User talk:Richhoncho

What's Love Got to Do with It

You see just like Just a Friend 2002 and Just the Two of Us, the Warren G version is a completely different song, it shares the same title and the chorus is similar, but other then that, they have nothing to do with each other. Plus the Warren G version is notable on its own. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

P G Wodehouse

I owe you an apology: I didn't see your message on my talk page about List of songs with lyrics by P. G. Wodehouse until this evening. Are you still looking for help with sourcing, etc? -- I have pretty much everything published about Wodehouse, including the standard bibliography and a book on "The Lyrics of PGW", so if I can help, just let me know: I'll try not to miss your message this time :) Jimmy Pitt talk 22:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Music published by Northern Songs

Hello. You recently removed Template:Category banner from Category:Music published by Northern Songs. I'm assuming mistook the template for a talk page banner, which it is not. I created the template and it is meant to be placed on category pages, not talk pages. McLerristarr | Mclay1 17:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for Category:Songs written by Buddy Holly. Also, the DEFAULTSORT for that category is correct. A page will sort by its name by default unless a DEFAULTSORT is given so the category would sort under S anyway. Sort keys given for individual categories override the DEFAULTSORT so the category was not incorrectly sorted. McLerristarr | Mclay1 17:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect categories

Hello. Please do not add redirect categories using HotCat. Redirect categories should be added using redirect templates. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages (there list is currently incomplete). Thank you. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just how you add them. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, which is quite outdated really, says you should but don't have to add them using the templates. The best way is to use the templates because they produce a message that can be read when viewing a diff. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said you had to. I said "please". There's no need to be hostile. I'm just saying redirect templates are the best way of doing it and are much more useful. To be honest, directly added categories are a pain in the arse when you're trying to re-arrange the categorisation of redirect categories, which I have done on numerous occasions. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am replying here so that readers can see my comments. Firstly you only made the above comment when I listed a template you created for deletion, furthermore, irrespective of the please there is a suggestion that I have been doing something incorrectly, which is refuted by the page you sent me to read. This conversation is now closed. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, just because I don't know who you are, doesn't mean you should be a jerk. But I'm not here to give you a life lesson, I was just trying to give you some advice on Wikipedia editing. This section is irrelevant to the template you nominated for deletion. I just happened to see you had added redirect categories with HotCat while I was going through your recent contributions to see which of my other edits you had reverted. But if you can't be civil, I can't be bothered dealing with you. P.S. "I am replying here so that readers can see my comments" – yeah, that's what you're supposed to do for all your comments; you keep a conversation in one place. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, for completeness this is what I wrote on your talkpage :-

I have read your note on my talkpage and will ignore it. If you can show me somewhere which says you can't add redirects with HotCat I will review again. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, as you quoted, but don't have to add them using the templates. Therefore I am not wrong adding with HotCat. End of story. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As for rudeness, I think the first and only example was when you called me a jerk above.

And as for where I post, if you had asked me to post on my talkpage I would have done so, as you did not, I assumed the best place was on YOUR talkpage. You could have had the same argument if I had posted here ("why didn't you post on my talkpage?"). I couldn't win, could I? I have never claimed to be a mind-reader. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Sabo

Hi. Nearly three years ago, you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND (by its subject, who does not seem to have been the original author) so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Tear-Stained Letter

You tagged it as possibly not notable back in March. I've expanded it with notability. Somehow our (blocked) article creator never realized the song was also a top 10 country hit for Jo-El Sonnier. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. The art is to save the good and delete the bad. Well done. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Carfax Abbey

Hi. In March, you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. The request lists various achievements: I have explained to the IP that references are needed, but suggested that if he is not confident about dding them he can note them on the talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User

Don't threaten me with blocking when I am totally against vandalism of every kind. WP:Civil please! Yids2010 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The adding of inaccurate information is vandalism. Having all already posted a polite note on your user page a warning regarding your continued vandalism was warranted. If you continue to add inaccurate information you will be blocked - removing my warnings from your userpage will not stop this happening. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Richhoncho. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Young and Beautiful (song).
Message added 22:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Related discussion elsewhere

Although you were fairly silent when you responded at Talk:Grammy_Award#Grammy_Award_for_Song_of_the_Year, you may have an opinion at Talk:The_Beatles#Template_removal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Lady Antebellum

Debate's been open 9 days now. Should it be split now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I split it for you and made an article on Dave Haywood. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I took care of it for you on the 1st. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Vanity Kills (interfearances)

ive taken over looking after the vanitykills section now, no need for you to be there anymore pal.

