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 ~~~~

Archives

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Tip of the moment...

Shortcuts

A shortcut is a redirect that assigns an abbreviated title to a page in Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes namespaces. This lets you get to a page with fewer keystrokes.

Shortcuts to pages in the Wikipedia namespace start with "WP:". For example, the shortcut to Wikipedia:Department directory is WP:DIR.

When a page has one or more shortcuts to it, those shortcuts should be displayed on that page using the shortcut template.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Don't stifle discussion, and watch your ad hominem attacks please

Please read this page which you don't seem to be familiar with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TALK If you disagree with someone's opinion of how an article can be improved which is posted on an appropriate discussion page, you can respond on the discussion page. Don't just edit the discussion page as if it is the article, and don't threaten the person with a block or attack what the person has written as 'crap'. As it says on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TALK editing of discussion pages is controversial and not agreed upon. If you don't like my question, have the character to respond on the page, don't just delete comments because you don't like them. The discussion page is for discussion of the article, it's not the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.132.165 (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong location, and you've been here long enough to know that new threads begin at the bottom of Talk pages. There's even a button at the top of this page for so doing. But your "proposal" was not only unsupported by any reliable sources, was therefore hideously biased, and I would have responded to your comment, but on the face of it, it had no encyclopedic merit. And Policy on biographies applies in all Wikipedia spaces, not just articles. I've taken much trouble to direct you towards our policies and guidelines, but if you will not comply with them, blocked you must be. Rodhull andemu 00:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" I would have responded to your comment, but on the face of it, it had no encyclopedic merit." That could have been your response, if that was your opinion. Frankly your tone towards me is quite hostile and uncalled for. I am not vandalizing the article, and I am not as immersed in WikiLore as you seem to be, which doesn't make you the final arbiter of all opinions. I won't keep editing the discussion page because frankly I'm not interested in a war with you or anyone, but I hope you can pause for some personal reflection as to how you conduct yourself, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.132.165 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC) By the way, I apologise that I actually was not aware of the correct procedure for starting a new thread. It was not intended as disrespectful.24.4.132.165 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that your edits were removed, and the associated edit summaries, should have given you some clue. The "History" tab isn't invisible. As for personal reflection, I've been here long enough to know that that is futile, and yet despite all the attacks on me here and elsewhere, I still have trust of the community to remain an Admin, and still occasionally manage to write articles within the guidelines and assist good-faith editors who are prepared to take the advice of the more experienced here. Sorry if that seems arrogant, but editing here involves a steep learning curve; steep but not insurmountable, if you're prepared to adjust. Rodhull andemu 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing is that it actually would be pretty easy to provide sources for what I was claiming, the subject of her lack of talent is even discussed in the article already, just not anything about the Beatles....which I don't have sources for and was asking about. Perhaps I was not clear enough?24.4.132.165 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now need sleep and will address this tomorrow. Rodhull andemu 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened?

Did someone delete all the talks or did you get rid of them because they took up too much space? Xavier The Second (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's recommended to archive talk page messages to avoid cluttering up pages. I do this once a month, and previous ones can still be read by clicking on the numbers in the archive box, top right of this page. Rodhull andemu 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAF

cheers. Leaky Caldron 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About time, I think. Rodhull andemu 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Ramsey Article

Apologies - been drinking - he may be a massive cunt but it does not need saying on Wikipedia - fucking hell though mate you were quick - I didn't even have time to print ot out (been drinking) York alumni too Vanbrugh - you?

In approximate order; Yes, No, Thanks, OK, Yes, VA/214, Oct 1982 - Jun 1983, then Edens Court (83 - 84), Garrow House (84 - 85), and when I got my Research Fellowship, Fishergate, York.

Sorry to hear about the discharge, hope you get better soon. Take it easy Rodders, would not be the same around these parts without you 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. Sadly, some vandals might have escaped my watchlist; but they will eventually fall foul of the watchers. Regards. Rodhull andemu 00:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wallington County Grammar School

Why did you prevent anyone from editing the page for 3 months? Don't you think that's a bit too harsh on the users of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.128.70 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The users of Wikipedia, in general, have not been kind to that page. In particular, this edit, which came from the IP address you are currently using (and it is a fixed Broadband address), was typical. Registered users in good standing may still edit the page; others may request changes on the article talk page. Rodhull andemu 18:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page has seen worse as well, when I found this as aprevious edit: [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.128.70 (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so; the more vandalism there is, the stronger is the case for semi-protection. Rodhull andemu 19:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waterspaces (again)

Hi,

I'm pretty certain that User:Waterspaces has turned up again, although this time using the alias of Liverpool-8-boy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). I notice that you've already come across him at Talk:Liverpool#Transport, but at least his tendentiousness hasn't returned yet. Oh, and if you don't remember who he his, you might like to refer back to our last conversation regarding him. :)

Anyway, I realise that I can't prove that it's actually him, but I'm pretty sure of it based on some of the same articles being edited, e.g. Merseyrail and Tunnel - articles that I would relate to having quite specific interests. I also notice the same use of the incorrect term 'Merseyrail metro', a term that I had never come across before seeing Waterspaces' use of it. More possible evidence can be seen at Talk:Liverpool#Railways due to the same writing style as used further down the page, and the IP address of the user which seems to be in a similar range to that of Waterspaces (see our last discussion).

