User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/42

If you've come here because I've done something to annoy you and you feel like vandalising this page out of petulance or immaturity, go ahead. The great thing about a wiki is that anything is usually undoable by anyone, and enough people watch this page to make sure that your changes will probably last less than a couple of minutes and that, in fact, you're talking to yourself. So have your short-lived victory and enjoy your temporary revenge. The chances are that it will only hasten any blocking that's coming to you anyway. Sorry if I can't apologise for that. Otherwise, the box immediately below this one is the one you really need.

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 ~~~~

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

Proposed new policy

As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:

A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.

Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009#Proposed new policy. Don't just say

Support.

or

Oppose.

Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - February 2009 Issue

Summary: The chapter is now up and running, and we have now opened our bank account. We have a new website, and are putting plans in place for the first Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, February has seen the successful Wikipedia Loves Art at the Victoria and Albert Museum, bidding to host Wikimania 2010 has opened, and the Government's Intellectual Property consultation has closed. We also bring the regular news of meet-ups, and a new feature highlighting press coverage of Wikimedia in the UK.

In this month's newsletter:

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your associatiosn with Tony Bennett.

Tony Bennett was an active lawyer in the 70s and early 80s in Liverpool as were you. Can you please explain this or should I contact someone else.....?

tsk tsk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbrado (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, I don't remember him and I only have this article watchlisted because I became aware that it was a potential trouble spot. Which firm did Bennett work for? I was employed by the Magistrates' Courts Committee at the time and committed then, as I am now, to impartiality. All I am pointing out is our policies which thus far, you don't seem to have taken on board. A good starting point is for you to read, and understand, our policy on biographies of living people. So important is it that it is not negotiable. If you want another Admin to look at this, please feel free to start a discussion at this board, but please, don't be over-optimistic. --Rodhull andemu 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the article does not say that Bennett has any legal qualifications and that between 1978 and 1985 he was working in Harlow. Either our article is incorrect or somebody is lying. Can you help me with that one? You are on thin ice, indeed. --Rodhull andemu 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks you doth protest too much...Christ even Jimmy Wales edits his own page on here. You have been sussed m8...well sussed....sending this to my mate at Watchdog... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.48.63 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Nbrado, please login to re-sign your comment. Otherwise, what brought you here? Logging out to avoid scrutiny and to imply a false consensus is considered sockpuppetry, and blockable, as are threats. For the time being, I will assume good faith. I've never considered Watchdog to be a comedy programme, but if you want to attempt to turn it into one, you are welcome to try, but that ice is now melting under somebody's feet. --Rodhull andemu 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus typical lawyer. Always looking out for each other. This "editor" has no business in Wikipedia. He is covering up for an ex work colleague. Shame. Shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.82.180 (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Kay. Having already done the same for Gail Trimble, I wasn't relishing the exact same "exists therefore is notable" discussion twice. While I'd count myself firmly on the "inclusionist" side of the artificial divide, I really don't understand the thinking of the "Wikipedia won't be complete until we have an entry on everyone in the phone book" brigade. – iridescent 23:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that at present, both articles must stand or fall together; whereas time may show that either person is notable, I don't think that time is now. It's something I see all the time, that someone involved in some news flurry automatically has an article created; sorry, but I don't buy that. WP:FAME should be publicised more widely, in my view. I don't think "Notability" was ever intended to be transient, which is the whole reasoning behind WP:BLP1E. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree – which is why the comparisons the "keep" voters are making with minor footballers is false. The moment the footballer steps on the pitch, or the no-hoper athlete participates at the Olympics, they become part of history even if they never achieve anything after that; likewise, the MP who dies a week after being elected without ever speaking or voting, the author of a bestselling book who never writes another, or the one-hit-wonder singer. There are few other professions where that's the case, and "game show contestant" certainly isn't one of them. – iridescent 00:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still all relative

And I'm not a troll, I'm a person with feelings that you have offended.

One thing is very clear... you are afraid to face the wrath you have awoken...If you ever learn any lessons, learn this... don't be so nasty to people you don't even know. One day, it may turn around and bite you in the ass.