Vanity Kills (interfearances)

ive taken over looking after the vanitykills section now, no need for you to be there anymore pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanityKills (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Vanity Kills (interfearances)

ive taken over looking after the vanitykills section now, no need for you to be there anymore pal.

sorry ofr the repeats,there was a problem with wiki (not me)

Stubs

Hello, I do feel that the amount of articles that you are downgrading to a stub is unnecessary. Despite the fact that I am the creator of the article and the content it has, I don't give a bias rating to suit myself. All ratings are based on Wikipedia's quality scale. The Sharkey single "Out of My System" is certainly much more than a dictionary definition. The start class states "The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas." The content is all referenced and gives a good amount of information on the actual single. I noticed that the article "Hurricane (Leon Everette song)" was given a start class rating which is yet even smaller than "Out of My System". Ajsmith141 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand although speaking on the topic of the music and lyrics surely ends up being original research. I do add any critical reception I can find but this isn't always possible. Any writers/musicians are mentioned though, in both the actual information and the personnel section. I wouldn't say it was fair to state the articles are mainly made up of chart information, aside from the chart table, there is only a couple of sentences that explain the commerical success/failure of the single. Sometimes I add extra chart information about the previous/following single which relates to the artist's career in terms of commerical success. Ajsmith141 (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, no problem in adding the WPSongs. I never said that anybody was assessing the articles based on chart performance, just that the articles written aren't only about the chartings. The articles that you have re-graded are overall acceptable although I do feel the Out of My System article deserves a start rating. I can't think of any categories at the moment but will let you know if there are any. Ajsmith141 (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and help, cheers. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent assessments

Recently, you assessed three song articles that I created. All are similar in style, length, graphics, refs, etc., but two were assessed "Start" ("Checkin' Up on My Baby" and "Driving Wheel") and one "Stub" ("Don't You Lie to Me"). Since I try not to create stubs, would you please explain what criteria (other than the general quality scale) you use and/or why the one is a stub? -Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I may have missed something. Has WP:Songs considered a specific assessment scheme as other projects? -Ojorojo (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney

Category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent redirects

Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages says "Discussion pages. If a discussion/talk page exists for an article, please change the article's class to "class=Redirect" for all projects." WP:Songs uses Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Non-standard grades which says for Redirect-Class "Any redirect falls under this class." WP:Albums uses the redirect assessment for talk pages, rather than a redirect. Where does it say otherwise? -Ojorojo (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points, but not supported by the guidelines. Oh well, back to the salt mines. -Ojorojo (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Different projects seem to interpret this differently. Perhaps it should be clarified/standardized by WikiProject Redirect. Let me know when it has been decided. -Ojorojo (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Hey. If you are going to propose an article to be merged please start a discussion about it and don't drive by tag. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing songs by producer

Multiple versions I agreed that song articles that have multiple recordings might not be categorized by producer because it implies that all of those versions were produced by the same person, but with a redirect, that ambiguity is eliminated as the target redirects to one artist or album in particular, so it is clear which version is in question. The ambiguity would only exist for full-fledged articles--why only redirects...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Song redirects Give me an example of a song article redirect recorded by multiple artists... I don't see it happening. That having been said, the examples you have (e.g. King of Birds (song)) have only been recorded by one artist (R.E.M.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability It's irrelevant if someone somewhere has re-recorded an R.E.M. song--that cover would not be notable. I'm not asking you to definitively prove the universal negative that no one other than R.E.M. has recorded or performed I Don't Sleep, I Dream. I'm saying that no one else's recording of it is notable, so it's not a concern that this redirect be categorized by producer. I honestly don't see why categorizing song redirects by artist or year is more useful than producer nor why self-produced songs are a special example of this problem. I agreed that if the producers in question hadn't produced other material then the categories might be useless, but Michael Stipe and Peter Buck have produced several artists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-contradiction I didn't disagree with myself and I'd like to see this instances where I have in the past. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Go home

you are not wanted on vanity kills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.9.235 (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for your advice, but as I am at home I have nowhere to go. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Unassessed song articles