As 'Liverpool-8-boy' hasn't committed any offenses similar to those of Waterspaces yet, does that mean that he shall be left alone, or punished provided the evidence is just? I also notice that he's uploaded a copyrighted screenshot of an aerial photo: [2], so I shall nominate that for speedy deletion (if I can work out how to, or unless you get there first!).

Looking forward to your opinion.

Regards, Raywil (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of concrete information, we have to assume good faith unless the same sort of behaviour arises. Problem with a sockpuppet investigation is that Waterspaces' IP information from over three months ago is no longer available, so a Checkuser would not be of much use, and he used multiple IPs anyway. I suggest we keep an eye on this for a behavioural pattern to emerge. Rodhull andemu 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, okay. Most of the pages he edited are on my watchlist anyway, so I'll get back to you if I notice any problems arising. Raywil (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Account

I was wondering it would be OK if I could make user:pday2 my alternate Account, I already own that account and was wanting to use it for maintenance work, and use user:Paul2387 for normal editing and minor clean-up work. Thanks Paul 2387 15:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, as long as you tag it as a legitimate alternate account, and link to your main one. Rodhull andemu 15:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

It might work... Majorly talk 15:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've taken the liberty of making it crystal clear ( hope). Let's see... Rodhull andemu 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threat of vandalism

Hi, can you look into this: Vandalism threat. Since you have been the admin who dealt with this before, you might take appropriate action. Thanks. - DonCalo (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this; the guy clearly is not participating in dispute resolution processes, is not discussing, and has indicated an intention to continue edit-warring, so I've blocked the IP for three months. Rodhull andemu 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, they might pop up as User talk:24.18.251.8. We'll see what happens. - DonCalo (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

This editor[3] continues to remove references[4][5][6] that state Ali Riza Efendi was of Albanian descent. I've posted numerous warnings[7][8][9], to no avail. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These editors[10][11][12] appear to be the same person, intent on deleting the talk page of Ali Riza Efendi[13]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the first guy a 31-hour break. I'll take a look at the Talk page now. Rodhull andemu 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the volume of disruption on Talk that would merit semi-protection just yet, but I have watchlisted the article. Rodhull andemu 22:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley

Instead of earnestly discussing the questions I have raised on Talk:Elvis Presley, there are now commentaries such as this one: "Critical voices are not needed in an encyclopedic article about a deceased person. He's not a living politician, he's a dead singer. There is nothing to be gained by being critical of a deceased person." This sounds as if the fans do not like critical remarks about their star. What do you think? Onefortyone (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, cobbling together events and opinions of minor importance to resist an otherwise fairly-sourced article on the grounds of neutrality is intellectually weak; the only one that has anything near a reliable source is the FBI stuff, and that, in retrospect, is more damaging to the FBI as it was then than it is to Presley. The logical corollary is that we should add to Adolf Hitler that "he liked dogs", but WP:NPOV doesn't work like that. Rodhull andemu 01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Harmer.png

Hi Rodhullandemu here is the fair rational Dani Harmer.png [Harmer Fair Use] if find anything else i need to add please message me. Sfxprefects (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still fails WP:NFCC#1, and is always going to, since this image can be replaced by a copyright-free image. Rodhull andemu 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a free image for the person unless i ask her for a free image of her facebook to be up-loaded on flicker Sfxprefects (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That won't do either; here facebook image is very likely to be copyrighted; if anyone has taken an image of her themselves and put it on Flickr, with an appropriate licence, that would do. It's not whether you can find a free image, it's whether one can be found. But a screenshot is copyright of CBBC. Rodhull andemu 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Hi

Sorry to trouble you about this.

You recently granted me rights to AWB and I've a quick question about usage of it. Can I perform an AWB 'check' on one page only? I did try to work this out the other day but could only work out how to get it to check my entire watchlist.

