User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/42

Tip of the moment... What is BRD? The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle The BOLD is where making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. It can sometimes be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. BRD doesn't work well in all situations. It is ideally suited to disputes that involve only a small number of people, all of whom are interested in making progress. There are other options, and some more suitable for other situations. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more: BRD Alternatives   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I gladly give this Barnstar to Realist2, Kodster, and Rodhullandemu, for working with each other in a very positive way. This does not happen very often on Wikipedia, and it is to be congratulated, and praised; hence, the Barnstar. Enjoy.--andreasegde (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps we've entertained this long enough.

Semi-protect on AN/I? HalfShadow (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any way around this. As I understand (and I make no excuses that I may be wrong), Tor nodes are only sometimes Tor nodes and then they're not. In essence, we'd have to almost literally block every ip ever. HalfShadow (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No argument here; I once suggested that identified school-ips be soft blocked (for every 'legitimate edit' we get from a school-ip, we get about 20 people who think replacing a page with the word 'fuck' 500 times is the height of humor), and I find random ips generally a source of trouble. There are a lot of useful ones, but there are a lot more that aren't. It just seems every time we find a tor node, five more show up. HalfShadow (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, you can't help but get a warm feeling about thinking of this place someday going 'members only'. I know: impossible and it defeats the purpose, but still... HalfShadow (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Feel free to migrate to or start more closed projects, rather than hijacking ours, thanks! :)

This protection is because we simply cannot stand to have this edit on AN/I, correct? Weak. The talk page is also protected, since March 21, also by Rodhullandemu. That ain't good. 86.44.26.69 (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

persistent and unnecessary, yes, hardly disruptive though. and you cannot unprotect the talk page? 86.44.26.69 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Prisoner revert

I just found your recent revert of IP 4.249.84.186's alteration to the discussion of the Danger Man episode "Colony Three" in the article on Patrick McGoohan's follow-up series, The Prisoner, and am somewhat confused. Your edit summary reads, "Rv, Number [Six] DOES leave, in "Fall Out".." True enough (at least on the face of it, but more on that later), but what you actually did was to restore, "Unlike Number 6, Drake does manage to leave eventually...." which he/she had changed to simply, "Drake manages to leave eventually...." Admittedly, when I replaced the word "escapes" with "leaves" due to Drake's advance extraction arrangements which I felt made that word inapplicable to this situation, I thought about that, but as certain aspects of "Fall Out"'s closing moments leave it open to dispute whether this seeming escape was a true one, I left it in. While a comparison to The Prisoner was certainly pertinent, I felt that as there is no definite and permanent escape by #6 from The Village, I myself would not take it upon myself to change this passage (my bad actually, as my own edit had indicated the situations were not analogous anyway). I'm not certain how relevant all THAT it to my question, which is: Why is your edit summary in direct opposition to the content of your edit? (In "preview" mode, I see all this as pretty blunt and maybe even worse at times, but I assure you it wasn't intended to be anything more than a neutral inquiry.) Ted Watson (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're Speculation on Arthur C. Clarke

Rodhullandemu: "I've just reviewed your additions to Arthur C. Clarke. There is a lot of speculation lacking reliable sources,"

Do you have any citations you can point out for this accusation? So adherents.com which is a valid reference which cites other references is speculation? So Arthur's own words recorded with him saying it which his mouth moving is speculation? You are apart of the war you pretend I am engaged in. You are showing bias. You mere accusations are not evidence of anything. You are breaking Wikipedia's own rules to suit your feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Examineroftruth (talk • contribs) 13:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Bones Show

I guess I used the wrong tag for the article needing to be deleted, I'm still new to that particular aspect of wikipedia. :) What do I have to do to start the process of getting it delete? I didn't really understand the abbreviations in your edit declining the speedy... I know "afd" means article for deletion, but that's it. -Mike Payne (T • C) 14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:StarKicker.jpg

fixed

Tom Cruise Article

Hello, Thanks for your quick response. How can we add the article? This person had attended school with Tom Cruise for 4.5 years. Can we footnote the Public and Middle School yearbooks? If so how? Also there is also information backing article claim (in Andrew Morton's latest book) as well as partially in your existing footnote number 9.

With regards to Photo, it is indeed a school photo taken in 1974 at Henry Munro Middle School Gloucester , Ontario Canada. You are correct SELF is not best classification. Might you have a better recomendation?

Thank you for your patience in this matter.