Great job and dedication on clearing Category:Unassessed song articles by assessing the song articles. Would you know how to populate Category:Redirect-Class song articles? There are plenty of talk pages for song articles assessed as redirects using the WikiProject Songs banner, {{WikiProject Songs|class=redirect}}, but they end up being categorized as NA-Class song articles. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hands Up (Give It Up)

No need for the prod if the artist is a redlink. Just A9 it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sort-of

Greil Marcus liner notes There is a ref in Bob Dylan for this. I'll just copy-paste it to those first eight Dylan studio albums. Next time you want to post to my talk, please assume good faith and don't be rude to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh And it looks like you're trying to get me in hot water as well (with a fraudlently-marked "minor edit.") What is the purpose of this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh Now I'm really confused. You wrote:

"I have checked the Dylan article and at no point is there a claim that Marcus did liner notes for Blonde on Blonde - or any other Dylan album, for that matter..."

By the time you had written this, I already did what I said I was going to do: copy and paste the reference into each of the eight studio albums featuring Marcus' liner notes. The ref is here on the permanent link of Bob Dylan and you can find it in the article's text with Ctrl+F and enter twice: "In the same week, Sony Legacy released Bob Dylan: The Original Mono Recordings, a box set which for the first time presented Dylan's eight earliest albums, from Bob Dylan (1962) to John Wesley Harding (1967), in their original mono mix in the CD format, accompanied by new liner notes by Dylan critic Greil Marcus."

I honestly have no idea how you checked that article and didn't find it and also didn't notice that I had added that identical text to eight other articles based solely on your suggestion. Then you have the audacity to say:

"It does also seem pertinent to check what the article says, which you have not done!"

I'm at a loss.

I'd rather this was laid to rest now as well, since this is a complete non-issue. I accommodated your request and then you posted this nonsense to my talk—you're not pleasant to me, you make accusations that are baseless, and you apparently have some desire to get me into trouble based on nothing at all. I don't want you to retract anything; I just want you to stop doing what you've been doing. I'd be happy to have you post to my talk if i it was polite, germane, and instructive, but when it's rude and divorced from reality, it's a waste of your time and mine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay I thought you were done, but if you're telling me that only some of these albums have new liner notes by Greil Marcus and I am misreading the ref or the ref itself is wrong, then please take out the appropriate album articles from the category. I fail to see how the entire thing is misleading and should be deleted, but WP:CFD is there for you to make your case. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

RE:Adding The Beatles template.

The ones u're removing WPBeatles template from, are covers by Ringo. :P --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 14:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

CfDs

I liked your closing comment ;) Nobody discussed the "definingness" of his production on an album at all. The irony is, the one album that is defined by his production (he had it printed on the front cover just to make sure) is Pussy Cats and it's not even in the category! It could sit quite happily in the parent category without the producer category though. As you say, there's a whole lot of bigging-up going on. I came across Category:Albums produced by Norman Smith (producer) from another CfD (rename in this case), picked Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd and his name's not even mentioned! Uniplex (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richhoncho, the point I was trying to make about counting tracks is that WP is supposed to get all its facts from outside sources, so WP editors counting tracks and “assigning” a producer to the album based on whether the number of tracks crosses a threshold that WP editors have set, goes against that a bit. However, I think it becomes moot if we make the rule that credits can't be split. E.g. for Come and Get It: The Best of Apple Records, we have only 2 choices: categorize in Albums produced by Peter Asher, Tony Cox, ..., Phil Spector, Tony Visconti or don't categorize the album by producer at all. I would go for the latter, since no-one is ever going to say that the album is defined by having had that set of people as producers. Not allowing credits to be split, logically seems the right thing to me: if I'm looking a list of albums categorized as being produced by X, I know (from how WP's category system works) that each album I see listed in the category is defined by the characteristic of having been produced by X, so X's production of the album is pretty special or interesting in some way. If I click on an album in the list and then find that in fact X didn't produce the album, only co-produced or partially-produced the album, I'm somewhat disappointed, so I hit the back button, and try another shot in the dark with another album in the category list—not fun. Whether or not disallowing credits splitting works well in all real situations, I don't know—please let me know your thoughts on this. Another thing that occurred to me was that legislation on this should not really be needed at WP:ALBUM if it's clear at WP:Category names (for any artistic work). So I asked the question at WT:Category names but did not get an answer that clarified things much to me—is it's any clearer to you?. Replying here instead of at WP:ALBUM to try to avoid smothering the discussion completely with my rambling thoughts. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Over at my talk, you suggested to add "categories should only be added if defining for the album." but had I not already done that in the 1st sentence of the boxed text at WT:ALBUM? It says: ‘an album may be categorized by characteristics such as performer, producer, ..., only if these are “defining” characteristics of the album’. Uniplex (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've updated/clarified the proposed text a bit. Uniplex (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We're 9 days down the line from your suggestion to leave it 7 days. Unless you think otherwise, I'll go live with the proposed text with a comment to say that of course, if things pan out differently at CfD, we'll update it accordingly. Uniplex (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I put it at WP:WikiProject_Albums/Article_body#Categories (where this stuff has been for a while). Do you think it needs a reference at WP:ALBUM (the parent page) as well?