I hope you're feeling better :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paradoxically, I've never used AWB, but I am pretty sure that when you set it up for yourself, you can specify pages to be watched. However, AWB is really meant for multiple edits of an uncontroversial nature across multiple pages, so it would seem a tad silly to use it for monitoring just one page. I'm not really sure what to suggest, and it may be that some other tool might be better for you for just the one page even if it's only your Watchlist. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Yes, on the day I got granted access I did perform AWB checks on a number of Wikipedia articles, not just those on my checklist. It's an article that I've since said I would review for good article status that I thought might benefit from it. Never mind, to check it manually is probably better. Again, thanks for your advice and get well soon :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's about right; reviewing for GA is not really what AWB is for, although there other tools for that purpose. My experience of GAR is that it requires some detailed involvement that automated tools are not really geared up for. Rodhull andemu 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco reply

Hi, the vandalism tag was incorrect, I was expecting to get an opportunity to write a more fitting edit summary. Basically the edit was POV (the source doesn't say anything about the core part of Tesco's expansion strategy), incorrect (the source for one of the first stores using self service was written in 08 and doesn't say anything to that effect), and not noteworthy (most stores will have a 'Tesco in a box' approach). Sourced content is OK, but aslong as the sources back up what's being added! raseaC^{talk to me} 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The guy seems like a bit of a spammer, but without going into it in depth, it did look like he was adding valid content, even if all from one source. I'll keep an eye on this one. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Who Page "spoken" template

Greetings,

I was wondering if you might be able to remove the spoken part on Doctor Who I was going to do it, but my mic is just too good, and my heater is too loud when I try and fix it it comes out all echo like.

If you're wondering, yes I am new to this side of Wikipedia.

--Snowboy83 (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.

Done Rodhull andemu 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User Neustradamus

Hi, I had hoped your closure of that WP:AN thread would be the end of the matter, but unfortunately Neustradamus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now engaging without discussion in wholesale removal of hyphens from lots of articles containing "open-source licen*e", contrary to MOS:HYPHEN#Hyphens_in_adjectival_phrases. This is very disruptive because of the large number of articles, and particularly tendentious because he is ignoring previous discussions on this topic both at Talk:Open-source software and elsewhere at MOS and WP projects. He seems to talk past anything I say, as if he either doesn't understand or doesn't want to engage in proper discussion. A little word from you might help resolve this. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a debate — Neustradamus (✉) 23:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? And pending the outcome of the debate, we stick with what we have. Rodhull andemu 23:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a move, in return, I wait comments, so I open the debate — Neustradamus (✉) 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Läuft gut, nicht wahr? Wie klar ist es für Sie? Rodhull andemu 00:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not clear because there are license articles and 2 licence articles ... — Neustradamus (✉) 00:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See your own Talkpage as to why you are wasting your time right now. Rodhull andemu 00:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say I think Neustradamus is simply not listening to any advice (latest example) and is becoming increasingly tendentious, e.g. this edit comes after many pleas and a clear warning to stop this sort of thing. I am seriously thinking he might benefit from time out of WP to consider his position. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I followed Michael Hardy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_software&action=historysubmit&diff=336500020&oldid=336499819) about open-source and like your position (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOpen-source_software&action=historysubmit&diff=336494830&oldid=328618961) — Neustradamus (✉) 01:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but I have now re-opened the discussion at WP:AN for independent review, as I have hardly slept properly in a week, nor eaten, and badly need some proper rest; I will leave it up to someone else for now. Rodhull andemu 01:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong button

Did you accidentally hit the rollback button, or wss this edit intentional? You appear to be undoing both constructive edits (conversion of underscore to space in wikilinks, proper lowercase usage, removal of empty template parameter) and unimportant formatting changes (spaces after asterisks), rather than the vandalism that the use of rollback implies. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS after leaving this message I saw the discussion above. This is a great example of why rollback should not be used in such cases: if you had used undo, you could have left an edit message that explained the issue and linked to the discussion on open-source hyphen removal. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Lesurf

Hello, since you messaged me last year about the article in my userspace, I thought I'd let you know that I've created it today in the mainspace. If you can expand it, please do. It's very short but I don't think it's bad for somebody I actually know absolutely nothing about! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Hi Rod, when you can, could you answer in this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Michael_Jackson#Michael_Jackson_Albums_Discography_page Thanks. Simone Jackson (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion here; if it's about reliability of sources, see WP:RSN, otherwise try some sort of dispute reslution. Cheers, Rodhull andemu 18:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Welcome

<div class="user-block"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' for a period of '''48 hours''' from editing for {{#if:|{{{reason}}}|persistent [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make constructive contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text {{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 01:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)</div></div>

Disagree? Give me one good reason why. Xavier The Second (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Because you give me no content for this notice. It would help. Rodhull andemu 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You turned my block of my block notification into a bunch of codes. That means you vandalised my work. Xavier The Second (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't:see WP:TPNO and WP:TPO. Placing false notifications on users' talk pages is considered vandalism itself and I suggest you don't do it again. Rodhull andemu 19:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. Xavier The Second (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Minute

