| Revision as of 00:54, 24 January 2010 editCexycy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,463 edits →Unsourced information← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:24, 25 January 2010 edit undoNJA (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators30,514 edits →Unsourced information: comments on the issueNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| :::::::::Read your edits, and if you cannot see the original research and opinion, then you should really go over the relevant policies and guidelines. Any articles I nominated for AFD were because I thought the subjects of each article were clearly not notable. Including a pirate radio station where I could not find any reference to the station online - anywhere. And "go to Birmingham and turn your radio on" is not a reliable source. I nominated other articles, not just ones you created, and I certainly didn't make myself look silly! But thanks for your concern. ] (]) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | :::::::::Read your edits, and if you cannot see the original research and opinion, then you should really go over the relevant policies and guidelines. Any articles I nominated for AFD were because I thought the subjects of each article were clearly not notable. Including a pirate radio station where I could not find any reference to the station online - anywhere. And "go to Birmingham and turn your radio on" is not a reliable source. I nominated other articles, not just ones you created, and I certainly didn't make myself look silly! But thanks for your concern. ] (]) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::I have read them thanks. I done them. I don't think the track listings are as such, I KNOW! I used to own it, just like everyone else who bought it, and I've heard it too. I have not expressed such opinions in the article. I added references to my articles on pirate radio stations, which is why one of them was kept. If I found them, why couldn't you? I know you nominated articles that other people created and you got a few upset messages from them too! And as for nominating articles on EAV albums, where do you want me to start? The band is clearly notable, having been in the business for over 30 years and making several albums. The articles have links to support the information contained and you're saying you did not look silly? Some of my articles maybe should have been deleted, but not all of them! And as for the track listing in question, if it can be verified (ie by someone looking at the single), how is it not referenced? As I said before, you seem to keep looking at my work and trying to undo it and mostly for unjust (or should I say unsourced) reasons and this is why people don't agree with you in your arguements. People like you take the fun out of helping on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC) | ::::::::::I have read them thanks. I done them. I don't think the track listings are as such, I KNOW! I used to own it, just like everyone else who bought it, and I've heard it too. I have not expressed such opinions in the article. I added references to my articles on pirate radio stations, which is why one of them was kept. If I found them, why couldn't you? I know you nominated articles that other people created and you got a few upset messages from them too! And as for nominating articles on EAV albums, where do you want me to start? The band is clearly notable, having been in the business for over 30 years and making several albums. The articles have links to support the information contained and you're saying you did not look silly? Some of my articles maybe should have been deleted, but not all of them! And as for the track listing in question, if it can be verified (ie by someone looking at the single), how is it not referenced? As I said before, you seem to keep looking at my work and trying to undo it and mostly for unjust (or should I say unsourced) reasons and this is why people don't agree with you in your arguements. People like you take the fun out of helping on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Okay boys, you need to stop disruption by edit warring. I've read the comments, and essentially I think rapido is more likely to be correct in that we would like to see a source from an reliable third party source to confirm the track listing and details. Essentially, even with such a source (which I couldn't find by doing a brief google search), the information is slightly trivial for inclusion anyhow. I say come up with suitable wording without the detailed track listing and move on. We can't have anymore revert wars, and I don't wish to see anyone blocked. Cheers, ] <small> ]]'''</small> 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == See also == | == See also == | ||
Revision as of 13:24, 25 January 2010
 | Songs Stub‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
The current (5th March, 2008) version of the article gives the impression that the "nineties revival" of the song began with Gompie's 1995 version. This contradicts information given at Discogs: Smokie - "Who The F**k Is Alice?" - CD/maxi single - catalog# CD WAG 243 - released 1993. The Discogs info is backed up by sleeve and disk scans.