Continued attacks

Can you take another look at this. Im the victim of racism, this ip code has called me a nigger and a black bastard. When he was blocked his reasoning for being unblocked was basically "im white so release me, hes black so treat him like shit". Realist2 (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I live half an hours drive outside cardiff, are you sure its IN cardiff, can you get any more specific. Realist2 (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok , thinks that are out close to cardiff sometimes get included in a catchment area, it would be interesting to see if we can get a specific area. Feel free to watch my page, i believe someone else is as well. Realist2 (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at the 2 newest edits on my talk page, very odd ip adress comment. Realist2 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok thanx for looking into it so quickly. Realist2 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kununnurra

Probably wrong spelling - I was trying to ask both to watch that they dont get blocked - and we had an edit conflict there - the OR issue needs to be learnt pretty quick by the main one - otherwise will be in the really difficult space to be- - cheers SatuSuro 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tesco

I wouldn't expect most people to have access to case reports either. It's completely within WP verifiability policy. Then name of the case is verifiable, the date is verifiable, the court instance is verifiable. If people have access to Lexis or Westlaw they can find it there. I'm puzzled as to why you're being pedantic. I'm not really interested in arguing. Wikidea 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by the way, there is an official transcript. And whatever you did with citations isn't standard. Wikidea 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jade Goody

What is so vandalizing about updating her middle name? It is her real middle name. Sorry if editing z list celebrity's wikipedia pages upsets you! Motwu (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

So I just turned 55. Big deal. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

R v Bailey

I quick-failed the GA process for R v Bailey. You didn't finish the GA process (the GA tag never made it to the talk page), but I put a couple comments on Talk:R v Bailey. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I also failed Criminal Damage in English law for the same reason. Nearly half the article was unsourced, which I felt was a bit too glaring for a GA. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just one source for R v Bailey probably wouldn't cut it, I don't think. I don't know the first thing about law cases, but I do know that GA-class always requires multiple reliable third-party sources. Surely there are more sources out there about this case. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I only see one reference between the sections "Criminal Damage Act 1971" and "Extent, penalties and procedure" on the Criminal Damage in English law article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have indeed quick failed a couple GAs before due to lack of sources. If you think I've acted too hastily, I will relist them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for the clarification for these two articles. Do you think I should relist them at the Good Article nominations page? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Relisted. Sorry about that, I'm still fairly new to GA. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:HollyMcCall.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:HollyMcCall.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:HollyMcCall.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chade57!

Chade57 needs help! Can you teach me how to block people?! You know block people so they can't edit pages!? Please!! I heard you are really nice to making fined 7! (p.s. I'm actually making fiends 7 i just lost my password!)Thanks for the nice message I know you are busy and couldn't answer my question (do you like making fiends) anyway thanks for the really nice message! Remeber I lost my password so I can't be making feinds 7 so message me. You are a great freind and again thanks for the nice message you should deserve this!

Chade57 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Chade57 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx

Thanx for your kind words, i still have a little to take care of first, cheers. Realist2 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: My userbox

I apologize for the inconvenience. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Let it be

Response on my talk. --Elliskev 20:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the prompt help! Kelly ^hi! 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

HELP

Could you check out the michael jackson article and talk page. A user (cooljuno411) keeps adding MJ'S mugshot to the article in either one of two places. He has also managed to start a discussion on race at the talk page. An archived consensus was that the mugshot should not be on the article. Additionally as the guy was found not guilty its misrepresentation and i believe the picture is being considered for deletion. Cheers.

Im also concerned about the edits he made on African American. here Realist2 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure just keep an eye out, i will appreciate it, im also concerned about the agends he is setting out on the african american article. Im sticking around for now, im determined to get it Thriller up to FA. Realist2 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey the user has added a new picture, its from a magazine, i know wiki doesn't allow magazine covers but im not user about inside pages. Could you take a look, i apologize for disturbing you like this. Realist2 (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, but i cant be sure that he's going to leave the mugshot thing now that he's got that pasty picture up. None the less its poor quality, if you look at the bottom of the magazine you can till its not level and im sure magazines are a no no. Realist2 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Realist2

I've replied on my talk. --Elliskev 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And my friend Rodhullandemu i dont like being named informally, no matter who its by. ;-) That all important "2" at the end of my name is SO important to me. ;-) Realist2 (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Something important

Hi i have a certain issue about a project im working on, i need to speak to an experienced editer for advice about what direction to go but i need to talk outside of the wiki world. Could you point me in the right direction, i trust you enough to talk about it but its rather complicated and im not sure you have the time. Realist2 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I havent heard of you? Realist2 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok , yes its quite complicated, sorry im not rushing you, study it hard, think it over, there arent many people i trust here anymore. They found out who the racist editer who vandalised me was, he was someone i had worked with here at wiki. How crushing. Realist2 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Register.com deletion

