User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

?[edit]

Hello, RE: 'University Challenge', how is a quote and a link to a BBC article referencing fact produced by the BBC considered an 'unsourced opinion'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.175.29 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary you added as para. 1 is not supported by the cited source and therefore is original research, which is not permitted here; this would require a reliable source to be justifiable. As for the second paragraph, it is an opinion of one person only in what is essentially a forum, and again, inadmissible as a source and arguably a copyright violation since it is quoted in toto. Please review policy on reliable sources. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back[edit]

... and precisely for this reason: I am able through my limited remaining talents to contribute to the sum total of human knowledge, which is what we are about here. That is neither trumpet-blowing nor denigrating my abilities; it is arguably a documented fact. Maybe I haven't had the time or concentration to produce Featured Articles, but even if I had, I wouldn't expect a free ride as regards arrogance in that department. We are all human here, and make mistakes. That's to be expected. I don't have the personal luxuries enjoyed by many other editors here, but I make the effort to improve this encyclopedia in the best way I can; and that surely, should be enough. Regards. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back rod, though I have not known you at all I can say from the community's request to have you back that you contributed to Wikipedia a lot. Through your admin work and what not, anyway welcome back. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rod..[edit]

I'm glad you've decided to stay on Wikipedia. I hope that if you do determine you need a break, you do so without worrying about the encyclopedia. As I stated in my decline vote for the RfArb, I went through a near-similar incident on Wikipedia, combined with health issues, that ended up with me temporarily resigning my administrator bit and taking a 5 month break from the encyclopedia, before coming back (and probably being stronger for it). So I know how utterly frustrating/all consuming this can be, and suggest that if you need that time for yourself, take it. You'll be happier that way. Anyway, my email and talk page are open if you need to vent to someone. SirFozzie (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

I was afraid that we lost you! Please, dont do that again! :)) Just wanted to post you this

Illyrian_Lizzard (talk · contribs)

He is blocked now, but trust me in the future, i know that it is he when i find it. All best! --Tadijaspeaks 11:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With brobdingnagian joy am I immersed at your return. In the incalculable future "au revoir" is not an option. :-) Mlpearc powwow 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too wish to add a note stating how glad I am that we did not lose you. Your work is important and valuable to the project and I am glad that you have returned. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction[edit]

Is there any way to remove abuse filter edits from public view? Otherwise, there's little point in redaction if it was tagged because a user could easily find their way around it.

Of course, if it's just at the history/contributions where only an insignificantly small minority go around to the EF, then never mind. mechamind90 22:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are able to remove abusive edits, and edit summaries. But if you're talking about edits made using the filters themselves, that depends on the configuration of the filter, and I am not approved as a filter editor. Particular enquiries would be better addressed to User Talk:Shirik, as he is adept with these processes. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 hours a day[edit]

Are you disabled or on a wheelchair? If not, you should really sacrifice some of that time to other things, like sports and books! 87.16.58.183 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be "on a wheelchair", I would be a "wheelchair user" and I don't see my personal health issues being any concern of anyone else, and particularly someone with no apparent particular reason to offer me advice. As it happens, I have thousands of books, most of which I use to source edits here. As for sports, they don't interest me, and never have, apart from when I won an award for winning a cross-country for my school house, but that was in 1968. Since then, occasional amateur tennis and cricket, but nothing since I became ill. But thanks for your concern. Rodhullandemu 23:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the past week, I've done pretty much nothing but watch Buffy and swat vandals on Wikipedia, while I try to recover from strep throat. I've been quite the shut-in. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sorry to hear that but at least you didn't catch anything worse in China. I've never caught up on Buffy, although I understand it is popular with "older men" for some reason. I failed to gain admission to my preferred hospital earlier today, so for the time being, as usual, I am left to dig myself out of the pit. My email inbox has been reassuringly, and overwhelmingly supportive of late, but I will take it slowly before I have the confidence to take decisions that I really should have no qualms about taking. Cheers, and hope you're fully recovered. Rodhullandemu 23:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you manage to spend 12 hours every day here? PatatineFritte (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I make time, because, paradoxically in the current circumstances, I think this project is worth it. Minor short-lived dramas pass as do the clouds. As do disruptive editors, eventually. Rodhullandemu 23:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these "disruptive editors"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There are too many to name, and I'm not going to do so, for therapeutic and practical reasons. Look at my block log and sort the chaff from the chaff if you wish. Meanwhile, it's probably currently inappropriate for you to post here, and I request that you do not do so unless you cannot find another easily-available Admin to deal with a problem needing immediate attention; meanwhile, WP:AIV and WP:ANI operate 24/7. Cheers. Rodhullandemu
I'd say the ip above is an example of one... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very interesting who blocked that IP, and why. Radiopathy •talk• 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "eventually" in Rodhullandemu's reply above calls you a liar. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It varies, but please don't push it further than you can justify; if it isn't plain to you already, other Admins watch this page and are aware of the recent, if not the long-term history. And I've already asked you to keep off my talk page unless you have a vital requirement for me to take action; longstanding consensus is that you should respect that request. Rodhullandemu 23:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of posting here again, as I have nothing further to say to you. I hope that you will extend me the same courtesy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poof! Your wish has been granted, and thanks for your understanding. But I'll make this plain: I'm not interested in being bullied into being a non-involved admin should you transgress the rules in future. You cannot pick off admins from taking action against you simply because they have been involved in the past; that's not the way it works here, and should never be, otherwise this project would rapidly descend into an indefensible anarchy. That's all. Rodhullandemu 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but that sounds like a borderline threat, kinda say you're biding your time so you can block him. May I kindly suggest you leave the blocking to others precisely because of your longstanding disputes. You are of course free to do as you wish but that would look really bad after making a statement like that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It would also be beneficial to the project, in light of your feelings about the whole issue: [1], [2], [3], if you'd also not come here to taunt or provoke. Radiopathy •talk• 16:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I disagree. Admins have a responsibility to uphold policies and if necessary, enforce them. Your implication that I would be stalking Malleus is disingenuous. Admins should not be subject to a Sword of Damocles simply because of previous interactions, but if there is no other admin around to block, and a block is immediately necessary, I would apply it, and then, of course, seek review at WP:ANI. Rodhullandemu 16:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Radiopathy, Yes I said those things. Do you think a block isn't warranted for a attack that tells someone they are less then dogshit on their shoe? That block was one hundred percent deserved, do I think Rod needs to be banned and his userpage desecrated, the short answer is no. If I colorfully and (maybe poorly) attempted at a joke in satire regarding the change of events so what it is a tad ironic in the similarties we have in requesting unblock as we do in penal parole hearings. Ussualy the latter ends in a inmate saying they've found Jesus and turned over a new leaf, example see Tex Watson Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going over the same ground repetitively doesn't help. You've made your position quite clear, and I'd appreciate it if in future you keep it to yourself rather than throwing more fuel on to a dying fire. And there is no way I would "find Jesus" since I reject all religion because of its innate hypocrisy. There's a lesson to be learned there. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear the last part but my first comment was trying to accomplish the opposite of fueling a dying fire, help stomping it out by the original request. The only reason I rehashed my comments was because they were being thrown at me. As it is good luck with your health problems. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war[edit]

