User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/08
|
The Outlaw Halo Award | |
| Keep ignoring all the rules, wikipedia would not be the same with only stiff necks. Tiptoety talk 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) |
- Oh, there is not one particular instance I can think of, but just your editing style overall. When I saw it I thought of you, thats all. :) Tiptoety talk 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Our U.K.-loving friend has reappeared...[edit]
Curious George (TV series) has been UK-ed by 209.247.22.147. I'll let you handle it, so I don't look like a single-minded vigilante or something. :) Thanks...19:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
RfA Thanks[edit]
| Thanks! | 
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.[edit]
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That article is awesome. It was a gaping hole in encyclopedia for years! So many Wiltshire articles had red links to the college. Thanks for the heads up. No, I don't think we've met, though I wouldn't admit it on wiki if we had. Shame. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Martha Jones's New Boyfriend[edit]
I really object to you removing the information I added about Martha Jones's new boyfriend. You claimed that it was not reliable information. How more reliable can you get than the OFFICIAL!!! Torchwood website! But if that's the way you feel about it... we'll just wait for the new series and see who's right then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshort15 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you had actually visited the site in question
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood/sites/arg/pages/messages.shtml?character=jack)
you would have realised that the page can't be edited and that all of the other emails on the page are or have been relevant to Torchwood/Doctor Who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshort15 (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you... I can easily see why you mistook it for a fan site. The new series looks amazing!!! Do you think that Tom could perhaps be Tom Milligin from Last of the Time Lords??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshort15 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Protection[edit]
Well, I went and changed the protection duration on Kurt Weber’s userpage. I didn’t intend to change your duration, but Twinkle has a nasty habit of not warning when a page is already protected. If you think that the 1 week I protected it for is excessive, feel free to change it back. Cheers —Travistalk 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks![edit]
Thanks for helping to clear up the vandalism on my user page! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for help[edit]
Can you please check my talk page to see what can be done about a constant series of attacks. Thanks. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC).
Appeal[edit]
I do not like how you got nasty with me. So I am considering the idea of complaining to the Arbitration Committee. If you're allowed to push me around I think I deserve vindication. I am offended by your comments against me and I am going to do something to protect myself. I don't seek confrontation as a general rule but I will fight to defend myself when wronged. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum, I also take exception against you protecting my personal private space without my consent. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I do see one positive about you even if your judgment sucks. At least you're professonal enough to respond quickly as possible. If only ESC was that efficient. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- One other thing, I notice you seem alot more helpful and alot more forgiving than your brother administrator Lar. Hope to work with you on what I think is wrong, could use an advocate. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiener sausage[edit]
You may wish to reconsider your opinion expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiener sausage. Consider:
- Jean-François Le Gall, "Fluctuation Results for the Wiener Sausage", Annals of Probability, 1988, volume 16, number 3, pages 991–1018
- M. van den Berg, E. Bolthausen, F. den Hollander, "Moderate deviations for the volume of the Wiener sausage", Annals of Mathematics, 2001, volume 153, pages 355–406
- E. Bolthausen, "On the Volume of the Wiener Sausage", Annals of Probability, 1990, volume 18, number 4, pages 1576–1582
- Uwe Schmock , "Convergence of the normalized one-dimensional wiener sausage path measures to a mixture of brownian taboo processes", Stochastics An International Journal of Probability and Stochastic Processes, Volume 29, Issue 2 February 1990 , pages 171–183
- T. Eisele1 and R. Lang, "Asymptotics for the wiener sausage with drift", Probability Theory and Related Fields, Volume 74, Number 1 / March, 1987, pages 125–140
- Yuji Hamana, Harry Kesten, " A large-deviation result for the range of random walk and for the Wiener sausage", Probability Theory and Related Fields, Volume 120, Number 2 / June, 2001, Pages 183–208
- A. S. Sznitman, "Some bounds and limiting results for the measure of Wiener sausage of small radius associated with elliptic diffusions", Stochastic processes and their applications, 1987, volume 25, number 1, pages 1–25
- Isaac Chavel, Edgar A. Feldman, "The Lenz shift and wiener sausage in riemannian manifolds", Compositio Mathematica, volume 60, number 1, (1986), pages 65–84
- M. D. Donsker and S. R. S. Varadhan, "Asymptotics for the Wiener sausage", Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, volume 28 (1975), pages 525–565