I've rewritten this page using content from the deleted version, removing the stuff that sounded promotional and adding a few references. Since I used the old version of the article as my base, I'm going to restore the history for GFDL compliance and place my rewritten version on top. I know registrars are a dime a dozen these days, but Register.com holds a place in "Internet history" as the first of the commercial registrars and is certainly notable in that regard. --Versageek 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for restoring that user sub-page of mine, and moving it to where it should have been created. Clearly, when I created my account I didn't realise the caps of my name. (I originally tried for the_dark_lord_trombonator, but I wasn't allowed it). Turns out I don't need it after all (may have been a first page creation trial thing?), so I have put that tag on you suggested. Thanks again -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

What is your reasoning behind increasing the protection of Mark Speight to full? You should really include it when upping the protection... (FYI, look here, in case you've yet to see it). _TalkIslander 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The bit about his "death" is still there, in the locked version. Steve ^{T • C} 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Look here. Yes, a formal identification is yet to take place, but if the BBC themselves are stating that it's believed to be Speight, there must be something behind it. Unless you can give a good reason why this shouldn't be done, I would like to lower the protection back to semi - many people feel strongly about Speight, and it's not fair to cover up his death when even the BBC have reported it. _TalkIslander 16:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Still there. In the references section. Steve ^{T • C} 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gone. The BBC are saying that it's "believed to be". Yes. You state that this is as far as we can go. Yes. But this is not as far as we're going, the article fails to mention this at all. You cite WP:V and WP:RS, both of which accept the BBC and Sky News. Finally, you state "I would unprotect back to semi but we'd still get editors saying it's true" - that's pre-emptive protection. Yes, this is a BLP issue, but it cannot be denied that the body found is highly likely to be Speight, due to both the Beeb and Sky stating that it is believed to be him. The article should not fail to mention that the body is believed to be Speight. _TalkIslander 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fire-fighting... fun :P. Still, I believe that unless things get way out of hand, this is good for now. (I realise that we cannot work like this, but...) In all likelihood it will sadly be confirmed soon, ending this problem (to an extent). _TalkIslander 16:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

thats not the point. You wanted a picture of Mark Speight (Bless his soul), you got a picture of mark speight. Why take it off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manadude2 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean my edit was vandalism - i posted that he was dead - and he is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammera (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent comment on the talk page: Heh, I think I beat you on that one :P. I have coursework due in on Tuesday, and although I've done a lot of it, I haven't finished, 'cause I've been spending so much time here... I really do think I spend just a tad too much time on Wikipedia... _TalkIslander 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I do that most of the time anyway :P _TalkIslander 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

James Stewart (actor)

Rod, if I can be so bold, can you look over the James Stewart (actor) article. It appears to be undergoing an attack by Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter (6th) under the guise of various anons. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 20:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re talkpage protection

I don't appreciate it that you protected my talkpage with a "soapboxing" accusation/rationale--if you look above, Herostratus unprotected it specifically because he wanted to have a "teachable" conversation with me, and I replied to him in good faith. I didn't just start randomly posting on my talkpage out of nowhere; I was encouraged to engage in dialogue. (It's unfortunate that Hero and I were not able to have a good conversation--but I was actually trying.) I hope that you and I will have good relations in the future, but I would also appreciate an apology for your protection rationale, because I think it was not AGF. Thanks, -PetraSchelm (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving Wikipedia for a few weeks as a result of PetraSchelm's methods -- see here, for example: Talk:List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents. She has massively disrupted the entry, unilaterally. She mischaracterizes that page's history, and other editor's comments. She implies that anyone who disagrees with her is pro-pedophile and disruptive. She refuses to acknowledge genuine controversy (over the meaning of "pedophilia"). And ironically, in view of the above, she now accuses others of "soapboxing". )

If you decide to block her again, I won't come to her defense. Thanks for reacting firmly to her previous unpleasant behavior. Subsequent events suggest that you were clearly right to do so. SocJan (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi i was considering looking into this, are there any links i could follow, it might be worth a shot 1 day, i spend so much time here. Realist2 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Please see talk page for latest development. Computerjoe's talk 14:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again

I need some advise about the newest michael jackson picture, it was taken at his trial, i can provide reliable evidence that at the time of the picture Jackson's health had declined dramatically. It grossly distorts him. Realist2 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i have suspicitions that he is motivated by racial issues, his edits at African American and the same talk page make it a possibility. Obviously im not getting involved with racial stuff right now im still recovering from the last incident. I dont care for his motives i just want to make sure the picture is respectable. Im not Familiar with pictures, i had no idea he fixed that one up. I will take note of your advise regarding adminship.Realist2 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally im concerned about my block history. Ive been blocked 3 times and also had one extention but all but the very first were removed whem it was viewed it was a poor decision.

