User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/42

Click here to leave me a new message. If you start a new thread here, I'll reply here. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with ~~~~

Need to know

To save you asking,

Date Autolinking is now deprecated per consensus here

Image placeholders are now deprecated per consensus here

Tip of the moment... How to link to a section of an article Sometimes it is necessary to refer to a specific section of a page when linking, rather than to the whole page. You can create a link to any subheading on any page in Wikipedia by including a # character followed by the subheading at the end of a link. For example: Wikipedia:Community Portal#Collaborations In all section links, be sure to use a piped link for readability, like this: [[Wikipedia:Community Portal#Collaboration|Collaborations]] which looks like this: Collaborations If a section title changes, rather than go red/inactive, the link will lead to the top of the linked page. Note that redirects support sections links. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more: Wikipedia:Section#Section linking   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

Echoes Cool Edit

i'm sure some eyes have developed to the point whereby you can convert a amplitude waveform to a clear auditory representation, but i'm afraid the rest of us are still catching up. how on earth you could think that solely represents echoes with no frequency or time data represented is beyond me. i've removed it since a)it adds nothing to the article, plus it looks out of place, b)ripping tracks from CDs is dodgy (no way this is a fair use case), c)it is not clear that it is a representation of the track in question d) why not add an audio clip to make the same point?? Thanks. Jw2034 (talk)

Absolutely no need to be snarky. The point of the image is to represent the dynamic variation exhibited across the various sections of the piece, as has been done in some other musical articles; to explain this in words would not be reasonably possible. I argue that it is a fair use since it in no way compromises the rights of the copyright owner since it would be impossible to reconstruct the recording from the image. As for ripping tracks from CDs, where do you think most of our fair-use audio samples come from? It is asserted that it is a representation of the track in question; verification requires that to be checkable. In the same way that if I take and upload a photograph of a shopping centre anyone who wanted to verify this could simply go there and see it for themselves, verification of the "Echoes" image is obtainable by repeating the work that I did. An audio clip to show that would definitely not be fair use since it would have to be all of the piece, and indefensible. However, have your own way. I don't care. I've had enough of my work here destroyed for it not to matter any more. --Rodhullandemu 12:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, i'd disagree with most of that but the points that it addded nothing and was meaningless stand. Perhaps if you're having many of your edits reverted you should reread Wikipedia:How to edit a page? thanks.Jw2034 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

i appreciate your distinguised wikipedia career, but perhaps after all that time a re-read is in order? Jw2034 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AWB

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your prompt and tireless work as AWB gatekeeper - thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged, but I'm only doing my job. Good to be appreciated, however. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Newman

Actually, what she said! :) It takes a death to bring out this much commotion, doesn't it? And we had done such a good job moderating the article all this time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea you were a lady! However, we get this all the time with deaths, and I have nearly lost count of the times I've reverted relinking of dates. Maybe it'll quieten down a little. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 16:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to make it an issue right now, but I will likely end up challenging and removing the popular culture portion of the article. While the part about the Green Lantern can be integrated into the main article somewhere, the fact that he was mentioned in a song or a song title just doesn't seem relevant to me nor to the scope of Paul Newman's life. I'm not a huge fan of popular culture lists that try to include each and every time a celebrity's name is mentioned somewhere. I've made some efforts in that direction - limiting popular culture to specific depictions, publications, works authored, etc. I see no point in arguing it out right now, however. Thoughts? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it's already been deleted a couple of times but these days I go by WP:N guidelines, and almost every famous person has a song about them by some obscure band, or a reference in The Simpsons, and I think we can live without that. --Rodhullandemu 11:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if you noticed, but the 92.8.40.83 IP with the gay sex with Robert Redford addition is probably one of the IPs in the User:Harvey Carter sock list. A traceroute for 92.8.40.83 and 92.8.51.201 are identical up to the point where the trace stops. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice, it was just unsourced nonsense, but 92.8... is HarveyCarter. It scarcely matters to me anyhow because by this time tomorrow, I should be all but gone from here, and indeed, anywhere. Thanks for your input, but you'll have to carry on without me. I shall be finishing off A Boxful of Treasures (album), and that will be it. --Rodhullandemu 01:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that, it was nice to find another seemingly like-minded person on WP. There is a lot of finality in that statement. I won't ask, but I only wish you well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

