auld Orangie (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I put in piped links to the House of Lords and the Conservative Party. That should probably do the trick. If you think the Lords link shouldn't be piped, feel free to change it. I don't expect anyone to edit war over something so minor-R. fiend (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rome Rule

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Rome Rule, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey: I wanted to thank you for your (and User:Johnbull's) efforts regarding Rome Rule. I don't know if you have realized it yet but User:Domer48, and to a lesser degree, others who have relentlessly reverted most of your edits and whittled the page down to a stub, is a pro-Irish republican apologist. He has been since the first day he registered at Wikipedia. A review of his edits will prove/confirm this. You really should not let him get away with what he is doing just because it interferes with his political agenda. The notion that "Rome Rule" is a non-notable term is patently ludicrous.
Good Luck and be prepared for the onslaught. Domer is an ideologue who seeks to twist Wikipedia, at least regarding certain topics, to his whims. He doesn't give up and has been banned thrice for his behaviour. Marinersrhymetime (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I am very familiar with Domer, I can tell you (check out Talk:Easter Rising for details). I know what I'm dealing with. As for the article, it was actually me who removed the majority of its content, as much of it actually was unreferenced POV. What remains, however, is a perfectly valid start, and a useful substub in its own right. I don't see what the fuss is about it, especially as Scolaire, who I've found to be a solid, fair, and intelligent editor, is leading the action. Well, I guess I'll head over to the AFD and see what's afoot. -R. fiend (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles about quotes

Now that the AfD is over, I thought I'd share my thoughts about quotes with you. Articles about quotes can be useful and informative. Read my lips: no new taxes is an example - it is 25 Kb long and none of it is dross. Another one I'm fond of, and one I've edited myself, is Vive le Québec libre speech - again, there is a wealth of solid information on the background to the speech, the circumstances surrounding it, the reaction to it etc. And I've even created an article on Ireland unfree shall never be at peace. My problem with Rome Rule is that there seem to be no sources (reliable or otherwise) that provide that kind of detail for this phrase; these two that Johnbull gave me are the only ones I've seen that go beyond "many opposed the Irish home rule bill of 1886 on the grounds that home rule meant Rome rule", and those two are the only reason I didn't vote delete. I still can't see how it can be expanded into an informative article but, as I said at the AfD, it is up to the "keeps" to show that it can by doing it. Tiocfaidh ár lá is another example of editors desparately thinking up something to say about a phrase just because of a feeling that "it should be there". No study that I know of has been devoted to the slogan, therefore no sources can be cited that give any insight into the use of the slogan. And here, your argument that "people should be able to type it and get some sort of result explaining it" doesn't hold much water - how many people who don't already know about it would be able to type that in the search box? Should we create a dozen articles with misspellings (maybe including "chucky our law") to redirect to it? And then, the question of A Protestant parliament for a Protestant people - should there really be articles on misquotes, just because the misquote is more familiar than the actual quote? I just don't see the use of it! To my mind, a stub is an embryonic article, and there should be a reasonable expectation that it will some day contain solid information that people will want to read. To have a stub there just for the sake of having something there is a waste of space.
Apologies if that sounds like a rant. I really only wanted to clarify my position. Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for your kind words above. I'm blushing ;-) Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and while I agree with some of what you say, I disagree with other parts. I'm generally a deletionist here, but I know there are thousands of useful articles here that will likely never reach beyond the stub level, and I don't think that's necessarily a problem, as long as they convey a minimal amount of useful and accurate information. Rome Rule, as it is now might not be much more than a definition, but it's not something that one could find in a dictionary, so one couldn't really call it a dicdef, and as such should be given more leeway. It would be annoying for a reader, curious about what this term means, to basically be told by an encyclopedia to go to a dictionary, and by a dictionary to go to an encyclopedia. Quotes are a tricky thing in a project such as this, but Rome Rule isn't so much a quote as a phrase or a term. Quotes are especially tricky because something like We shall fight on the beaches is a lengthy and not well-defined (being a snippet of a much longer quote) thing to search for. Quotes can also often be redirects to the people who said them. Neither is true of Rome Rule.
Now I'm all about notability standards, but they're much more relevant to contemporary issues. If the term were used for the first time this month it would be a very different situation, even though, given the nature of the media today, it would probably have much more coverage. Something mentioned in historical writing with the frequency of this, more than 100 years after coming into use, is demonstrably more notable than You forgot Poland.
As for the other articles you mentioned, well, I don't have strong opinions on them. Tiocfaidh ár lá might not really be worthy of an article, however I do assert that it warrants discussion, and therefore is not a prod candidate. I'm not saying A Protestant parliament for a Protestant people is necessarily worthwhile either, or that I wouldn't vote delete at an AFD, I just said I wouldn't nominate it myself. Domer just seemed obsessed with it, so I thought I'd encourage him to put his energies into an article, rather than irrelevant rants on an AFD. Whether I would vote to delete such an article would depend on the article itself and the AFD debate. (And as for misquotes, we have Play it again, Sam, and, to a lesser extent, stinking badges.)
So that's my take, expanded slightly from what I've said before. The article meets my criteria of being notable and verifiable. Admittedly it isn't the most informative article ever, but it provides information that isn't all entirely apparent from the title. And I still believe there is potential for expansion. If we had only articles on things that were the subjects of individual studies we'd delete half of Wikipedia. Likewise I still think it could be a redirect, but I know of no better place to merge/redirect it to. Well, thanks for reading this. -R. fiend (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As so often when people take the trouble to discuss things calmly, we're not that far apart at all. My main concern, I have to say, was that I could nominate Tiocfaidh ár lá for deletion and not be countered with "we've already established that any slogan that people have heard of is inherently suitable for an article", so I'm glad to see that you're not wedded to it. What I'd ideally like to see for Rome Rule is to have it expanded to one or two informative paragraphs, then merged into Irish Home Rule bills under, say, Irish Home Rule bills#"Home Rule is Rome Rule"; then you'd have your redirect and everybody would be happy. I'd just rather not do it myself because I'd really like to get back to Easter Rising and put my energies into that. At least I've learned one thing from all this: until this morning I had never heard of "stinking badges"; now I know it's "one of the most frequently quoted, misquoted and parodied movie quotations in history." How about that? Scolaire (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to add something here. After a couple of attempts I decided it was actually easier to start the article. The point is that the curiosity was killing me and the red link was bugging me. Aatomic1 (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Years ago I remember looking for the phrase Chucky are la. I could not find it them. I think I would now! P.S. I do now understand the fada Aatomic1 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe you did that! Scolaire (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Final points - though I dont make a point of helping Domer in his polemics, I have added Tiocfaid Ár Lá - regarding the mileage of that particular article, I had to learn Irish to find out, not only, what it meant, but how it is constructed. This is information I am keen to share with the wider world and Wikipedia would be a great place to do it. Aatomic1 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License plate articles