86.164.60.145 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Dear Sir, I wondered if you could please tell me which was your favourite regualar panellist on the original line up of the popular BBC radio show 'Just a minute.' Just to remind you, the members were Clement Freud, Derek Nimmo, Kenneth Williams and Peter Jones. Many thanks.[reply]

I didn't listen to it, so I have no particular preference. Rodhull andemu 17:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pity, I had you down as a Peter Jones man. 86.164.60.145 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Required

Can you help me get the lid off a jar please?86.164.60.145 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not from here; but I can arrange for another block if that is what you are really looking for. I think 253 hours would be about right. What do you think? Rodhull andemu 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can make a case for blocking me for that length of time without good reason. You have been given powers on wikipedia and they have gone to your head, you are acting like a dictator. I feel that your actions go against the grain of constructive contributions and one only has to look at some of the other problems people have had with you to see how contentious your behaviour really is. 86.164.60.145 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can; see this. I have yet to see much in the way of constructive contributions here from you, and to protect this encyclopedia, I have not only the power, but also the duty, to block disruptive users. Meanwhile, go and edit constructively, stop being silly, and do not post here again unless you are actually keen on being taken seriously as an editor. Your history is already against you. Rodhull andemu 18:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned over a new leaf. I have not disrupted anything since my last ban, I am just trying to make friends and you are acting in a very high-handed manner if I may say so. 86.164.60.145 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to show that you have turned over a new leaf. Your only edits since your last block expired have been nonsense edits here. As for trying to make friends, I choose my own, thank you, and you are now formally banned from this Talk page. Rodhull andemu 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you stop banning people unnecessarily?! I think your behaviour to this individual is not in the Wikipedia ethos of letting people express their knowledge. Let the user speak! “Wikipedia is open to a large contributor base, drawing a large number of editors from diverse backgrounds. This allows Wikipedia to significantly reduce regional and cultural bias found in many other publications, and makes it very difficult for any group to censor and impose bias. A large, diverse editor base also provides access and breadth on subject matter that is otherwise inaccessible or little documented.”- Wikipedia 86.164.60.145 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Ooops I meant to use another IP!!!!86.164.60.145 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting here. Rodhullandemu has already asked you to stop.Abce2 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moat on the Ledge

It's blue is it? Strange... mine's green. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Since it came from Amazon, it's probably the US cover. I prefer to use the originals, so I'll look into that. You might want to take a look at Bruce Rowland (drummer), which I started yesterday, but info is thin so far. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mine's most definitely an original, I bought it in about 1983 or 1984 (a period when I had my first regular cash) at Music Market, Banbury (a small Oxford-based chain of record shops that got swallowed up by Our Price, but not before they'd opened a Manchester branch) - it's vinyl, the sleeve is a two-colour printing (black and green plates only) and the back shows "Woodworm Records, PO Box 37, Banbury, Oxfordshire" but has no catalogue number. The labels are brown, cat. no. WR 001, and show in white outline a hand with outstretched finger pointing at the centre hole... presumably to denote where the woodworm lives. Being vinyl, it's too big to put on the A4 flatbed scanner at Didcot public library, which is the only scanner available to me. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Bruce Rowland - I've added a bit more from Humphries, but I should really read it properly. I also fixed two of your web links - if there is a right square bracket in a link title, the Wiki markup thinks that's the end of the title. The only way I know to get around this is to use <nowiki>]</nowiki> but I expect there's a proper method. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good work. I've had a quick look round and the CD cover appears to be mostly yellow or mostly blue- did find a green one but of v. poor quality. Since they all use the same photo, it looks like we're stuck with it. Rodhull andemu 21:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you very much for removing my IP check from my user page!
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rodhull andemu 01:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Morgan

Could you take a look at recent edits on this page. I suspect there is an element of copyvio, POV, and lack of sources all rolled into one. However, the clearly newbie editor does seem to be generally acting in good faith. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B'day

Thanks for the note. Sent you e-mail--Phyllis1753 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skanderbeg

Hi, Rodhullandemu! Can you please look at these, and advice me? That will mean a lot! :)

Talk:Skanderbeg#Protection.2C_again

Thanks!

--Tadija (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice left on article Talk page; admins do not get involved in content disputes. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 17:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neustradamus again

Neustradamus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back from his recent block and he is already up and running again radpidly changing "licence" into "license" all over the place, e.g. here, here, here, contrary to WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. He also is still editing other people's talk pages despite having been warned not to do so here. And undoing a WP:MOS change made by User:Michael Hardy here. This is all very tendentious after all the warnings he has had. It looks like he is refusing to listen to previous advice and warning of longer blocks.91.187.66.243 (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]