Hey, I've just looked at WP:SONGS and the example there seems wrong: it has the song in cat Category:Songs written by Barrett Strong; should it be Category:Songs with lyrics by Barrett Strong? Uniplex (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I've checked the sheet music for the song and it's “Words and Music by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong”, so it's correct in this case. Uniplex (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re your WP:Songs categorisation post: in fact, what went into WP:ALBUMS was copy-edited a little from the last proposal on its talk page (and incorporates the discussion about certified-sales category splitting) but of course, its very close to what you pasted. Not surprisingly, I'd vote for this to apply to songs as well but I'll hold off posting for now, in the hope that other editors chip in—don't want to be seen as steam-rollering stuff through. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Category Sergio Franchi songs

Hi there! Got your message re Wiki Project Songs. Glad to join project. Have reviewed the guidelines. Have just completed my first Wiki article as "Sergio Franchi discography." Waiting for review. About two-thirds of the way into the projest, I learned about Categories. Am now going back and trying to add Franchi to any existing Wiki song pages. Along the way, I am also trying to improve stubs by adding Reference Pages, references of Sergio's recordings, DEFAULTSORT's, lyrics by, music by, and even other singer categories. So I have about 100 other Franchi songs to check for internal references. Also, I am making note of songs for which I might want to add a page for later. When I have finished with Franchi's songs I will go back and review the guidelines and continue with the project. Am adding the WikiProject Songs to my user page. Thanks, CatherineCathlec (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I joinrd the WikiProject Songs. However, I have a question. Why can I no longer access the list "Sergio Franchi Songs? It does not appear any longer on my watch list either. I am not finished with this list, as I still have song wiki pages to review. Can You answer? Thanks, CatherineCathlec (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New Caledonian anthem

Hi. I had specifically categorised Soyons unis, devenons frères under "Anthems" rather than "National anthems" because it pointedly is not (officially) the national anthem. You changed the category, which does make sense to a certain extent; I'm still rather uncertain where it should be categorised, given its particular status. Aridd (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Bob Dylan article

Hi Richhoncho, I hope all is well with you. I would be interested in your opinion on this question. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen

Why did you put List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen back into Skibbereen (song) without any discussion and ignoring the fact that had just split if of from the song? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Rich, there was an ambiguity in WP:SONGCOVER that may have suggested that a separate list is okay; I've attempted to fix this. Technically, a list-of-song-performers article is not a song article so is not covered by WP:SONG; however, I think it unlikely that a list of song performers would ever pass WP:N, so the guideline, as is now, is fine. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good luck—I'll chip in where I can. "Not established as a defining characteristic in the lead" is always good for starters. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hai Ye Maya