Please stop your needless merging. --Plate King (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing "needless" is two articles where one is plenty. -R. fiend (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stop. Several users are working on both. The consensus is to have one for the current plates, the other for the prior plates. What you are doing could possibly be considered vandalsism. --Plate King (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
And where is this consensus? -R. fiend (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be obvious. If you continue you will be reported as a vandal and what you will be doing will be reverted. --Plate King (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So there is no consensus. I thought as much. Report away, then. -R. fiend (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
All I will say is please stop. Your edits will be reverted. --Plate King (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi R. fiend, while I agree the articles should be merged, I think it could possibly be useful to organize a centralized discussion to establish consensus to prevent an edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
While my actions were partly based on this brief exchange and the corresponding merge notices on the article, it's based much more on common sense. None of these articles are terribly long, and most are very short. There is absolutely no need for breakaway articles here. I'm happy to take part in a centralized discussion; is there one or a good place for one? I personally don't feel like initiating the whole RFC process. In any case, my actions now, though I realize they are being reverted, I figure will make the merges easier to perform later, assuming common sense does eventually prevail. -R. fiend (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added my support for a merge to Talk:History of vehicle registration plates of Mississippi. Also, we could ask OhanaUnited's opinion about how to resolve this. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What were the 2 article names prior to the merge? Normally, if 2 articles are short and share very similar topic (in this case, about vehicle registration or license plate), it can be merged. Nevertheless, the merge shouldn't be unilateral and should consult the community first. R. field, you stated that "there is no consensus". So where is the consensus to merge? I suggest you to read WP:KETTLE. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi OhanaUnited, there are several articles being discussed for a possible merge, all of which have similar titles to History of vehicle registration plates of Mississippi and Vehicle registration plates of Mississippi.--PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

<--- What we have here are 100 articles that can and should be 50. For each state we have [Vehicle registration plates of X] and [History of Vehicle registration plates of X]. There's no reason not to combine these. Most are quite short (see Vehicle registration plates of Iowa‎ and History of vehicle registration plates of Iowa‎), and even the longer ones are not very long. While I'd hesitate to call it a consensus, I do have a brief discussion here, in which no one objected after a few weeks. I've been given no reason why there should be separate articles here, whereas a merge is quite intuitive. -R. fiend (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Citizen Fish

An article that you have been involved in editing, Citizen Fish, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen Fish. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well, sonofagun!

Your name is sure a welcome sight! I too gave back the mop and bucket since I was tired of having abuse hurled at me. Nice to have you back. The former Lucky 6.9 in his new secret identity of --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I remember you. As I recall, you were one of the only admins faster with the speedy delete trigger finger than I was. Anyway, the author of International Justice Network is a friend of mine, a newbie who called me saying he was having trouble. I told him about the copyright issue, ad cleaned it up for him. I think it should be okay now.
Now, your new identity isn't exactly a "secret" if you're announcing it on talk pages, is it? Did you resign amidst controversy like I did, or give up your powers more willingly? And to paraphrase LL Cool J: "don't call it a comeback, I've been here for years". R. fiend (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Very funny.  :)) No, I gave them back voluntarily. Managed to stay away for nearly two years. Thanks for cleaning up the article. He was on a bit of a copyvio spree. Besides, I've never tried to hide my old username. I did a lot of good work with it, but that doggonned delete button was just too much. Too many bruised egos, too many threats, no damned fun. So, I do the tagging, let the admins handle the problem and do some occasional cleaning-up and I'll even add an article every so often. Just did one about the old Bert Kaempfert single, That Happy Feeling. Good childhood vibes.  :)--PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)