...and a large number of others found by Google Scholar. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
prod restore request[edit]
Re od (Unix): having looked at the "prod"-ded content that you kindly userfied for me, I would like to recreate the article, as I believe that I can add further info to address the apparent lack of importance of the subject. Rather than me just copying the content that you userfied for me, could you please restore it so that the history is properly restored. Many thanks. — Alan✉ 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's great. I don't know whether I'll have time to really substantially improve the article, unfortunately. But what I will do is add the fact that it is included in the POSIX standard, which makes it more important than any old program that somebody's written to run on Unix. — Alan✉ 00:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Continued trouble on Clayton Bennett article[edit]
This[1] edit appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to (1) accuse me of incivility, and (2) add a link to the "Save Our Sonics" site. My edit on the article was obviously not uncivil, and if anything a proper edit summary by the user fixing the grammar would have prevented reversion of the fix. Secondly, the name of the section on the talk page seems to have little relevence to the comment and simply a cheap attempt for the "Save Our Sonics" folks to get their link on as many pages on Wikipedia as possible. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
respond plz[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles#Let.27s_put_back_the_classic_intro_into_the_opening_paragraph Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing sprotection[edit]
Hi, I am going to go ahead and remove the semiprotection that you placed on the Criminal Damage in English law article as it was only recently edited twice by a single IP address. Per WP:PROT, semiprotection should be used on articles that "Are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption." Thanks, Nakon 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to humbly disagree with you that a 1986 Playboy INTERVIEW of Arthur C. Clarke is not a reliable source. Playboy is in fact a long-established publication and does not have a bad reputation for its articles; the fact that girlie photos are printed therein does not make it an unreliable source nor invalidate all of its other content. Rodney420 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter... he;s jumped to 87.122.6.215.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- He'll either hit other pages or he'll wait for the page protections to wear off. What should I do when he comes back.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Now he's hitting other pages under 87.122.1.177.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- 87.122.4.101--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Slight duration problem[edit]
Thanks for blocking Mcgrann87 recently. I noticed a strange thing in the blocking message, though. He's been blocked indefinitely, yet the blocking message ends with "Once the block has expired, you are (etc).." (see User_talk:Mcgrann87).
An expired indefinite block? That's a loooong wait ;-) Channel R. 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Wiltshire College[edit]
|
On 26 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wiltshire College, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BencherliteTalk 10:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't know a lot more about her - had the Independent obit - but of course can't unearth it at the mo - would you like the text of the Abbey Compendium article I referenced? I can send it if so - just let me know Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Peterloo[edit]
Hello there Rodhullandemu!
Just a quick note to say thanks for the message at Talk:Peterloo Massacre, as well as, it seems, the hard work you'd put in prior to the recent "spurt" of growth. I had noticed your work on the article looking back through the article's edit history and was wondering if you'd be around again to add content or pass comment.
It would be great to see you around on the article (our aim at WP:GM is to get it to featured standard by 16 August 1819 and onto the main page). If you don't have any material to add, just a blessing or feedback would be great to keep us on track. Thanks again, --Jza84 | Talk 03:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Rules 1&2[edit]
rules 1 and 2 must be followed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.63.196 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- 1 & 2? I'm up to #327! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this notice because you have had previous dealings with the above user, in, so far as I could tell, a less-than-positive fashion. Community service recently emailed another user, User:Tiddly Tom, expressing a desire to return to Wikipedia to constructively contribute. In an effort to assume good faith, but still respect the reasons for the block, I have set Community service a series of tasks for him to complete on his now-unprotected talk page so that he may demonstrate this willingness to contribute to us. These tasks are listed here, and the full discussion of this situation, including an email I sent to Community service just now, may be found on my talk page at User talk:Hersfold#User:Community service. I would encourage you to review these tasks, and offer any advice to the user he may need. Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Removal of TARDIS information[edit]
Could i ask why you have removed the information on the TARDIS article on the Doctors Type 40?