Rodhullandemu, please, explain your action here [4].
Please, don't engage in the edit war.
Please, don't revert if you don't understand the matter or if you're not familiar with the matter.
The thing you did here is an obliteration of a small language [5].
Croatian language is not the Serbian language. Kubura (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources for your edits, otherwise they WILL be reverted. If necessary, the page will be protected until consensus is reached. Rodhullandemu 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Please see Special:Contributions/Kubura. See my some of my attempts to discuss and enriching of articles.

  • 04:05, 24 April 2010 (diff | hist) South Slavic languages ‎ [6]
  • 03:37, 24 April 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:South Slavic languages ‎ (→South Slavic contiuum) [7]
  • 03:05, 24 April 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:South Slavic languages ‎ (→Montenegrin language: new section) [8]
  • 03:02, 24 April 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:South Slavic languages ‎ (→South Slavic contiuum: new section) [9]
  • 02:58, 24 April 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:South Slavic languages ‎ (→Basic dialects of Croatian: new section) [10]

See how ended my attempt. Kwamikagami coldly reverted me [11].
He also gave no references. Accusing the opponent for the POV is not argumentation. See how many of my work he deleted with his revert. I've given the references invain, obviously.
It's hard to work in such conditions.
Since I've drawn your attention, I've given the text from the linguist Matasović on the talkpage (the very same one cited in the article). That's the very same text that explains my actions. I'll translate it soon, maybe this night.
Please, have understanding. It's exhausting to post, translate and explain the same thing (or slight variation, so I have to work again) on several articles and explaining the very same thing over and over again. As if noone (from opponents) reads the talkpages. Kubura (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really able to deal with this at present, and have no wish to enter into a content dispute. Please try some form of dispute resolution, e.g. get a third, outside, opinion. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, can you help me?
Would you try mediate in one case?
You don't have to be the ph.D. for that topic, it's a matter of principle. Kubura (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to be able to help you. However, recent events have made me unable to get involved in deep arguments, and that is not necessarily my function here anyway. As an editor, I do not have the expertise to offer opinions on content, and as an Admin, I don't see any reason to get involved unless there is gross breach of editing privileges. Whereas this topic is obviously contentious, I am not qualified alone to judge the merits of contending arguments and sources, sorry. That's why I suggest that any editor on this page seeks outside opinion. You might want to look at Mediation, amongst other remedies. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting of references[edit]

Hi, Rodhullandemu.
User Chipmunkdavis is deleting references from the article. The references that link to national bureau of statistics [12] [13]. Chipmunkdavis's remark as "Croatian POV spam" is on the ethnic basis, belittleing one nation. Ethnic insult. Bureau of statistics=spam????
Chipmunkdavis has been removing the references from the article before [14] (this reference [15]).
That's not cooperative behaviour, that's disruptive. It's not the link to some childish freepage, it's a link to scientific magazine!
That user is rather strange. He appeared on 14 Nov 2009, been active for a week and then dissappeared for almost six months [16] and then reappeared. And since 16-23 July 2010 he engaged in edit war in the article Serbo-Croatian language. Strange behaviour for an user.
Here's his edits Special:Contributions/Chipmunkdavis.
00:47, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374929857 by Croq (talk) It is hard to believe. Very persistent though, knows what they're doing.) [17]
00:05, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374926885 by Croq (talk) And remains so in most of its successor states.) [18]
00:01, 23 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374925904 by Croq (talk) Agree with direktor. Besides, Croqs lying, he did more than remove a sentence. And the sentence was NPOV.). [19]
Note: He deleted this quoted reference [20] from the text. Who's Chipmunkdavis to declare scientific magazines as NPOV?
This was WP:3RR in 47 minutes!
More of his recent edit wars (under "lots of text"):

lots of text

00:09, 19 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374199442 by Croq (talk) Reverting edit warring by Croq)
23:45, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374198397 by Croq (talk))
23:23, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374192842 by Croq (talk))
00:53, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374042564 by Croq (talk) If that is a good source, its bad grammar anyway.)
00:28, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374041605 by Croq (talk)No reason it should be mentioned in the lede, otherwise there'd be names everywhere. Please discuss at talkpage)
00:15, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374039850 by Croq (talk) A passus is a Roman unit of measurement...)
00:05, 18 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374038759 by Croq (talk) That's fine, but unimportant in the lede. In the body it may be included. Lede=summary, not detail.)
23:50, 17 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎
23:43, 17 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Sorry Croq, seems like a direct politicization of the issue at hand. Please bring edits up in the talk page)
23:05, 17 July 2010 (diff | hist) Serbo-Croatian language ‎ (Undid revision 374029083 by Croq (talk) Who doesn't consider it a south slavic language?)
At least 8 reverts in 25 hours.