For approving me for AWB, it certainly makes things easier! Thank you—Ashanda (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's part of what I'm here for. --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul O'Grady

hi there im edward beatan one of the editors of channel 4 the imformation we posted in wiki was correct unfortunatly mr ogrady past away less that 10 hours ago that imformation was put there to notify the general public we would ask you to refraim from removing it thankyou channel 4.

Somehow, I have serious doubts that what you say is true. For one thing, O'Grady does not work for Channel 4, and for another, television companies tend to employ people who can spell correctly. On the other hand, if you would like to be blocked for disruption, you've made an excellent start. --Rodhullandemu 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking

You have blocked my Ip adress 5+ times now. I don't know if my opino offends you, or if something I do you don't like or what ever. But now that I have rememberd my password I can finally log in and explain how annoyed I am.

If you continue to abuse your power upon me, If you keep blocking me without reason I will report you for it.

Please leave me alone. And a good bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtheOwlx (talk • contribs) 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't issue blocks for no good reason. It would help if you could explain what message you see when you try to edit, as it may be you are caught in a block intended for somebody else. I see that you are interested in editing articles about the BNP; if so, you should be very aware of some of our core policies, particularly having a neutral point of view. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 04:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Aparently my IP belongs to someone useing a bunch of sock puppets. I don't see how sock puppets have any use on this website? Yeah I do, I find it silly how it is obsessed with petty name calling and stuff. I also don't see how a party can be White nationalist, British nationalist Right wing, Ethnic nationalist and fascist all at the same time. That is impossible lol.

Sockpuppets tend to be a fact of life here, they appear for various reasons. As for what the BNP is, it's governed by what reliable sources say, and they will tend to have different labels. However, you are obviously able to edit using this account; let me know if you have any further problems. --Rodhullandemu 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I just looked at this sock puppeteer you mistaked me for. He seems to have 100's of sock's! I cannot understand why he has so many? what adsactly can this achive? Or does he just enjoy haveing a convosation with himself? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtheOwlx (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Something odd happening on my user page

Can you check it out. I don't really know what to make of it. — Realist² 14:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't see anything wrong with it. Can you be more specific? Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 14:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he seems to be adding names that are blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. — Realist² 14:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you asked him not to? It's your page, you can do that, and revert the edits. If he doesn't stop, I'll give him a warning for disruption. HTH. --Rodhullandemu 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked. — Realist² 15:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jamalar is back with IP's. Block time. — Realist² 19:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for edit-warring and adding unsourced information. Another Checkuser, I think. --Rodhullandemu 19:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, although it's an open and closed case. Jamalar seemed to enjoy every moment of that. When will she just get lost depart into the full moon nicely? — Realist² 19:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you block Jamalar please. I'll go do the clean up work. — Realist² 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Yawn. --Rodhullandemu 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanx buddy. Clean for now. Jamalar even left a message on my page. It's as if he doesn't care. — Realist² 17:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is alot of these sources come from journelists who have dedicated their lives to insulting right wing partie. Searchligh, the Mirror ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtheOwlx (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please learn how to use a talk page. Your comments mixed in with others make my work very difficult to manage. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 22:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Again I'll clean the mess, you use the tools. — Realist² 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

template for blocking a banned user

Hi, I noticed you blocked an anon following repeated edits to Gary Cooper and you noted on the talk page about it being a banned user etc. I was wondering if there is another template that could be used. The one that is used on that talk page says in part, "You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires." This is actually incorrect, as he is banned and will not be welcome. Is there another way this could be worded so as not to create a misleading impression that he will be welcome to resume business in 2 weeks? Rossrs (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a specific template for this so I've refactored the text. I'll make more helpful template. --Rodhullandemu 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

{{BlockBannedUser}} does the job, for future reference. --Rodhullandemu 14:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

