Jump to content

User talk:Sedgefoot/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sedgefoot. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion with this User or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
User:Sedgefoot  -    Current Talk Page  .oOo.         Archive 1   
All Pages:  1 -  ... (up to 100)


Welcome!

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! If you need help or just want to say hello, click here and leave a message! [1] -- Phgao 01:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of World Record Club

A tag has been placed on World Record Club, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 01:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you are, may I suggest you consider the likely effect of your instant interventions upon the users whose work you tag while they are writing it? Why not find something interesting to write about for yourself, rather than pouncing on other people's work? Goodbye, and thanks for the (two-edged) 'welcome'. Sedgefoot 01:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the above hasty remark, it was very upsetting to spend hours and be instantly disposed of. Calm now. Sedgefoot 03:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phgao is a good editor and there's nothing personal in it. And he won't necessarily have seen your comments because you put them here rather than on his talk page. So there's no damage done. Hint, if you want to retract or modify anything you've said, it cannot generally be deleted once it's committed to the database; but you CAN go back and strike it out thus: Ooops! and issue corrections. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Record Club

When I looked at this article it was empty. Not even an "under construction" tag on it. Not even an intro saying "WRC is an important record label issuing....". So what can I do? It comes up in my list, and it's a long list, and I have to judge it as I see it. So, if you had created some sort of skeleton page in your Sandbox, with some basic information, enough to survive a speedy, THEN copied & pasted that into a mainspace article, it probably would not have been speedied. We are not psychics. I wish you well with your next go, and if the article is still there when I go back to it, I'll happily unspeedy it and you can then add content ad lib. Hope that helps, and it really is nothing to do with politics, just mechanics. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now un-speedied & marked as under construction --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see you've now got it up & running. Your next issue is to establish its notability, otherwise it will at get speedied again. If it survives that, it needs some external sources for verification. I'll just explain that my particular expertise is the UK music industry 1965-85, particularly albums so I do know where you're coming from. But it's not me you have to get it past, because I'm not an admin, just another editor, and I don't apply policies, only make recommendations. Just a humble journeyman. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your appreciation. I would rather worthy stuff got into Wikipedia than some kiddie's made-up nonsense. If it happens again, you need to read the speedy box and put the "hangon" tag on the page- and this needs to be done usually within a minute or so, otherwise an admin may well delete it anyway. I take time out to read admins' talk pages to see why they do things, so although I'm not one, I do know what they are looking out for- and it has to be said, they do vary in tolerance. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers RH&E, I think the admins always like to have something to do, otherwise what's the point of being one? Sedgefoot 03:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are editors too, which means that they create and update pages, and have already been through the same loops that you and I have been through- but you wouldn't believe the commitment required to be an admin if you want to take it seriously. I have considered applying, once I've gained enough experience but I am somewhat deterred by having that responsibility. I'm not working at present so I can give about 12-16 hours a day to WP, and as a new page watcher, I try to commit an hour or two to that, because it needs to be done. Look at my user page for "pencilled-in" projects. Meanwhile, I can still see a potential problem with the World Records Club article- and it's references. The first two are "primary sources" and regarded in WP as invalid because they're not referred to elsewhere. I confess I have some difficulty with this policy because to my mind if you have an object in front of you, you should be able to describe it. If I had the Holy Grail, for example, I would have to publish it elsewhere before I could refer to it in Wikipedia, which seems to be somewhat of a cart/horse/horse/cart situation. But: there is a risk that your page will be under fire because of those references. The third reference, to a magazine, is fine, but the magazine issue itself needs to be referenced. There's an ISBN number for books, and as far as I can remember, a similar number for magazines and articles therein. It would help the article if you can cite that number. The magazine itself is probably too old to have such a number, in which case a publisher, location, year, etc. would be good enough. Have a look at WP:CITE. Come back to me if you have any problems. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 05:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
! Surely a record sleeve, with its catalogue entry etc, is a printed publication, with a named and dated publisher, just the same as a magazine or a book with covers on it? Why should the fact that it is a square format make any difference? I really would appreciate an answer to that because I am genuinely puzzled as to why it should be. Some booklets enclosed with records actually do have ISBNs too, not that that is the sine qua non of a referenceable book. I wouldn't envy an admin one bit, I'd much rather be doing something else, btw... Well I must sleep now and I will worry about this reference problem sometime after that. Cheers and night night. Sedgefoot 05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a little "Alice in Wonderland". One reason the rule exists is so anyone wanting to check back to the source can do so, and this is not possible with something that only exists in your living room. I've long thought that a referenceable (if that's a word) national archive of recorded music would be useful. Meanwhile, if the record label has its own website, that would be a good reference, similarly if anyone else has already done your research for you outside of Wikipedia. Hope that helps.--Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 14:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The International Jew

Now I know what you were both talking about! It's this [2]: 

    CULTURAL DESK
    BOOKS OF THE TIMES
    By WALTER GOODMAN
    
    FORD: The Men and the Machine. By Robert Lacey. Illustrated. 778 pages. Little, Brown. $24.95.
    FORD is a workmanlike assemblage by an English writer of a great American family saga.
    Robert Lacey carries us briskly through almost a century of corporate fortunes
    (Model A, Model T, Mustang) and misfortunes (Edsel, Pinto).
    He makes admirably clear the technical and marketing considerations
    that have gone into each new or revised model
    and provides plenty of opportunity along the way to view the ...
    July 9, 1986
Yours truly, -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:World Record Club universal sleeve.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I see that you have provided a {{Non-free album cover}} tag. You also need to provide a use rationale for the use of the image on World Record Club. See WP:NFURG for how to do this. --teb728 t c 03:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to follow how you created that rationale; so I replaced it with a new one. Check and see if I left anything out. --teb728 t c 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Kobbé split

I know you're "exopedic" but, since you created the The Complete Opera Book content at Gustav Kobbé, you might want to contribute to the split proposal at Talk:Gustav Kobbé. — AjaxSmack 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sedgefoot/Archive_1&oldid=1090602445"