Croq has been blocked [21] (because he reinserted references in his 3RR). Croq made 3RR, but he was enriching en.wiki.
Chipmunkdavis violated 3RR rule, but he remained unsanctioned for removing the references[22]. Chipmunkdavis disrupted en.wiki.
And Croq was blocked by the admin Kwamikagami that was in the conflict of interest [23] [24]. Admin Kwamikagami has blocked the opponent on the article. That's misuse of tools.
Rodhullandemu, you don't have to know the matter of these articles.
Problem is basic: deleting of references, 3RR, engaging in revert war, misuse of tools.
Sorry for being too long. Thank You for reading my message. Kubura (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010[edit]

LHO lead[edit]

Please lend your thoughts at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Lead (again). I hope consensus can be reached without any chalkboard erasers being thrown. EEng (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SM City Xiamen logo.png[edit]

Downsized? I guess the algorithm went a little blue. feydey (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Downsized" referred to the dimensions of the image (which are important) rather than the size of the file (which isn't). Rodhullandemu 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is referring to the fact that the image got washed out. –xenotalk 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It shows OK on the image page. Rodhullandemu 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refresh Your browser's cache. feydey (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is the first time Paint has screwed up; perhaps I'll use Inkscape or GIMP in future. Rodhullandemu 20:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VGASAVE[edit]

You and your talk page watchers might like to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VGASAVE (2nd nomination). Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is so old that I don't see the point; as an article, it was thin, but judged worthy according to then-prevailng standards. it may not do so now, of course. Rodhullandemu 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Sidney Warning[edit]

Hello, I am very, very, very sorry. I didn't mean to post anything inappropriate I didn't think that my adding a link to her final interview was going to be so troublesome. I promise that I will not do this again and next time I guess I'll have to ask a few questions to see if it is alright to post prior to my posting something. I hope that you'll accept my apology and that you'll revoke the block threat.

dubstep spam[edit]

anon/Maspell93 seem to be single purpose spam accounts. what to do? --Kaini (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a COI warning, and if he doesn't stop, he can be blocked and his website blacklisted. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 11:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content Owner Approval for a Wikipedia image[edit]

Hi Rodhullandemu,

I wanted to get in contact to apologise for a recent incident regarding this account.

An intern at our company was using the ID to make some corrections on Wikipedia and I understand some of their actions were in violation of Wikipedia standards for content updates. On the interns behalf, I'd like to say sorry and have now briefed them on the kinds of standards required when making any chances to the site, and no such infractions will occur again.

On a similar such note, I have been contacted by the user Alexandervelky who has attempted to upload a picture of Duffy on July 9th 2010 at 12.06. They have advised me that they were refused because there was confusion from yourself regarding if the original content owner allowed its use and requested we confirm this to you.

This image is owned by myself and the company I represent, Only Love Music Limited. As long as it is correctly credited to us (the legal content owners) and our photographer Sasha Eisenman, we are perfectly fine with its use in a public domain such as Wikipedia.

Can you advise me if you require the legal documentation to confirm the above. I am happy to provide it if it resolves any issues.


Kind Regards,

OnlyLoveMusic

Onlylovemusic (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above; releasing copyrighted material to Wikipedia has certain implications, which are explained here. If you are still able to donate this material, please get back to me and I'll give further assistance. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the information, I will review the link and get those images uploaded as soon as possible.

Kind Regards

OnlyLoveMusic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic (talk • contribs) 09:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Nightingale[edit]

Thanks for sorting out the Manchurian candidate on that page LOL

Any reason you took out the "late" prefix? Chris Sievy died earlier this month.

I would offer you some jelly but I don't have any. Groovyspaceman (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's not considered good style to refer to "the late" for people, since we'd then have to do it for thousands of articles. If they have articles, their deaths will have been reported there. Sorry to see Frank go, however. Rodhullandemu 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought it might be something like that. Yes, it's a real shame about Frank. Pity someone has to die before true talent is often recognised.Groovyspaceman (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Alan Bown Set[edit]

Thanks for your comment and star - you picked the article up remarkably fast - I assume I altered something on your watchlist?.
Being pre-internet, citable information is quite thin on the ground, especially as Bown had little commercial success.
Bown should be better known, if only for his ability to spot future stars, but I'm just not sure of there is a suitable hook for a DYK.
Arjayay (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might have something in my back issues of Record Collector; I'll take a look. Rodhullandemu 17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Seacole[edit]

Any idea why her death date details appear duplicated in the info box text ? (Hardly my specialist subject, despite myself working for the NHS for over eight years, but what a lady). Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a template guru, but this duplication appears to have been introduced by Thumperward (talk · contribs) on the 14th. I'd try to fix it myself, but it is late here and I don't want to risk destroying the template. Prolly better if you ask him to review his recent changes to {{Infobox Medical Person}}. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done and now sorted. Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rottun Recordings in Dubstep article[edit]

Hello, I saw that you deleted my addition to the Dubstep article. Let me assure you that I am not trying to promote Rottun. However, Rottun recordings is a very well established record label and I was surprised that they were not mentioned in the article. If you see anything that needs to be changed, please let me know. thanks! Frogkick (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're back....[edit]

... you might as well block me for a week for disruption. Whatever I'm disrupting now, you can block me for it. I'd probably deserve it anyway, right? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined I have no view on that. Rodhullandemu 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Block Warning[edit]

Hi, I tried to contact you some days ago but I never heard back. You threatned to block me because you felt I was uploading and adding links that violate policies. I apologize for all these trouble I've put you through and I didn't mean to do the things I did. I am so sorry, truly. I hope you'll accept my apology and that you'll revoke the block threat.

That's OK, you can just delete the warning. Rodhullandemu 14:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rodhullandemu. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- 184.36.47.78 (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010[edit]

Please delete the Billy Currington eSingle artwork[edit]

one of the words is misspelled and this is NOT the approved eSingle artwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by UMGNashville (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this as an obvious forgery. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhullandemu 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Kent[edit]

Hi, I edited the paragraph about Constance Kent's motive after finishing the book "Mr. Whicher...." in which she stated both in court and in a letter about wanting to revenge herself on Mrs. Kent number two. She certainly did NOT remain silent on her motive, according to court transcripts. The book had already been cited at the end of that paragraph, so I saw no reason to repeat the citation.

tx

rc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.178.231 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A source would have helped, but I only have the Encyclopedia of Murder (Wilson/Pitman) which doesn't reprint the confession but cites from a letter written by a doctor who examined her mental state. She had told him of "a great regard for the present Mrs Kent" and "bore no ill-will against the little boy, except as one of the children of her stepmother". Your edit seemed to be at odds with that, but if you have a more detailed source, feel free to replace it. Rodhullandemu 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha.[edit]

I thought it was a vandal doing it. :/ SimonKSK 00:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just someone who hasn't followed the long and dirty debates over the last six years. Rodhullandemu 00:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thatspeed likely block evasion[edit]