http://www.discogs.com/release/853442
http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=853442
The song seems to have a complicated history that requires thorough research to avoid spreading misconceptions. – Jippe (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's wrong Jippe!! They recorded it in '95 with Chubby Brown and without him --Bad News Live 1982-87 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could be. Do you think the "® 1993 WAG RECORDS" text on the CD sleeve is simply a misprint, then? (As a side note, using the "®" registered trademark symbol instead of the "℗" sound recording copyright symbol seems misplaced anyway.) – Jippe (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced information
Unless you can find independent reliable sources that include such information (e.g. minor details about the Gompie version), then it should not be added in the article, as it's original research otherwise. Also there is no need for so much intricate detail to be added, it just looks like fancruft. Rapido (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think you'll find it is sourced. If you obtain copies of the said CDs, the track listing can be found there. I also find it interesting to see how you actually made a slight edit to the track listing, by replacing the swear word in the title with "f**k". How did you know that's how it was? Maybe you've seen it too, thus proving my point entirely. --Cexycy (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you are talking about the IP editor, they changed it without any sourcing, and also did so on another article. Rapido (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Funny, it said that you had done it. Anyway as I was saying, I added the tracklisting of a CD that was released. Anyone can check it. Therefore it IS sourced. --Cexycy (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would ask you to stop reverting, as your edit contains editorialising, opinion, uncited information, and even contains a lot of fancruft that isn't appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. For the tracklisting, please provide a source. Rapido (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would ask you to stop being to nasty and condecending, you feel the need to mess with anything I have ever done and it's very distaseful. There are many articles of this nature with track listings. Are you going to hound them as well? As for Funcruft, I don't actually like this song, I am only providing information. The Misplaced Pages article on Funcruft actually states that accusing people of it can be seen as quite demeaning, which is what you are doing. And just for the record, I am not letting my facination cloud things, I'm just being truthful. --Cexycy (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please desist from assuming bad faith, I am not being nasty and condescending. And I have no idea why you think I am picking on you, however many of your edits have either needed reverting or improving. Someone might say you are taking offence at my edits, just because they are my edits; after all, you haven't taken offence at the removal of your uncited content at Special information tones, and your comment to the reverting editor was much more positive in tone . Rapido (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let me see, where do I begin? Why do I think you are picking on me? Well you must have AFD'd at least 7 articles which I created and made yourself look a little silly in the process. Sure you got some deleted but most of them stayed. It has come to a point now where I'm scared to try and create an article because you will just come along and slap an AFD nomination on it! I'm not saying my information is the best and it must stay, but why is it whenever I get involved in an article you are always there trying to undo it? Very few of my edits need reverting, that's just your opinion. As for the SIT article, I am going to discuss the Special information tones with the editor as soon as I get the chance to, which I'm sure you will eagerly wait for. I'm not too offended with their revert as this is the first time they have done it, not the millionth like you. Why are you looking at everything I do anyway? And if you were paying attention you would see it is not a full revert as some of it is still there. As for the track listing in question, Misplaced Pages promotes GOOD faith, also it is possible to verify the track listing anyway, so anyone can verify what I have put in. Your use of the word Funcruft does not do you any favours either. How do my edits contain editorialising and opinion?
- Read your edits, and if you cannot see the original research and opinion, then you should really go over the relevant policies and guidelines. Any articles I nominated for AFD were because I thought the subjects of each article were clearly not notable. Including a pirate radio station where I could not find any reference to the station online - anywhere. And "go to Birmingham and turn your radio on" is not a reliable source. I nominated other articles, not just ones you created, and I certainly didn't make myself look silly! But thanks for your concern. Rapido (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have read them thanks. I done them. I don't think the track listings are as such, I KNOW! I used to own it, just like everyone else who bought it, and I've heard it too. I have not expressed such opinions in the article. I added references to my articles on pirate radio stations, which is why one of them was kept. If I found them, why couldn't you? I know you nominated articles that other people created and you got a few upset messages from them too! And as for nominating articles on EAV albums, where do you want me to start? The band is clearly notable, having been in the business for over 30 years and making several albums. The articles have links to support the information contained and you're saying you did not look silly? Some of my articles maybe should have been deleted, but not all of them! And as for the track listing in question, if it can be verified (ie by someone looking at the single), how is it not referenced? As I said before, you seem to keep looking at my work and trying to undo it and mostly for unjust (or should I say unsourced) reasons and this is why people don't agree with you in your arguements. People like you take the fun out of helping on Misplaced Pages. --Cexycy (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Read your edits, and if you cannot see the original research and opinion, then you should really go over the relevant policies and guidelines. Any articles I nominated for AFD were because I thought the subjects of each article were clearly not notable. Including a pirate radio station where I could not find any reference to the station online - anywhere. And "go to Birmingham and turn your radio on" is not a reliable source. I nominated other articles, not just ones you created, and I certainly didn't make myself look silly! But thanks for your concern. Rapido (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let me see, where do I begin? Why do I think you are picking on me? Well you must have AFD'd at least 7 articles which I created and made yourself look a little silly in the process. Sure you got some deleted but most of them stayed. It has come to a point now where I'm scared to try and create an article because you will just come along and slap an AFD nomination on it! I'm not saying my information is the best and it must stay, but why is it whenever I get involved in an article you are always there trying to undo it? Very few of my edits need reverting, that's just your opinion. As for the SIT article, I am going to discuss the Special information tones with the editor as soon as I get the chance to, which I'm sure you will eagerly wait for. I'm not too offended with their revert as this is the first time they have done it, not the millionth like you. Why are you looking at everything I do anyway? And if you were paying attention you would see it is not a full revert as some of it is still there. As for the track listing in question, Misplaced Pages promotes GOOD faith, also it is possible to verify the track listing anyway, so anyone can verify what I have put in. Your use of the word Funcruft does not do you any favours either. How do my edits contain editorialising and opinion?
Okay boys, you need to stop disruption by edit warring. I've read the comments, and essentially I think rapido is more likely to be correct in that we would like to see a source from an reliable third party source to confirm the track listing and details. Essentially, even with such a source (which I couldn't find by doing a brief google search), the information is slightly trivial for inclusion anyhow. I say come up with suitable wording without the detailed track listing and move on. We can't have anymore revert wars, and I don't wish to see anyone blocked. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)