W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.90.137 (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the "W" is for "wanker", because so far, you haven't given me any evidence to the contrary. --Rodhull andemu 01:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

".. that anyone can edit" does not include (a) people who won't understand our editing policies (b) trolls who shift IP addresses (c) people who won't discuss and defend their edits on article talk pages or (d) some editors from Manchester. Tough bun. --Rodhull andemu 01:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll forget you within minutes; and, er deleting MY comments from MY talkpage isn't on. You're an idiot. --Rodhull andemu 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on it

Missed by one edit...would have figured it out :-) Frank | talk 01:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We can live without this. --Rodhull andemu 01:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Cheers! Frank | talk 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2009

Why can't Steven Seagal die from anal cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.91.88.135 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! Thats answer mine question, well part of it, now i understand that Steven seagal can't die from anal cancer. I wont do any other modification on Jimbo walles temple, but.. can Barry Manilow die from anal cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.91.88.135 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not for at least a month, you won't. --Rodhull andemu 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flubbed my edit summary

It's the second section ([1]) where he's identified as being UKIP's solicitor, which would substantiate the article's claim as being at least technically correct. --Dynaflow babble 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except The Law Society do not list him as such; I've seen him variously described as "former" and "retired", but there's nothing in his qualifications, or elsewhere, to show that he ever qualified or practised as a solicitor. Many of the propositions I've seen simply are not supported by their sources, and they are being culled. --Rodhull andemu 19:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you could say, "identified himself as X's solicitor," instead. --Dynaflow babble 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would be neutral enough, he's clearly told the BBC so, and I imagine he's aware it's an offence to hold oneself out to be a solicitor when one isn't. --Rodhull andemu 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've since found out (although not from a citable source) that he qualified in 1995 (which kind of proves the lie by the various trolls in the above thread) and was reprimanded by the SRA in 2003, and I can only assume that he hasn't renewed his practising certificate following that. --Rodhull andemu 19:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project

Hey sorry about earlier. My project actually called for me to edit a page and find out how fast it was changed. I'm sorry for any inconvenience, but it simply seemed easier to do it in a very blatant way in order for it to be changed with minimal effort. Again, sorry for the trouble, it won't happen again, and thank you for being understanding.Sisnei (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional researcher myself, I wouldn't give much, or any, credence to such a small sample. There is no way of knowing whether it represents typical behaviour, because you have (as far as I know)nothing against which to compare it. If this is a serious exercise, some of the discussion at, and links from Reliability of Wikipedia might be of use to you. --Rodhull andemu 00:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Stewart (actor)

I suspect that Harv is back using his drawer of socks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yup, I see him (and block his IP) on a daily basis. --Rodhull andemu 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Stewart was a racist and his wikipedia page should mention this important point. John Wayne's article does. (92.12.57.85 (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No. You have the worst reputation of any editor I've encountered here for using dubious sources, and also for block evasion. That's why you are de facto banned, because we can't trust any of your edits, regardless of the truth. The sooner you realise this, and just go away, the better it will be all round. --Rodhull andemu 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject for Wiltshire

Hi, Saw you message on WP:England. I set up the Somerset WikiProject for Somerset & have recently help Dorset set up theirs. I've been discussing with User:Mark Wheaver the value of a Wiltshire wikiproject & he might be persuaded if you added a comment at User talk:Mark Wheaver#Wiltshire.— Rod ^talk 18:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rod, I've dropped him a note. --Rodhull andemu 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Manor & Pevsner

Hi Just saw your comment re Sheldon Manor. Have your looked at Images of England from English Heritage? most of the descriptions thereare direct copies of Pevsner books - for Sheldon Manor see: http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/Details/Default.aspx?id=317319 — Rod ^talk 19:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's brilliant, thanks, a lot of information in one place, and it saves me a trip to town! --Rodhull andemu 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiltshire

Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I've answered on my page and the one you linked to. Free Pevsner quote for you!Major_Clanger (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Aviator

Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Bill. Indef-blocked until the threat is withdrawn. We can't put up with stuff like that. --Rodhull andemu 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

"Reverted good faith edits by John; No consensus. Find one, or start an WP:RFC, otherwise, stop editing while logged out, and stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.."