In the original serial "The Deadly Assasin" that is set entirly on the Doctors home planet of Gallifrey, the characters Engin and Spandrell discuss that there was one more TARDIS created than was listed in the registry in the Matrix, they discuss that the relevent information on the Doctors TARDIS which had been removed by the Celestrial Intelligence Agency.
This is an important part of the history of the Doctor as it details an important part of his past.
Regards
msa1701 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It was originally broadcast from 30th October to 20th November 1976. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msa1701 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
A Hard Day's Night[edit]
I was going to work on it meself, but it seems you've got it worked out. What I meant was that it would be advisable to ignore User:Realist2's comments, lest we stir up a fight that we would all regret. Thus, I was saying that your comment "And, no, we need neither spoon-feeding nor patronising nor insults" was one that would be argumentative for User:Realist2. But after seeing what he wrote, I can see that your comment is worth putting up.
Anyway, I'll erase my comment. If you don't get it, nevermind. Thanks for all the help. I was planning on fixing A Hard Day's Night (film) before, but I didn't really know where to start. So I put it up for GA, knowing it probably wouldn't make it, so that I would know where to improve. Anyway, thanks. You're really a big help. :) Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have left a message at Kodster user page you might wish to view it. I WILL BE REVIEWING THE ARTICLE. Im quite capable, if you carry on like this i will seek advise. Give me the chance to proof myself like i have with the other editors concerned. Do not go behind my back again. Realist2 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The past is in the past, ive become friends with your fellow beatles contributers as you can see from my user page. I have a barn star off 1 of them. I have already passed 2 beatles related articles in 3 days. Im completely neutral. You as an admin should be more open minded to change, i found what you just did rather hurtful. Please move on from the past, every1 else has. Realist2 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And even admins can apologise once in a while, it doesnt hurt to show their human side, WE All MAKE MISTAKES, jesus i know i have. Realist2 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Incase you still had any worries about my suitability. When someone goes to my talk page specifically asking i review their article try to avoid stealing the show for yourself, accusing the reviewer of not being impartial etc. It only reflects badly on yourself. Realist2 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Good i hope you can compose yourself at least until this review is over. Let me know when you are finished and i will review it in a NEUTRAL manner. I will be keeping a close eye on things from afar til then. Oh and I AM sorry for our beatles issues, if you didnt notice i tried smoothing things over by visiting the talk page, i mean you or wiki no harm. Realist2 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The review is finished. Feel free to view the talk page. Realist2 (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
A Day in the Life[edit]
See this here another beatles related article up for GA, unlike the others im a little pessimistic about its prospects. What do you advise? Realist2 (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, theres already the beatles article above that people are working on which stands a much better than of reaching GA. Putting it on hold for the week wont help imo, rushing the article is bad in the long run. Maybe he will decide to pull it of himself. Realist2 (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok ill know that for the future, im not trying to break every full in the book, theres just far to many to keep a hold of it. Realist2 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
A possible issue[edit]
I have reviewed an article and put a note on the nominators user page informing them. The article seems to be mostly edited by this sole editer. They havent replied in 36 hours and it looks like they havent been on wiki for a number of days. If it were to go a whole week where they havent been on wiki and no-one has edited the page, should i fail it? Its more a hypothetical question than anything, i hope you can spare some time to get back to me on this. Realist2 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats true i suppose if its left on the list on hold for a month someone will notice that its kinda odd and investigate it themselves. Realist2 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced[edit]
I'm still editing the article, and am just now putting in the sources! This is concerning the Spitzer article, and I am following the suggestion of another editor about the need to include investigative reporter's Greg Palast's concerns about the timing of the scandal.--Francesca Rheannon (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please put the text I spent an hour writing back in? I don't have it saved and I don't have the time to do it all over! Thanks! I like the scrutiny, but I would appreciate a headsup before you take out my text so I can make sure to save it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesca Rheannon (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)