It seems like User:80.191.41.236 is User:Thatspeed evading the block that you gave him earlier today. I added evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP for 48 hours and the two named accounts indefinitely. Noted on the SPI page. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rodhullandemu, I took the liberty of carrying out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Blocking and tagging for the user pages and talk pages. I thought maybe you were busy and could use some help. I hope you wouldn't mind. Fleet Command (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for that. Rodhullandemu 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hs2hollywood[edit]

I was just closing out the old MfD's and came across Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Hs2hollywood. When I went to the talk page there was no MfD header but when I looked at the history I saw this. Deleted it anyway. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need more eyes[edit]

Oanabay04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm having some content issues at Death of John Lennon; I reverted some unnecessary changes this user made and explained why on his talk page, then he claims to have "cited" one of his changes - with an editorial from marxist.com. I'm not sure where this is going. Radiopathy •talk• 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, and will keep an eye on it. Rodhullandemu 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

verb-y stuff[edit]

With all due respect to British English, that is not the way all languages are grammatically constructed. My biggest issue here is the uniformity of Wikipedia. If all other subject areas correctly use the singular form when referring to a collective unit, that same principle should also apply to musical groups. I look at it this way: Try replacing this band's name with the term "this band" - "Coldplay are a band..." "This band are a band..." Obviously, the singular form should be used: "This Band is a band..." "Coldplay is a band..."

I understand that what is being used in a lot of articles currently is what's correct for you. It is not correct for me. I simply want to make the singular/plural form usage conform across the board on Wikipedia. Whether the article is talking about an international organization, the latest MTG set, an art exhibition or a musical group, we should be applying the same grammatical rules to construct the articles.

If it would be less controversial to start with, I can make it a point to focus only on non-British bands and musical groups. (In fact, that seems to be where the highest concentration of this particular discrepancy is found.) ocrasaroon (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way anybody is going to enforce consistency throughout Wikipedia; that, to me, seems like a fool's errand. But the fact is that whatever the rules of grammar, they vary between different versions of ostensibly the same language. Consensus is strongly to treat British bands as mass nouns, so they take plural verbs. You may still however, find yourself at the end of editors who resist your changes, however strongly you put your case. Best of luck, and I'll give your project a week, before you end up doing nothing else than argue. Rodhullandemu 21:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'll steer clear of UK bands. It is clear that there's a different standard there and I know I'd be irked if someone tried to overwrite the rules I'd been following my whole life. Although I do wish there was just one standard for this kind of writing as it pertains to WP articles. You keep mentioning "consensus", but I can't find one. I honestly would love to see some archived vote on this or some standing policy. While I appreciate the guardian.uk link, I am mostly interested in the WP stance. Do you know where I can find some record of consensus? ocrasaroon (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a consensus that seems to have arisen without discussion, but is still widely followed. I agree that it should be written, and the nearest I can find at short notice is here, which by implication endorses the consensus. Rodhullandemu 21:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were you talking about the "Popular Music" section? Because all I can see there is information about italicizing albums and avoiding the use of "sophomore."ocrasaroon (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu 21:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case (pronouns modifying mass nouns) the usage is correct - it's the standard in both of our languages. I'm strictly talking about "be" verbs right now. ocrasaroon (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A fine distinction to most, perhaps. But that example strongly implies that "The Beatles" should be treated as a plural. Strictly, perhaps it should be "The Beatles's" but I am not interested in splitting such hairs when I have so much other work to be getting on with. Rodhullandemu 22:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I don't admit accusations against me without proof, so if you want request a checkuser. Vítor&R (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not up to me. However, it's up to the other editor to open an SPI, but in the meantime, a speed deletion request, once declined, should not be replaced, and that's the end of the matter. If this persists, you will be blocked for long enough for the SPI to be opened, say 24 hours. Please take a look at WP:DE. Rodhullandemu 16:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is empty, must be eliminated. And again I repeat, don't admit that put that template on the talk page of the IP without evidence. You think this is all yours, not? Vítor&R (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ANI. Rodhullandemu 16:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:POINT. Vítor&R (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with it. Are you? Meanwhile, please comment at ANI. I'm finished with this for now. Rodhullandemu 16:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my comment. And I hope that after this resolved you don't mess with me anymore. Vítor&R (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not respond to threats, and cannot commit to not taking appropriate administrative action should the need arise. Rodhullandemu 17:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? You are accusing an innocent person, without any proof! Nobody has that right. I can make the request for verification? Vítor&R (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Thank you for uploading the "birds of tokyo" album-cover to the site & page. I had previously uploaded a low-resolution, free-like thumbnail version, but had problems declaring and/or tagging the relevant information during the uploading process; soon as I'd uploaded it there was red-text & warning it was up for deletion. I use Wikipedia for research for my radio exploits, and ten to usually correct grammar, spelling and information, and I am not too adept at all the html-code & similar formatting stuff. So again, thank you very much for uploading the Image, and have a great dayKaneTW (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the appreciation. Rodhullandemu 17:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the....[edit]

100,000 edits, eh ?! You are either totally committed to Wiki, completely barking mad, or never ever leave your PC. Just like me on all counts. Well done, old boy. Very best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of all three. Cheers, and thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jake La Botz[edit]

I have never come across this before. The article contains a potted biography of someone completely different, which does not show up on the editing page. Weird - any ideas ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone overwrote the content of {{US-singer-songwriter-stub}}. I've reverted it, and will advise the editor. Thanks for pointing that out. Rodhullandemu 12:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops[edit]

Thanks for the correction - I do know that but hit the wrong page in my haste. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easily done! Rodhullandemu 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010[edit]

UKIP Racism Controversy[edit]

Could I or yourself please remove 'UKIP Racism Controversy' title from the UK Independence Party page because as you told me "in the history of the Party (or any party) this incident is of minor importance and giving it its own section is giving it undue weight" Also, sorry for breaching any terms or copyright, I wont copy & paste again and I am very new so i will try my best to follow the terms as best as I can, but please feel free to divert me and tell me where I've went wrong because I don't want to get banned and i want to still contribute to subjects of interest (not necesserily political)