• My first block was 24 hours for 3rr which i accepted.
• My second block was 72 hours for the same incident on the same issue but i was unblocked after 12 hours when the admins realised they had got it wrong (I really didn't explain my defence properly to start off with).
• Then there was yesterday's block and extention for "incivility" but both were reverted because they were poor decisions.

Only my first ever block was fair, the others were "c*ck ups" parden my french. Realist2 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey regarding that picture, ive seen it many times before, i dont believe he is in a car. He is clearly standing up and there is a man holding up an umbrella behind him. The name of the picture needs changing. Why would he say that its a car shoot when its not? Are there photography laws he's trying to get around? Realist2 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, ive noticed something really wierd on the michael Jackson talk page. It has 2 sets of archives. Not only that, one set has 15 archives the other 16. What on earth do i do about that? I believe it is archived by a BOT. Maybe the BOT did something wrong? On top of that i would like to start archiving manually again now that i know how to do it. Realist2 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, i see what you did, ill remember that for if/when it occures again, Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For diligence and wikipediance on Mark Speight, and grace under pressure on Talk:Mark Speight Jdcooper (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I re-upload that image as a small fair use image. Feel free to look at it. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Sorry about that, I'm cleaning out CAT:TEMP and the indef-block templates you have transcluded on your sandbox put it into the category. Mr.Z-man 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC

Here I am... --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

HIStory

Someone just redirected a michael Jackson album with no warning what so ever. Realist2 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Realist2 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment at AV/I (Agenda Pushing)

Sorry, I haven't understood your comment at AV/I and was hoping you could clarify for me. You say you have reverted to the previous and protected something but, I'm unsure what that statement applies to. Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rational

Yeah i dont know how to do rationals tho so it must be deleted. Check an eye on that guy adding pictures. He will stop the article reaching FA and i swear ill have a fit. :-)Realist2 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it needs an FUR whatever that is. Realist2 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hum, can you take a look at the MJ FA. They are telling me something else all together. One reviewer failed it because it had not included his biography as a source. Lol i had to pull them back in to inform them that actually his biography is used 26 times in article. Realist2 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Rod, would you take a look at the Afghanistan talk page and its archives. I've landed on the admin noticeboard again, and I am engaged in a fight with an anon user on a page that has been subjected to a lot of socks and pov-pushing. Have I been wrong in insisting that his wording of the poll is poll pushing? I'd appreciate the opinion of an admin. Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Law reviews

Het i noticed you put up a large number of law related article for GA. Im studying law at university so i would like to think i know enough about the subject matter to review the articles. If you would like me to i can give some a look latter tonight?

If got a lot on my plate at the moment with MJ on FA, Thriller is about to go back on FA review in the next few days. Also i got Thriller 25 up to GA! But i have some time to give an article a review if you like. Let me know. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

See my comments to Stifle here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I would have felt awful if you'd left the project as a result of an unwise move on my part. On the other hand, I do think it's important for admins to follow the rules and be held accountable. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand. And experiencing personal attacks against yourself was part of it, too: in an ideal world, volunteers wouldn't be subjected to that. I hope your wiki-experience is kinder to you in future.

I was worried today, because I wasn't able to get online most of the day, and I was afraid you might have been blocked. I would have asked that you be unblocked; but by the time I got online maybe your block would have almost expired anyway. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't just the fact that you had stopped reverting. It was the fact that they were personal attacks. I certainly didn't want to support personal attacks; but by criticizing you for removing them it would seem that way, so that was inconsiderate of me and I'm sorry. I had started a separate 3RR report, rather than adding information to the existing one as has been my wont, in order to dissociate myself from an incivility in the report itself, but I didn't take that concept far enough.

Would it be OK with you if I quote you? The thing you said about a colander or a minefield would fit very nicely as the 3rd quote on my userpage. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Smart move

That was a smart move with the Paw Paw redirect. Wonder why no one thought of it yesterday (excuse me, took you a day to figure that out, lol) --_pete 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Canplex

He emailed and talkpage'd me regarding the blanking. Please stop by his talk and see if my response is clear enough? ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Crazy Boris with a red beard

Did you block him by mistake? I've unblocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting the pagemove vandal. You thought I was doing the vandalism, right? :-p Crazy Boris with a RED beard 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted a few seconds after you did... Now I saw your post on my talk. No harm done. :-) Crazy Boris with a RED beard 11:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:WP:AWB

Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Private info.