Please explain why you removed the lyrics from this article. If you cannot give a proper explanation for your act, it will be treated as vandalism and reverted. Thank you. AnkitBhatt^WDF 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright? These are lyrics of a song. You take up any non-English song page and chances are you will easily see an example verse. When one can hear a song and make out its lyrics, I doubt copyright can do anything. Case in point, Chammak Challo. I will be bringing back the lyrics now. AnkitBhatt^WDF 17:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am currently asking a third party, as I can clearly see that no proper work will be done talking to you. Good luck. AnkitBhatt^WDF 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing, please do not expose your absolute stupidity by saying "put only part of the lyrics". The lyrics given were only a portion of the lyrics. I can clearly see you have no proper intentions regarding your moves. Anyways, a third party consultant is being asked, so we shall see then. And please do not consider this strong language. Even if you take me to to any administrator for "incivility" or something, I won't respond. I have enough experience with stuck-up editors such as you. AnkitBhatt^WDF 18:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are being pretty much outnumbered. I suggest you yourself put back the lyrics into the song articles, or otherwise face the angry backlash of other editors and earn a bad name. I am saying this as a well-wisher, but if you choose to interpret it otherwise, I cannot help you. Your argument doesn't hold water even for a second, and you have been fairly disproved. Thank you. AnkitBhatt^WDF 12:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then, let's get this pretty straight.

• Yes, you have been accused of whatever practices you mentioned because you have indulged in them. Please do not attempt at using high-end theatrics to try and win over other (less stupid) editors.
• I am not expecting you to do anything at all, because you are not competent for this matter.
• Regarding the link my friend gave, it shows you have a great knack at jumping to conclusions, as the debate is far from over. In case you are becoming haughty about your self-constructed "success", I suggest you wake up.
• Regarding the question you so brashly put up for "me and my friend", you have not explained what exactly you mean by "analytic content"? Do you expect me to justify in the article :- These lyrics have been placed as an extract of the actual song, following Wikipedia policies? Of course, you may expect something this moronic, but certainly the whims of a fantastical editor won't hold ground.
• In addition, you have not been able to give any response to the things Meryam has stated. Perhaps you want to wail in front of others to try and convince them of your superiority?
• And perhaps the biggest joke : you are lecturing me about WP policies, when the comments in this talk page are proving you as grossly incapable of doing so.

Please, next time, brush up your speech before giving it. It helps. It really helps. Oh yeah, last but not the least, I'm very happy that you can count. At least I know that you have some sort of human abilities. AnkitBhatt^WDF 14:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen

I am sorry if I have disturbed you cozy, rosy world by making List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen. I understand it is you personal queeste to have as much information destroyed as possible. Even when it means using disgusting kicks into the groin and personal attacks. For me it is clear that you are a loser. I am not going to fight losers, so I did the removal-CSD myself. I hope that you are happy now and you can sign another destroyed article on your list. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Pop Song (song)

Again with your obsession with destroying valuable info. POP SONG is the first song by this band and an important one. Please rescind your decision to delete the song. If not, I will blank my userpage for 5 days. FokkerTISM 05:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your delete tag. FokkerTISM 05:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Never redirect a talk page

Rich,

I'm of the view that no one should ever redirect a talk page (as you did at Talk:Tripping the Live Fantastic: Highlights!). It was especially important not to for this talk page, as it included a merge announcement, which is very important information needed by editors to comply with our copyright conditions (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). Secondly, redirects deserve talk pages too.

Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Dylan's "Don't Think Twice"

Hi, Rich. I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at a recent addition to Dylan's "Don't Think Twice, It's Alright". The issue is a new section that includes two paragraphs and a photo of the artist of a cover version that's scheduled for release in January. I removed the material as unnotable, though both the artist and planned compilation certainly are. It's just that most of the added material is about the cover artist and what a big influence Dylan has been on her. My opinion is that this information is trivial and is being given undue weight; in effect, it lends nothing to an understanding of the article's subject, the original song. BTW, I removed the material based on notability, and the author, an avid fan of the cover artist, reinstatated it. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm asking other editors to chime in. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells"‎