There is a consensus. You took part in it. It hasn't changed. I edited once while logged out by mistake. Your edit summary is there for ever. Please try to assume good faith of others. Please follow our rules on consensus. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Is It (Michael Jackson concerts)

Do you have any idea whether this should be in British or American format? American singer, but a British venue (the majority of people watching will be British I imagine). Cheers. — R ² 14:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either, I would think, but having been started in one variant, it should stick to it. So I suppose it's up to initial consensus of those editing. --Rodhull andemu 14:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Having written so many article on Jackson, I'm better writing in US format. — R ² 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the WP:AWB, now I just have to learn how to use it.:) Any tips? Sticky Parkin 02:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh err Mrs:) Well I'll read the manual first as you suggest:) Sticky Parkin 12:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriateness for becoming an admin

(I'm sorry for burdening this on you, your name was simply top of the list for experienced-editors-who-have-helped-me-in-the-past.) You see, I've got a bit of a problem. Recently, half of me has been longing to help Wikipedia in areas which require you to be an admin - deleting pages, dealing with vandals, hell, even fulfilling edit requests. The other half knows that I'm not the perfect candidate. So please, if you've got a minute, would you mind putting my mind at rest: if I filed a self-nom RfA tomorrow, would I be considered? Even generic responses / relevant links would be appreciated. Cheers! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your time. I'll now go away, read everything about that admins and policy that I can find on Wikipedia, and then ponder the matter for a while (as it's not a decision to be taken lightly). Thanks again, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now pondered and come to the conclusion that this is something that I do want to go through with, though time is not of the essence. What are the next steps to be taken? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible (Michael Jackson album)

Hi, Rod, could I ask your your assistance here. An ip is causing a bit of bother. Even though the content in question was sourced in the article, he insisted that the lead be sourced too, even though there is no need (per WP:LEAD). So I sourced the lead, couldn't be bothered to argue about it. When I sourced it, using a page number from a book (the most respected book on Michael Jackson), he took issue with the the formatting method (page number in the notes, book details in reference section). He removed my source and reinserted the fact tag, even though the source is reliable and formatted correctly. This is an ip who reverts first and asks questions later, and I feel as though I've gone out of my way to accommodate his demands (I hate sourcing leads). I'm also getting a bit of trouble on my talk page. Help appreciated. — R ² 23:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead, as far as I'm concerned, should set out stuff that is reliably-sourced in the article; the detail belongs there. Meanwhile, I'll take a close look at this tomorrow, as I'm v.tired right now. --Rodhull andemu 00:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'm not one for sourcing leads, it's entirely unnecessary. But removing sourced material because it's not formatted how you like it, well that's simply not going to stick with me, my formatting has never been criticized before, and it's the method I used for Michael Jackson and Thriller (album). — R ² 00:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother. — R ² 00:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22_talk 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sheldon Manor

On March 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sheldon Manor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

This is hightek669.

Did you just message me?

I'm sorry, but I am new to this-- the editing stuff, that is, so please bare w/ me.

I also did NOT know you could message people on here. lol

-Tracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightek669 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what User talk pages are for. --Rodhull andemu 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's a user talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightek669 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is. Where I posted messages to you is yours.

Did you just delete my entry? The John Lennon website entry I made? I don't see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightek669 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was a duplication of the entry in the infobox. If you go the John Lenon and clock on the "History" tab, you'll see my edits, and explanations. --Rodhull andemu 20:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice page/ site!

I checked out your Wikipedia user page and read your "About Me." Even had a peep at the photo of you in the Smoky Mountains.

=)

I must say, nice site you got there! You appear VERY intelligent! And a retired lawyer?! Wow! The world needs more people like you, for respect and look up to people who have been to college and took their work seriously (i.e. doctors, lawyers, college professors, etc.). ^_^

I am a 27-year-old female living in South Carolina. 100% Polish. Was born in Poland and moved here (to the U.S.) at age 7.

Anyway, thank you for notifying me to let me know about the Lennon link.

Have a great day!

- Tracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightek669 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. Drop me a line if you need any help editing. Na zdrowie! --Rodhull andemu 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI.

You misspelled "Lennon" wrong! You spelled his last name with only two (2) "n's" instead of three (3). haha! Perhaps "I" should go and edit section "Hello." for you! haha! Have a good one and thank you for your help!

In the Feature.

I will most likely need help in the future again, so, yes, it will probably be you that I notify! =)

Anyway, I am off now! lol (I keep procrastinating, huh?) As I've said before, you've been a big help & I learned something new today.

Take care.

Buh-bye!!!!!!!!!!