Thanks for your speedy reply. The user is User:Bradley Tynecastle Driver 8145 30350. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've never done that before -- would you mind? I think I've deleted all the edits with the personal info. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Qqqqqq (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

MJ FA and Law GA.

Hey the MJ article is on FA, ive resolved all issues made by the 3 edits who have contributed to the review so far and since then it has had two further copy edits. Would you mind, if you can spare the time today, taking a look and adding your thoughts at the FA review. Further advise if needed would be appreciated. On a different sibject i wanted to get on with that law review. Is there an agreement or consensus yet on how to review these articles. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, as this is a new chapter for me, i has been given a facelift. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, ill look into a darker, yellow/ light orange. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK this change should help. Look forward to hearing about MJ laters. Adios. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i favour it as well actually. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

2 extra things, firstly, i would like to float the "2" on my name, so that its risen above realist, how does one do that, ive seen it on some other names. Secondly and more importantly this picture here is very very very useful to the michael jackson article. There is a physical apperance section and i believe this picture really helps the reader see how he changed. Notice that all pictures are taken at the same angle so comparisons are fair. The picture shows the changes to his skin colour, noise, lips and hair. Personally i believe it is impossible to talk about Jacksons changing appearance neutrally as it is based on opinion, its a matter of taste. These pictures will help stop a pov statement in part because the statement isnt needed, the reader can make up their own mind. Ive seen a few flickr pictures on wiki commons including that god terrible magazine cover that cooljuno411 put up. It is defo ok to put flickr pictures onto commons. I would really appreciate if you could get that one on. Cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to upload it (i tried and didnt do it correctly at all), and we can see if it works, i believe its a very important picture, as im writting the article almost alone i dont want by own biases on his appearance to interfere, i will admit that im not particulary phased or shocked by any of his images anymore after seeing so many, im quite numb to any shock value. I not want it in words, i think this picture is one of the view instances where it improves an article. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you mean this? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Im prepared to stick with a fair use rational yes, i think if you word it correctly people can clearly see its significants. Whats really clever about it is that all the pictures are taken at the same angle so comparisons are fair. I dont think i could ever find a more suitable picture. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, i think everyone has gone to bed, its just me and you, my watchlist hasnt moved in ages but i need an excuse to break 10,000 edits. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there i can tell your very busy, just reminding you about those MJ issues, things seem to be going quite well with the FA review too. Hopefully you can get around to some stuff later. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is happening all of a sudden at the michael jackson article, im troubled, the article is days if not hours away from being FA and these vandals are threatening that. I thought both pages were semi protected. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB

Hello again, you recenly gave me the tool. I was wondering how to start using it. I think I downloaded it. I read WP:AWB but I don't see how you click "Make from Category". Can you help?--RyRy5 (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I use IE.--RyRy5 (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Recommended administrators

Hello, i have created a section on my userpage for other users to find administrators recommended by me. I would like you to add yourself to the list so it can have your unique signature! Please use ~~~ to add yourself, as this will omit the date. If you do not wish to be on the list, thats okay! I respect the choice of every administrator/user on wikipedia. Have a nice day :-) TheProf - T / C 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal account

This user has carried on making purely disruptive edits. I have left evidence at his talk page. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, i always keep an eye on them for a few hours, they either carry on vandalising and get blocked or never edit again. Either way we win. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Julianna Rose Mauriello

I was on the film crew for A Fix, I met Julianna and her wife, I dont appreciate being called a liar, which I most certainly am not. I guess you are one of the "fans" I was talking about. Nothing like having blinders on eh? Sure, I can understand why you wouldn't call my inromation reliable, I just worked on set with her for 4 days about 9 hours a day, but I guess that's not enough. What would constitute verifiable for you? Do you need a picture of her swapping spit with her wife and holding up a card that says "Rodhullandemu Im gay quit having fantasies about me"? Honestly... thats very insulting... Serious, that really is outrageous and you certainly do not have much of a verifiable encyclopedia here. Up untill 3 days ago it still said e were in the middle of filming our movie, which we finished filming 3 months ago... Rediculous, thank god I can just leave this website and laugh to myself.

• I'm sure you'll be sadly missed. At least that save me from physically preventing you from editing.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually according to Wikipedia, you cannot block me just because you have a content dispute with me. THAT ALONE makes it so you cannot block me.

And STOP just deleting stuff I post, you have no right whatsoever to delete anything I post on a discussion page, that is what the discussion page is for.

Anything else you can just tell someone else, Im not interested.