Hi. Thanks for your note. I have looked through the discussion again, and I still feel that there is no clear consensus to either keep, merge or delete, even though the discussion has been going for 10 days. On that basis I believe that the correct course of action is to close it as a keep. If you believe that a merge is appropriate then perhaps you could look into doing that and perhaps discussing it on the talk page of the main article, but it seems that the content was already de-merged from the main article, albeit in a verbose version. If you would rather re-open the debate, then the proper method would be to open a deletion review discussion (just can find the details at Wikipedia:Deletion review). I don't personally see a strong enough case for me to re-open it, but I'm more than happy for you to open this up to a review. Hope that helps. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What I saw was consensus for doing something other than keeping the separate article, although maybe I wasn't reading it right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much my interpretation. I really don't want this to survive, it makes a number of guidelines look pointless, and I further note that none of those in favour of keep had any guidelines to support them. So the article survives because a number of people said "I like it." I also note that closing an AfD should be on the quality of debate, not a vote count. Do we list again or review the close? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You could always take the "bold" approach, namely to add a few names to the main article, and trim a bunch of them from the spinoff article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't work, it would only be reverted. See comments on the talkpage of List of... --Richhoncho (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem I think guys, a lack of consensus. I wouldn't suggest being too concerned if the article remains in the short-term, there's hardly ever no massive rush to get rid of any article. I would suggest trying to find a consensus for trimming/merging on the talk page, and then if you can get to that stage it might be far easier to eventually delete the article. If you can't reach a consensus, then maybe the article should just stay. TigerShark (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tiger, good to see your further comments. The underlying reason for those want to keep was primarily to improve the main article and now it looks like they want to turn it into a directory. The first is illogical and the second is not in accordance with the guidelines. This is the only separate list for any song... others have come and gone, I cannot for the life of me understand how or why any editor should thing a subject so limited as a song should be spread over two or more article names, if it's not necessary for any other Xmas or other song why is this so special? Subject to WP:SIZE any reader would want all the information on any subject on one page. Shame editors don't feel the same way! Do we have WP:OWNERSHIP problem? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's too close to Christmas. Maybe try again in the late spring when nobody will be thinking about Jingle Bells. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that is wisdom. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I really wouldn't want to try to second guess the motives of others. However, I do feel that trying to get initial consensus on trimming and merging would be the best way to go. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't alter that the concensus was NOT to keep. There were equal votes to keep/delete (with the keeps only relying on WP:ILIKEIT!), but then taking into consideration the 2 merges, there is an obvious conclusion that this list is not required. Which ever way I count it I cannot agree there is support for a keep - with or without consensus. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then standard practice is to keep, rather than to delete. I'm just suggesting that, if you want to move this forward, your best best is to try to get consensus on what can be trimmed, and then see you can get agreement to merge that into the main article. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, that is at odds with WP:AFDEQ which states, Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote: --Richhoncho (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly isn't a vote. Still, I don't feel that there was consensus, and therefore the default position is to keep, at least until you can work out a proper consensus. TigerShark (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, another strategy: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Look for every occurrence you can find (with accompanying reference, one way or another) and start building the list to the point where the absurdity of it will be obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

All 5000 plus of them as listed at Allmusic? No, there's enough positive editing to do without wasting time that way. I either go for a deletion review, which I think has a reasonable chance of success, or a new AfD at easter has a good chance (your good call). Especially if all relevant guidelines are added and the soft sentimentality of Xmas has gone! --Richhoncho (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all 5,000 of them. Then let the ones who want this page try to justify its existence. As noted, that's one idea. Waiting until Easter might be a better idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, please avoid doing that. It very likely contravenes WP:POINT, and at the very least would be unhelpful. Richhoncho's suggestions of a deletion review or later AFD would be much better I think. A Richhonco says, there is plenty of positive editing that could be done instead. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure your advice to Baseball actually belongs on MY talkpage. However, bearing in mind this article survives because a number of editors said 'I like it' without any supporting policy or reason has engendered so much incredulousness you shouldn't be surprised. Nor should you be surprised when the article does eventually go and all those editors now working on it will have wasted their time. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless the page's supporters can demonstrate why their particular list of singers is the most notable among the 6 thousand, then all 6 thousand should be on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that there are better places than WP (which is/is not etc) to get this information! Oh well, I have diaried for this for easter. Now if somebody wanted to work on a list article, List of Elvis Presley songs would get my support. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Easter it is, then. By then they will have forgotten about Christmas and will debating whether Easter is a pagan holiday or not. That's kind of an annual ritual, part of the wikipedia rites of spring. One thing about the Elvis list - although it might be overkill, it's at least got a chance of being complete. You can't ever complete a list of "Jingle Bells". I haven't studied the 6,000, but I bet they don't include Herb Alpert and the TJB playing it at the start of... no, not their Christmas album, but incredibly enough, at the start of the Bernstein tune, "America", from West Side Story. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

CfD Nomination: Songs produced by Sufjan Stevens

For those that have this page on their watchlist. I thought a notice of the CfD would be helpful. CfD:Songs produced by Sufjan Stevens. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A Case of You