So sorry, promise you it will not happen anymore. Sorry for the inconvinence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.141.129 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

It wasn't disruptive. It was neutral, factual, verifiable, useful and non-offencive. What more do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.27.249 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It says right on the user page that we can edit it if we aren't vandalizing, and I wasn't vandalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.27.249 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The page INVITES users to edit it themselves rather than bothering him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.27.249 (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Up to a point; that does not exclude reversions, and certainly not WP:POINT and WP:NPOV edits. You've made your point; I advise you to leave it. --Rodhullandemu 00:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you intend to continue to block good-faith users, you are a detriment to the encyclopedia. Please forfeit your administrator powers for the sake of the project. Thank you. --142.162.19.109 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have not the slightest intention of giving up my responsibility to protect the encyclopedia, and WP:RFC is elsewhere. --Rodhullandemu 11:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Rodhullandemu, is that your protecting of the encyclopedia is, in fact, doing the project harm by not letting good faith editors make improvements. --142.162.19.109 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DFTT; this conversation is over. --Rodhullandemu 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

XTheOwlX

Can you please unblock my IP adress? For some reason I cannot even appeal. I accept that its a mistake and Im not your nemisis or anything lol. I really cannot understand the needs of haveing socks on this site but there you go. lol

My IP is 88.110.35.220 —Preceding unsigned comment added by XtheOwlx (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That range (88.110.0.0/17) is only blocked for anon editing, which you are not, although account creation is blocked. If you can post here, you can edit, and don't have a problem. So there is no need to unblock your IP address, as it might change the next time you connect to your ISP. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

watchlist

Hi Rod, could you watchlist M.I.A. (artist) with me, very prone to vandalism, POV and racial edits. Probably due a spell of semi protecting at some point. — Realist² 13:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done I'll protect if it starts getting unreasonable. --Rodhullandemu 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Block question

Can you tell me about this block? I watched several edits this user made and I commented about lack of edit summaries, but I am interested in knowing how to draw the sock conclusion. It would save time in the future if I knew what I was looking for. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  16:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had this guy for over six months. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992; he's the Energizer bunny and just isn't getting the message. He usually edits infoboxes of UK actors/actresses in soap operas, making minor (non-)improvements. The full list of his types of targets is on the Category Talk page. It would be great if he were spotted earlier, but I can't watchlist them all! Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Another question: would you suggest reverting these changes?  Frank  |  talk  17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually revert the lot because although there may be one or two good ones, most are not. If you have the "revert all" button, can you do it, otherwise I'll go through them all?--Rodhullandemu 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks.

Done.  Frank  |  talk  17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the odds?

What are the odds, my mortal enemy Bsrboy has the same IP range as Jamalar. — Realist² 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at it in detail, it's worth looking into, but 86..... is a huge UK range. It's sleeptime for me now, and I'll look at it tomorrow. If I wake up. --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Jamalar's IP range is very specific. Jamalar uses 86.25 and 86.29 according to User:Spellcast. — Realist² 23:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They don't edit similar articles, Bsrboy was into Devon and school related articles if I remember. However this is conclusive evidence that I do not mix well with people from that range. :-) — Realist² 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Goodtimesevwr aka Jamalar. — Realist² 16:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've shown her the door; again. Can you do the reverts, I'm in the middle of something? Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

reverts already taken care of. :-) Noticed you have your own sock problem. Cheers — Realist² 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he's a pest. He creates a new account each day so I've had to block account creation on his IP ranges. Ugh! --Rodhullandemu 17:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please watch this, Jamalar is trying to return. — Realist² 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Get Back

Here are proof of the two dance covers of Get Back:

http://www.discogs.com/release/239371

http://www.discogs.com/release/568343

Tardis32 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Then they can be added to the article, if they are notable. --Rodhullandemu 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What is notable?

Tardis32 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Discogs is the most accurate music release site on the internet. The two releases exist, do you doubt that or the site's accuracy? They are "notable" as Beatles fans should take note of all the covers of the song, not just the most popular ones.