Thanks

Truth UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth UK (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem there was "rogue member", but I agree that one incident, unless it causes a major row, is probably not worth reporting. You may want to raise the issue on Talk:UK Independence Party to see what other editors think. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 15:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can I delete it please because of the above reason? It only damages UKIP as a party, whereas Labour and Tories don't have any controversy against them even though there must be controversy of some sort, they've been going for over 100 years and I tried to put one up there and breached copy-right (accidentally). We can't be bias towards the mainstream parties. Truth UK (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Truth UK[reply]

You can delete it, citing WP:UNDUE, but be prepared to argue the case, which you seem able to do. WP:BRD gives some good advice. Rodhullandemu 15:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it alot. I just need a bit of help. How do I delete something and explain why I deleted it. I tried to do this earlier and they put it back up warning me that unless I give an explanation into why I was deleting it, I would be blocked. Truth UK (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been easier, perhaps, if you had discussed it first, or at least used an edit summary. However, I see a discussion has opened on the Talk page, and that's where it belongs. Rodhullandemu 15:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you, Truth UK, as Rodhullandemu notes, because you deleted a section without an edit summary, and then made an an entry on the talk page afterwards (I believe after I reverted you.) The information appears at first glance as well-sourced and notable, however, I do notice you hashing it out on the talk page. I know nothing about the issue and will stand back from it at this time, as I am a acting as a vandal reverter and not interested in a content discussion on topic about which I am uninformed. Since you hardly fit the typicial vandal profile and appear to be on the new side, I am removing the warning that was placed on your page. Jusdafax 15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.digitalspy.co.uk[edit]

Hello. I was interested in your comment here. Does this mean that in your view Digitalspy is never acceptable as a reliable source for BLP articles? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that the linked page was anywhere near close enough to satisfy BLP- words like "claimed" are a bit of a red flag and there may a bit of tub-thumping going on. Too close to tabloidery to be usable, in my view. In general, it depends on individual cases. Rodhullandemu 17:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that answer, that's what I'd hoped. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London, England[edit]

I suppose you could also argue by extension that if you don't know where London is, then you might need a geography lesson, making the 'England' part irrelevant also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomB123 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely so; although there is a London, Ontario and I doubt if anyone would confuse the two from the context. The bottom line is that we should give precisely enough information to our readers to disambiguate, and not patronise them by giving too much information. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Lydon[edit]

Fancruft? Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely, just bit over the top; needs a rewrite. Radiopathy •talk• 02:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary L. Stewart[edit]

I am trying to get Gary L. Stewart page undeleted. For some strange reason this page has been edited and there is a dispute over the references. The identical page exists on the Brazil Wikipedia and they approved it without problem. Please explain.

Nachashim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachashim (talk • contribs) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted because it contained unsourced negative content, per WP:BLP, and indeed, was unsourced in general. It was also alleged to be a copyright violation of this site, and I'm not inclined just to restore it, because it has been recreated and deleted on several previous occasions. I haven't seen the br.wiki version, so I can't judge it and they may well have different standards to ourselves. If you want to work on it, however, I can restore it to your userspace. Would that be OK? Rodhullandemu 18:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a great starting point, that way I redraft it to a state it can be restored.

Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachashim (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it here; to preserve the attribution, it can be moved back to article space when properly sourced. and I've watchlisted the page. Please let me know when you consider it ready. On a sidenote, I see the source of which the article was alleged to be a copyvio has been blanked, so you may need to look elsewhere for sources. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cps verification of my unverified twaddle[edit]

Extended content (personal details redacted)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From: "West, Daniel" View Contact To:


Further to your email of today I have set out below our response to your revised letter of claim dated 6 June 2009:



Dear Sir


John Squire v The Chief Constable of Kent Police


Having now considered the contents of your complaint file, we are now in a position to respond to the matters raised in your revised letter of claim sent by email on 6 June 2009.


As outlined in our email dated 23 September 2009 we understand your allegations to be as follows:


Your arrest on 5 June 2008 was unlawful; The period of detention following your interview was unlawful because you say your innocence had been proven in interview. You say you were offered immediate release if you agreed to stop upsetting Mr Coate but that when you offered to assist the police in their investigations officers an officer became angry and threatened to return you to your cell until you promised not to bother Mr Coate again; You suffered a panic attack/suspected heart attack whilst in custody and you were not provided with medical attention; and As a result of your arrest on 5 June 2008 your civil claim was interfered with and as such you lost the opportunity to pursue £5100 owed to you by Neil Coate. You accept that you can in fact reinstate this claim, but you feel you may be threatened if you do.


Please note that we are dealing with your civil claim only and that it is not within our remit to reinvestigate your criminal case.


In relation to your arrest we have already provided a response to this allegation in some detail in our letter dated 13 January 2009 to your former representatives, Jackson & Canter Solicitors. In this letter we set out in some detail why your arrest was justified. In accordance with section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 we are satisfied that PC 11029 Reast had reasonable grounds to suspect that you had committed the offences of criminal harassment and blackmail. Your arrest was necessary for the prompt and effective investigation of the alleged offences and because you did not have a UK address.


In relation to your continued detention following interview, we note that you were interviewed by DC 11163 Cochrane and DC 11014 Osland between 12:59 hours and 14:51 hours. Having listened to the tapes of interview we can confirm that at no stage were you offered immediate release if you agreed to stop upsetting Mr Coate. What in fact happened is that when asked if you have anything to add you said, “if you’re saying to me that I am going to stay here or I am going to go home, that is to say if you said I was going now I could sit down and tell you in detail what went on”. No officer became angry and no threat was made that you would be returned to your cell until you promised not to bother Mr Coate again. It is clear from listening to the tapes of interview that you were well aware that you would be returned to your cell until a decision was made as to whether or not you should be charged with the alleged offences.


''''Thereafter you were returned to your cell whilst CPS advice was sought. Nigel Weston of the CPS decided that given the evidence there was no realistic prospect of a conviction. We are aware that the CPS have confirmed that they hold no file in your name. This is because no formal file would have been opened. The procedure normally followed in these circumstances is that a case will be referred internally to a CPS representative stationed at the police station, who can provide advice quickly.'


We understand that you were released without charge at 17:10 hours. In the circumstances we are satisfied that the duration of your detention can be justified.