Thanks for your attention to A Case of You. I didn't think the James Blake cover needed such a long-winded mention, but didn't want my edits reverted a second time. PaintedCarpet (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Notifications

Thanks Your notifications have been courteous and germane--it's good to see that we can disagree respectfully. Happy Christmas. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Bob Dylan editing

Hi Richhoncho, what is your opinion of the editing [1] going on with Bob Dylan article? Mick gold (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Song redirects

I have made 30 other song redirect pages, so it would be great if you could make talk pages for those. -Speedfish 06:57 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Maybe I misunderstood this remark, but I really hope you're not accusing me of bad faith simply because I haven't nominated all other such article for deletion. That article turned up on the new pages list and was subsequently nominated for deletion. I would ask you to retract your comment about the nomination being in bad faith, and ask you to read WP:AGF. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Songs written by Dean Miller

Category:Songs written by Dean Miller, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Eric Is Here: On This Side Of Goodbye/This Side Of Goodbye

I need to carify this following your edit of Eric Is Here as it affects the page I created for "On This Side Of Goodbye".

As far as I could see, the song title was listed as "This Side Of Goodbye" on Eric Is Here (at least on the album's cover). At "On This Side Of Goodbye" I wrote:

In 1967 Eric Burdon and the Animals released a version on the album Eric Is Here using the shorter title "This Side Of Goodbye".

If that is true (and it may not be!), shouldn't the track listing at Eric Is Here stay as "This Side Of Goodbye"?

I created a redirect page for "This Side Of Goodbye", redirecting to "On This Side Of Goodbye".

It occurs to me that maybe "This Side Of Goodbye" was on the album, and "On This Side Of Goodbye" on the label, which would deserve mentioning, at least. Maybe that is why you changed the song listing to "On This Side Of Goodbye".

And maybe without having seen a label shot I should have held off!

Thanks.

Lyn50 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision undone: thanks. Lyn50 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Poco-poco, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. tutterMouse (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Removing copyright infringement is NOT unconstructive, nor in need of sandbox testing. If you had read my edit comment you might have understood why I removed the lyrics. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Blue by LeAnn Rimes

It has been stated before and I will say it again. THE SOURCES THAT CLAIM THAT BILL MACK RELEASED THE SONG AS A SINGLE IS NOT RELIABLE please stop thank you! Please see here, and here. If this continues I will report you to an admin. Swifty*^talk_contribs 11:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't know it wasn't you. I just hit the user who did it it was deliberately done after I kept posting several times the sources were unreliable. But I have restored everything. I may have to talk to an admin and see how to get the history page fixed though. Swifty*^talk_contribs 11:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just frustrating cause I thought this was done and over with. Swifty*^talk_contribs 11:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats nothing but a demo does not prove that it is a single. If you look it says Vocal on the record proving its a demo. Only demo says vocal. Swifty*^talk_contribs 12:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the summary says:

From 1958, this is the very first version of the song made famous by LeAnn Rimes in 1996. Kenny Roberts' version was released also on Starday label in 1966.

So it does not claim that Mack released it as a single. It's also unknown if Kenny Roberts released it as a single all it proves is that the songs been recorded more then once. Song pages normally are singles or promotional singles never just a song. So there is no reason to merge it. Swifty*^talk_contribs 12:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is you have given no substantial evidence that Mack released the song as a single. So merging is not necessary. And I can find several people who can agree with that. Swifty*^talk_contribs 13:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've had it I am reporting you to an admin. There is no substantial evidence to prove your point and if you merge it I will report you. I've had enough and I'm tired of the games. Swifty*^talk_contribs 13:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The page was created out of vandalism as the sources used were the cause of an edit war on Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) and as such you must know that is not appropriate on Wikipedia. So my edits were valid and are not vandalism where as continuing to contradict the facts is. As I stated on the talk page Fastily is an admin on Wikipedia and was involved and warned the user of their vandalism. So I know I am not in the wrong. Swifty*^talk_contribs 13:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to point this out at the beginning but you wanted to contradict me to prove your point when there was none as none of the sources are reliable and show no proof that the song was released as a single by Mack and as I pointed out a big factor in that was that the Dfw.com page used a fan uploaded Blue music video instead of one on CMT which makes the source questionable. The video was not from Rimes official YouTube. Many others did not state anything either and just cause a song was released as a demo by the writer does not mean it should get a page. Show me one single page on here where a the person who recorded a demo has a song page. You can't cause there isn't. Swifty*^talk_contribs 13:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that YouTube is normally not considered a reliable source there are very few occasions where it is as for example Sparks Fly. YouTube had to be used as a source as most of the proof was taken from there especially about the live concert recording of the song prior to it's official release. Swifty*^talk_contribs 13:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I've had it you won't listen to reason or look at the evidence so your a vandil and I'm gonna have you blocked. Good day. Swifty*^talk_contribs 14:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note inspite of your aggressive behaviour from your very first post, it is you that is trying to browbeat me so I cannot take the article to the wider wp community. This can be evidenced by my posts on your talk page at User talk:Swifty and those you very quickly archived User_talk:Swifty/Archives/2012/02. Either report me for vandalism, if you think that is appropriate, or stop accusing me of vandalism. This is a waste of time. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I already reported you to an admin so you can take it up there. Swifty*^talk_contribs 14:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