Tardis32 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some other user undid it again. I don't get this notable or non-notable crap. If this is a wikipedia page about the song Get Back, why repress facts because of some wikipedia notable rule? I thought this site liked to show facts about things. Why should two cover songs of Get Back be hidden from others' knowledge?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardis32 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are an encyclopedia, and a core policy is to include only the notable; this explains what some of the limits are on content. If your versions of Get Back charted in Italy, then they are probably notable, and can be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, chances are thin that they would be accepted, as you have found. --Rodhullandemu 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Nicolosi Brothers (people behind Cockroach) are notable

Well, the Amen Corner cover that you have listed did not chart. Also, the Cockroach cover I noted was produced by the Nicolosi Brothers. The Nicolosi Brothers also produced for Sting, Stanley Jordan, Billy Preston, and Jan Hammer, all of who are very notable and have Wikipedia pages. The Nicolosi Brothers are also listed on their most successfully produced and created artist's wikipedia page, Valerie Dore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Dore

They are not hyperlinked on that page though. As you can see on her page, Valerie Dore had 6 charting singles in 5 different countries. Their own successful group, Novecento, had at least 5 charting singles, and have released over 10 albums. Here is the Nicolosi Brothers webiste: http://www.nicolosiproductions.com/index1.htm

I'd say the Nicolosi produced Cockroach cover of Get Back, is much more notable than the entirely obscure artist known as Amen Corner, who didn't have as many albums or charting singles as the Nicolosi Brothers were responsible for.

So, you know where my question is obviously leading: why is the Amen Corner cover listed, and not the Cockroach version? I can see if the E. Layne cover is not, as she is rather obscure Italian singer who only had about 4 singles, none of them charting, but the Nicolosi artist Cockroach really is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tardis32 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

Hi, would you be able to give the article a thorough look over? I've been asked to get people to help with it, since I apparently can't see any mistakes with it. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I have some other stuff to do right now but I'll get back to it shortly. --Rodhullandemu 14:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Scott Mills Show Peer Review

Hi there.

Please could you review The Scott Mills Show? I've been working on this article for a while and thought it needs improving so I've asked for a peer review here.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sainsbury's

Fair enough. It's the truth though. I happen to know the pay rates for a night shift at Sainsburys. £5.70 an hour. Can you HONESTLY say that's not criminal?? That's slave labour. Now, I'm not some kind of activist but I do believe given the current financial climate that is piss poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obeyyourmind (talk • contribs) 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth taking a look at neutrality policy here. Your own opinions are not considered encyclopedic. In fact all retailers must comply with the National minimum wage, which is about to increase, if only marginally. --Rodhullandemu 15:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus yet?

What you think? — Realist² 17:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear which way it's going, but it is a major change and to be fair to editors who may not have seen the discussion yet, I'd prefer to leave it for the usual five days. For one thing, if you look at the change in WP:MOSNUM about wikilinking dates, it's clear that some editors aren't aware of it, although I haven't seen any edit-warring over it. Better to be cautious, perhaps, with such a far-reaching change. --Rodhullandemu 17:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Firbeck Club

What do you know about Parkhill Social Club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.232.163 (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing at all. But what YOU know about it needs to be reliably sourced. This is an encyclopedia, remember? --Rodhullandemu 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Strawberry Fields Forever - peer review

Hello again. Firstly, I think it would be better to use a more established article than Video Killed the Radio Star as an example. I don't think "Strawberry Fields" has enough covers, frankly, to warrant its own section or sub-section. It could be mentioned, maybe as a paragraph, in the "Promotion and Reception" section, but I don't think that it's covered enough by notable artists for its own section. Still, mention of covers should be included to be considered "comprehensive". Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 02:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Strawberry Fields Forever - peer review

Hello again. Firstly, I think it would be better to use a more established article than Video Killed the Radio Star as an example. I don't think "Strawberry Fields" has enough covers, frankly, to warrant its own section or sub-section. It could be mentioned, maybe as a paragraph, in the "Promotion and Reception" section, but I don't think that it's covered enough by notable artists for its own section. Still, mention of covers should be included to be considered "comprehensive". Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 02:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)