In relation to the allegation that you were denied medical attention, we have considered the accounts of PS 12754 Morrison, Inspector 81'Italic textBold text29 Williams and PSE 53718 Cubin. PS Morrison authorised your detention and during a risk assessment it was noted that you suffer from panic attacks and you were placed on 30 minute checks accordingly. PS Morrison was on duty until 14:00 hours whereby he handed over responsibility for your detention to Inspector Williams. Inspector Williams was made aware that you suffered from panic attacks. PSE Cubin was on duty from 13:00 hours. None of the officers recall you making any such request for medical attention.


In relation to the allegation that the police interfered with your civil claim, this is also denied. There is no evidence that the judge’s decision in your civil claim was in any way influenced by the police and, further, we cannot see what legal basis there is for you to claim damages in any event. If you are alleging that the police have been negligent in their investigation then we would refer you to the established cases of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 and Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] UKHL 24. Any failings in a police investigation do not give rise to a head of claim. In the circumstances this claim is misconceived.


We consider that the Chief Constable’s position is clear and we are not prepared to enter into further protracted correspondence and incur further costs at public expense. Thus we consider this matter is concluded, and we reserve the right to refer to this correspondence if proceedings are issued.


Further to those documents that have already been disclosed we confirm that the following additional documents will be made available upon request:


1. Interview plan – undated – handwritten;

2. Statement of PC 11029 Reast dated 5 June 2008 – typed;

3. Statement of PS 12754 Morrison dated 9 July 2009 – typed;

4. Statement of Inspector 8129 Williams dated 11 July 2009 – typed;

5. Statement of PC 11029 Reast dated 23 July 2009 – typed;

6. Report of PSE 53718 Cubin dated 2 August 2009;

7. Statement of DC 11163 Cochrane dated 14 August 2009 – typed;

8. Investigating officer’s report dated 28 September 2009;

9. IPCC appeal report – March 2010.

10. Interview tapes.


We have of course referred to the interview tapes in previous correspondence but we include them here for the purposes of formally disclosing them. As previously indicated copies will be provided when you provide a forwarding address.

Yours faithfully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbs69 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal communication in respect of one case only and cannot be used here as a reliable source to support an encyclopedia article. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 14:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mark_Lester#Drugs[edit]

Any thoughts on this? It seems wrong to censor it altogether, but there are WP:BLP issues with some of the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching it, and am not impressed by the sources so far. I'm also not convinced from the style of the edits that this isn't the banned User:HarveyCarter, who has a track record of this style of edit. The Daily Mail is going in the right direction, perhaps, but it still quotes from Hello! Rodhullandemu 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lester admits to drug use in the 1993 Independent interview, but the sourcing on the more lurid claims has some worrying WP:BLP issues. Unless the sourcing can be firmed up, it looks like a no-go for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP 92 is clearly the banned HarveyCarter and there are a couple of Admins that will block on sight simply for quacking. I will add a template to his uder page. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

About this. It appears we were both working on it at the same time. :) Rockfang (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. Not a problem. Rodhullandemu 01:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB[edit]

Hi,

Can you remove the AWB ability for my account? I am retiring and I think it best if it isn't left as an active flag on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 08:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry to lose your efforts, and best wishes. Rodhullandemu 15:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010[edit]

Cite this:[edit]

Re: If, as you say, "physiological responses cannot be considered "common knowledge" and require sourcing", would you recommend citing or deleting the following statement: "A sharp stick in the eye is painful." Chrisrus (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an apples/oranges comparison, I don't see any merit in discussing it, since I have other things to do here. Category:Incomplete file renaming requests still has a backlog which only an admin can tackle, and that's what I'm concentrating on for now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopping edit-warrior[edit]

91.85.190.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
91.84.180.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
91.85.165.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
91.85.161.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
91.85.178.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Could you set this up so that a user has to log in in order to edit? I've seen that before, but I don't know what it's called. This person is IP hopping and changing to incorrect verb usage. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

91.84.177.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 'nother one. Radiopathy •talk• 15:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could be dealt with by 2 rangeblocks covering only 10k IP addresses, but for now I've put his main targets (BBC, Siemens) on pending changes review. If that doesn't stop him, I'll apply the range block. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 16:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny's Child[edit]

Rod, somebody caused major vandalism on this and moved this article to something else by wrongly placing an 's at the end of the group name. Can you fix this, please? Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rodhullandemu 22:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory admin abuse thread[edit]

You're only allowed to block paedophiles for being what they are. You can't block fascists for being fascists or having fascistic usernames. Because that's censorship. <g> Sceptre (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am however allowed to express an opinion, and I have a discretion, and arguably a duty, to block editors with usernames that indicate an intention not to contribute here effectively. I have no issue with NatDem's username, merely his consistently poor sourcing of his edits. Rodhullandemu 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I admit NatDem's username is borderline (short for, I believe, "nationalist democrat", or, in plainspeak, "racist"). The KKK editors, however, had really stupid username choices. That said, you should've twigged that I was having a laugh. Sceptre (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So that's what the "<g>" was, and I apologise for being old, decrepit and tired enough not to have seen through the satire. Rodhullandemu 01:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I Ask You Something?[edit]

I just wanted to know what to put in the edit summary line when I save pages. Thanks. Xavier The Second (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief summary of your edit, e.g. "corrected spelling", "removed vandalism". Edit summaries are not required but are highly recommended so that other editors understand your edits. It's all here. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Barrowman[edit]

First thing I do when I find a problem, is compare the current version to the GA linked version in the talk page header. Right away, the Playbill interview shows up as a source. Not sure who has been adding content and removing sources, but it might be a good idea to take a closer look at the recent changes. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Rodhullandemu 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sprot BBC?[edit]

Could you semi-protect BBC? We still have the IP is/are problem. Thanks. Radiopathy •talk• 03:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reese WItherspoon[edit]

The edits I made were legitamate projects and by the way LOTS of wiki pages have films up that are in pre and post-production. You need to re-read what you are deleting before you do so. Thus, concerning the edits I made to Reese Witherspoon I will re-add them, (I have them copied to my computer incase people like you came around and deleted it) and if you have a problem with that, you can take it up with IMDb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeganDFoxFans (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles may get it wrong; but the standards say that we get it right, whatever you may think. If you're not prepared to comply with those guidelines, please feel free to not edit here, but elsewhere. Rodhullandemu 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