All you've done is hounded me from the get go and your last message on my talk page proves it which you didn't want anyone to see. Swifty*^talk_contribs 14:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave proof you just want to have it your way instead of looking at the links and everything I've shown you. Everything is linked to a history page showing dates and showing proof it was made out of vandalism but you don't want to believe it. Swifty*^talk_contribs 14:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets see we got this here

(cur | prev) 00:02, 11 February 2012‎ Moriori (talk | contribs)‎ m (9,920 bytes) (moved Blue (LeAnn Rimes song) to Blue (LeAnn Rimes single): It is a single she recorded of Bill Mack's song. We have an article called Blue (Bill Mack song).) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:35, 9 February 2012‎ Moriori (talk | contribs)‎ m (9,920 bytes) (Tidy. Also this should be retitled Blue (LeAnn Rimes single). It is Bill Mack's song.) (undo)

This here

(cur | prev) 00:44, 9 February 2012‎ Moriori (talk | contribs)‎ (5,820 bytes) (Give due credit to the actual composer of the song)

And finally ladies and gentlemen [Fastily, an admin giving a warning to a guy over the same things that were one here. Swifty*^talk_contribs 14:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also we got here and in my archives and here Swifty*^talk_contribs 15:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And here and here Swifty*^talk_contribs 15:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Here: Here: DELETED COPY AND PASTE FROM ARTICLES. THESE DO NOT BELONG ON A USERPAGE.

Look at the sources they are the same ones that was causing an edit war hmmm. Swifty*^talk_contribs 15:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay so I guess we can all be in agreement that Richhoncho did not know about the incident that happened on February 8th. The page Blue (Bill Mack song) was created the next day and even though Fastily warned another that their edits were wrong this page still created the next day. So I get on here and find this out and I know its wrong and try to fix it. I thought he had done it and obviously was wrong so I apologized to him and explained to him what was going on but Richhoncho decides to contridict me so I give in and leave the page as redirected. I explain to Richoncho the situation of the 8th and show him but he still wants to contridict me instead of looking into it and saying I'm showing not proof so he undos what I did and he of course is antagonizing and upsetting me because he wont listen to what i know and Im of course taking it out on him as he rightly deserves but he still thinks hes right so i go to have the page deleted again for vandalism and he still contridicts me and is taunting me on my talk page and still not looking at my evidence. And so I'm in the wrong and hes penning me as the a vandil when hes actually the one whos a vandil by not looking at all the evidence. There you got the truth and when hes ready to apologize to me for his neglect to acknowledge what I know about the situation I am willing to except his apologizing and I apologize that it got this extreme though it was through no fault of mine. Swifty*^talk_contribs 15:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Blue (Bill Mack song)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Talk:Blue (Bill Mack song) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Swifty*^talk_contribs 11:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Blue (Bill Mack song), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Swifty*^talk_contribs 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Blue (Bill Mack song), you may be blocked from editing. Swifty*^talk_contribs 13:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Blue (LeAnn Rimes single)

Hi ! Sorry, I didn't see the previous move (a few minutes before mine?) in the page's move log, so please point it out to me. I'm happy to move the page back if there's previous consensus for the old title. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)