You are mentioned (in a nice way). Keep up the good work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Toddst1_misconduct RIPGC (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely block-evading sock[edit]

Could you please take a look at the contrib record of User:Mahshidnadimi? I am pretty sure that this is a block-evading sock of User:Amir.Hossein.7055. User:Mahshidnadimi started editing on July 25, one day after the latest batch of socks of User:Amir.Hossein.7055 were blocked, and immediately resumed a similar pattern of editing - numerous faulty copyright claims on Iran-related articles. In particular, User:Mahshidnadimi made edits to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and President of Iran similar to those made by the last sock of Amir.Hossein.7055, User:Thatspeed, whom you blocked on July 20. I have just filed a new SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. However, it will be a while before the SPI report will be processed and I think that in the meanwhile the behavioral evidence indicating block-evasion is sufficiently clear to justify an immediate block. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.177.47.225[edit]

Hello, Rod! I couldn't help notice your previous involvement[25] with this IP (and in blocking the accounts he mentions here, correctly reported as bad "KKK" usernames). The IP is claiming to only be responsible for the last two weeks of edits, saying he's on an open network. I'm not buying it, however. I know you're "involved": but is there any insight on this one you can give? Cheers, Rod :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what is going on, but he was quite right in reporting disruptive usernames, even with an ulterior motive. But the coverage of the ISP range for that IP address (across three states) suggests that it is likely to be recycled between users on a fairly rapid basis. Accordingly, I am not convinced that there is any cause for alarm unless it can be shown otherwise with diffs. Rodhullandemu 02:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! He "took down" the geolocate result out of "privacy", I'm sure you saw (can you actually do that? ;>) Any more edits like this from this point on would be bad, I think. Hopefully he is recycled - I'll keep an eye on him. Cheers, Rod :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Access[edit]

Hey, Rodhullandemu where do I ask for access to AWB and Huggle on Simple Wiki their main pages soft direct back to en and I don't find any request pages at Simple. Maybe I just ask an Admin there ? Mlpearc powwow 02:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you download AWB, there is a drop-down box to select a project; and I don't know if simple is included there, but if it is, try selecting it, and if you can use it, fine; otherwise you will have to ask at the admins board there. As for Huggle, I don't really know, but if you have it here, try copying from your vector.js or monobook.js subpage to the corresponding page on simple. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 02:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx, I will try. Mlpearc powwow 04:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. First I want to thank you for your time and help, also there is a request page for AWB at Simple-Wiki AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. As far as Huggle I included that in my request and was either overlooked or just not done. I think in the case of Huggle I'll just ask an Admin directly to be added to this list Huggle/Users. Thank You Mlpearc powwow 13:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I heard a seal bark[edit]

Regrettably, Thurber's cartoon is unlikely to be a free image, but this is on the Commons and is public domain, so would meet the DYK requirements as I read them. However, the image page does set out the "other restrictions" that apply, and it's something to be considered. Just thought I'd mention it here rather than inflating the issue on Jimbo's talk page. All the best, dave souza, talk 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten that the FBI seal was {{pd-us-gov}}, but then you are correct to point out that other issues arise. I would rather err on the side of caution, as I do with all images. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. The proposal now seems to be a DYK hook with no image, but I'm still urging caution as it seems too fresh an argument. Others may disagree. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ted[edit]

He is still there for the ninth, is it reliable ? Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still unconfirmed, and I've protected Deaths in 2010 for 24 hours. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I support that totally, full protection in such circumstances is the way to go, regards. If and when it is all clear we can add the details then. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its being added in by confirmed users Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think full protection is a bit heavy-handed for good-faith edits right now, but I will be keeping an eye on it for the next seven hours or so. Rodhullandemu 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

they confirmed his death on the Ted Stevens wiki page nowMasterknighted (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[26] Star Garnet (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have a bizarre idea of what constitutes a reliable source for a death. The last source I saw added to Deaths in 2010 cited "conflicting reports". If anyone can add a definitive source (there are still survivors as far as we know), I will reduce protection back to semi. Rodhullandemu 18:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't his family know best? Or is Market Watch some sort of scam that I don't know of? Star Garnet (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know they've been given correct information when it comes to us third-hand and there are still survivors reported? I don't think we need to rush into things. Rodhullandemu 19:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you've seen this but this page [27] is also being edited as though reports of Steven's death have been confirmed. I just wanted you to be aware of the situation. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the death has now been confirmed: Ted Stevens has been updated and cited. TFOWR 19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre warrior[edit]

90.220.29.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
but he's also here:
90.209.169.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Radiopathy •talk• 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second hasn't edited after a warning yesterday, and first has stopped after your recent warning. Not much we can do unless he kicks off again, since we can't possibly protect all those articles. I'll keep an eye on 90.220, though. Rodhullandemu 20:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay[edit]

I was experimenting with something. I was wondering what would happen if I took the influence section in a writer's infobox and put into a musician infobox. Obviously it didn't work and I thought that I had deleted it within 1 minute. Don't know why it was still there. Sorry. Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what sandboxes are for; meanwhile, live articles available to a global readership should operate on the "principle of least surprise". Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Stewart[edit]

Cudos. You got my inappropriate entry in 6 minutes, I think. That's impressive. I thought an employee of The Daily Show would promptly delete it, but you appear to have no affiliation with the show. So, do you just monitor Wiki like the guys in the movie The Matrix can read the matrix code? Anyway, I really do believe what I posted and hoped somebody at the show would see it. Oh well. I didn't count on the self-appointed, independent Wiki censor of the decade.  :) Shooktalk (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects of articles here tend not to read them very much. And I have no connection with the show. And it's not censorship, it's sticking with our core principles, particularly requiring verification and maintaining neutraility. Get those right, and I'm sure you'll be a valuable editor here. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Won't waste you whole day, but according to Wiki:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

I concede that you were correct to delete it. But, it qualifies as censorship because you deleted communicative material which rightfully was considered objectionable to Wiki principles. Face it, you're a very good censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooktalk (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue the point, but you are incorrect. Your addition to the article was an unsourced personal opinion and therefore fell foul of several policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also worth a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Rodhullandemu 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't busy[edit]

Could you look into the recent edits of User:Yalens and his/her "references"?[28] First these "references" were edited without page numbers then when asked for page numbers the pages given do not support the contentious sentences sourced. I have now asked for quotes on the talk page. Now User:Yalens is calling my requests "ridiculous", "double standards".[29] The supposed quote does not even begin to address the sentence that is "referencing". --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Head[edit]

Could you keep an eye on this article. Nathan2266 and JamesR62 (the same?!?) seem to be trying to promote what I assume to be a local, non-notable, similarly named outfit. I have done what I can, but it may need an admin's intervention next time. Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted it. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Stewart[edit]

Wiki is a "media organization" which has principles, policies, and guidelines with which a "censor" or censors "determine" what "communicative material" is "objectionable" and therefore subject to "deletion". The quotes are terms used in Wiki's own definition of "censorship".

There is no difference in saying that my communicative material "runs afoul of policies" and in saying that my communicative material is "objectionable". You object to it because it runs afoul, and having made that determination, you delete it. That's censorship. You censored me.

It's okay, though, b/c your determination was correct. [except the part about Stewart's "many vacations" - I think that part was arguably factual, but not worth quibbling about].

I just noticed that I've been told to quit trolling. That's probably the best lesson I've learned today. Over-and-out.

Shooktalk (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hello,

I was just wondering why you changed my entry on The Jeremy Kyle Show parodies section. Not too sure why its incorrect as I did add refernces that backed up what I was saying. Along with refernce on page there is also: http://www.nme.com/video/bcid/309066472001/search/Kyle%20Eastwood%20&%20Michael%20Stevens also a quick view of the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpFfM_dili4 it is pretty apparent.

Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.235.56 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of the problem with your edits is (a) copyright violation hosted on YouTube - unacceptable, and (b) "it is pretty apparent" - this is interpretation of sources and also impermissible. If you can find a reliable commentator that has made the comparison, fine, but we aren't allowed to do it ourselves. Rodhullandemu 00:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change - put the right hyperlink in. NME; take it this is reasonable?

That's only one journalist's opinion; even the headline states "a Jeremy Kyle-style TV host going mental"; that is insufficient to show that it is intended as a parody of Kyle, since his style of confrontational chav-journalism is nothing new. What if the writer of the article had been only five years older, and written "a Jerry Springer-style TV host going mental"? Or ten years older, and written "a Phil Donahue-style TV host going mental". It doesn't work out, and it needs an orthogonal source to be credible here. Rodhullandemu 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But surly to say style is reinforcing the fact it comes under parody? The point of the satire is that Mr Kyle himself has had problems with his past including gambling problems cited in his book and by his ex-wife in divorce proceedings. I don't think I tried to make the suggestion at any point that the music video is a true representation of Jeremy Kyle; in the same way that I wouldn't list the London Underground song as the The Jam's Going Underground but it is identifiable as parody of that song. Surly it would be patronising to suggest that users could not tell the difference between what the video is portraying and the actual show, without it being spelled out for them by a third party website or other source. Jerry Springer is a reference that is easily recognisable to any age group. Although I would agree that this genre of show is nothing new, the style portrayed in this music video is endemic of Jeremy Kyle by firstly being British (although Jerry Springer is British and did do a British series). Also Springer is more inquisitive than condescending, as Kyle is. --Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.235.56 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop confusing/conflating the issues. Our baseline here is verifiability rather than what *you* think may be the case, which is pure original research. Find me a source that unequivocally states that "X" is a parody of The Jeremy Kyle Show other than your own interpretation and I'll believe it. Otherwise, it doesn't cross the threshold. "Obvious" may be obvious, but that is not the way Wikipedia works. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updatehelper[edit]

Hi. There's some concern about the edits that User:Updatehelper has been making. Partially because none of the links appear to work (Update: Links are resolving correctly now. Must have been a temporary glitch.). I'm also concerned that he seems to be editing outside of mainspace, which I don't think is a good idea for a non-English-fluent editor. eg and eg. Please give input at his talkpage. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be only working on articles for now, and hopefully he's realised the problem. I'll monitor the situation. Rodhullandemu 19:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Jeremy Kyle[edit]

if you bothered to look at the link i gave you would see he has been removed from the list of presenters. he gave his last show which i listened to on last sunday which you can listen to again on http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/listen-again/2010-08-08

on there you will here the man himself say i am leaving talksport because of talksport's new schedule which now includes live football coverage and his show was cancelled to make room. if this isnt enough evidence for you then i dont know what is. the last edit will be reversed back and until you can PROVE he is still at talksoort then it will continue.Phenom V1.0 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:RS and WP:CITE. Contentious information in biographies must be sourced. Rodhullandemu 15:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


its still fact whether you want to be a jobsworth about it or not. I Dont think Jeremy Kyle will sue if you say the truth .

PS are you actually anyone important on here if not please stop bothering me with your rules, fact is fact link provided to prove it as talk sport Dont do official announcements on paper but audio still counts as a official reference. Phenom V1.0 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really important here,, just an Administrator who can block users who persistently fail to comply with our major policies. All you need to do is to cite your source. I've already pointed you to WP:CITE. Please use it. Also worth looking at WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL; you've been editing here for long enough to be aware of both. Rodhullandemu 16:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


EXCUSE ME! but if you dont get your head out your backside and understand that A) HE HAS LEFT and B)AUDIO LINK IS PROOF. i will cite that and if you remove it i will report you to the actual wikipedia bosses not the ones who act like one. Phenom V1.0 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you aren't citing it. Meanwhile, the Administrators noticeboard is here, and I wish you the best of luck. There are no "bosses" here. Rodhullandemu 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Super_Audio_CD#August_2010[edit]

Rod, any thoughts on the AES citation? Things have become a bit heated.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, WP:RS says little about citing subscription-only sources; WP:V seems to imply that if a source is available, it can be used, and is silent on the level of difficulty of access to that source. WP:AGF should prescribe that if you cite a source for which you have access, that should be acceptable. Maybe a discussion on WP:RSN, where they are more used to this sort of thing than I, would be a way forward? Cheers. Rodhullandemu 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this band does not meet notability?[edit]

Doc Savage (band) do not appear to have achieved anything of note - nothing that hundreds of thousands of other outfits could claim. Your thoughts here? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nothing in WP:BAND applies here, and it's been tagged as NN for over two years. Please feel free to nominate for speedy deletion. Rodhullandemu 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/38&oldid=1142485208"