User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/33

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

News and notes: Financial statements, discussions, milestones

In the news: Pentagon shooter used Wikipedia, soon iPhone OS will too

WikiProject report: WikiProject Java

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'drumcree conflict' photos

Hi Rodhyull&E, thanks for the message. I'm afraid I simply cannot get my head around photo posting - which is why I've tried shortcuts like linking to my blog. Any assistance would be much appreciated. I lifted those photos from a now-defunct local newspaper in 1982. They were subsequently used in a 1999 book that I co-edited. The publishing company 'Beyond the Pale'(Belfast) handled copywrite. They have now closed down - but are trying to locate the digital version on old computers for me to upload onto the web.

Any help would be much appreciated Maolcholann (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be able to use those images here without a source and some sort of fair-use rationale since they will still be copyrighted. In the circumstances, it's not clear whether your use on your blog is valid or not, but that is up to you, and another reason why we couldn't link to it, per this. If you can find out the name of a photographer or place/date of original publication, a fair-use defence may be viable if the images are irreplaceable due to, e.g. historical significance, but we would still need details. Sorry to be so negative, but we have to be careful about copyrights here. Rodhull andemu 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

email

I have replied to your email, incase you did not get it :) — R ² 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have it thanks, and will get back to you when I wake up a bit. Rodhull andemu 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just a heads up. :) — R ² 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Chace Watson/Nick835

Hi, I noticed that you have previously dealt with User:Chace Watson, he has reappeared as User:Nick835 and has been uploading copyright material with invalid FU tags here. Nick835 has already been indef blocked at Commons as a sock [1] and I imagine the same action is appropriate here. I hadn't checked the background on Nick835 until now; I tried to AGF and help this user out, but it seems I've been wasting my time. Wine Guy~Talk 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you would prefer that I take this to WP:AN or WP:SPI instead. Thanks. Wine Guy~Talk 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at this yesterday and had forgotten how many socks this guy has used. His edits to the text of Corbin Bleu seem to have improved as he is no longer pasting copyrighted text from other websites. That leaves the issue of the images, and I will look into imposing an editing restriction which prohibits him from uploading any images, although it seems he has trouble with the English language. Actually, scrub that. It's quite clearly the same editor, and the Commons block is persuasive. Blocked indef. Rodhull andemu 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, policing his "fair usage" was getting rather tiring, especially since he has a history of refusing to heed warnings. It also didn't help that he couldn't decide what language he speaks. Cheers. Wine Guy~Talk 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Thanks for keeping all the requests here under control :). Just a FYI, since you've been removing old requests, I've got User:KingpinBot up and running, and have just added AWB/CP to it, so it should handle the archiving from now on (have to hope it works! :D). I've not yet added the AWB-bot requests to it, although I may add this to the bot shortly, they are so rare that it shouldn't matter that much - feel free to contact me and I can archive any AWB-bot requests manually. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

There's still some discussion about your block for Qamsar (talk · contribs). I think you completely overreacted and were to harsh in your block. I would appreciate you discussing it and ignoring the trolling by the IP. AniMate 10:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the block has been corrected, although I would have made it 31 hours. However, when I spend 10-12 hours here daily, most of which is spent fighting vandalism, one bad block out of nearly 3000 might slip through. I am unfortunately somewhat human and not infallible. I don't appreciate my efforts here being met by months, yes months, of harrassment from one IP-hopper with an axe to grind. Thanks for your support. Rodhull andemu 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Reguarding the edit you just made at ozzy, in the "diff" it shows my name, making it look like I made the edits you corrected ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the way UNDO works, since the previous version was your undoing of vandalism & still contained the overlinked names. Shouldn't be a problem. Rodhull andemu 17:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but it makes it look like i'm the ~~Idiot~~, Thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chace Watson

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chace Watson —Kww(talk) 16:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing war

Hello Rodhullandemu, this other editor Pyrrhus16 keeps dleted changes nade to an article even when ive added valid sources to confirm. I admit thatin the past i have added without sources ( like others) and it was protested and i havent been doing. Another editor even suggested that i uses the term "cultural icon" instaead of "global icon" but i feel its just gonna be deleted without even being discussed on the talk page which i have been doing when ever i want to make an edit. Other editor have complained about the actions of this editor.

Thank youBuffaloxoldiar (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other editors; extreme claims require excellent sources, and I suggest you thrash this out on the Talk page with other editors. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 19:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BNP

Please reprotect. --Verbal chat 21:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than blocking for breaking your conditions, perhaps DharmaDreamer and Yorksharian should simply be topic banned. Then they are still free to contribute elsewhere. Verbal chat 21:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the wider community should look at this, since I am pretty tired at present and not really geared up to thinking straight. I'll warn them first, but if this continues I'll put it on WP:ANI. Rodhull andemu 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

75.170.161.149 on AIV

While on AIV, could you also take a look at 75.170.161.149, please? This user is fresh off a block and back to his ol' tricks. Needs to go back to block-o-land. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to decline this because he hasn't vandalised after last warning and isn't vandalising now, but I've protected the page since can shift IP address, looking at the page history. Hopefully that will be enough. Rodhull andemu 00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Evers

Rod, any thoughts here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harvey Oswald: External Link Deletion

Hi Rodhullandemu:

Just catching up with your most recent note concerning your deletion of a link – http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-jfk-photo-fiasco.html – that I had added within the External Link section of Wikipedia’s Lee Harvey Oswald entry. In your brief message to me, while reminding me that "everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia," you then proceeded to let me know that “one or more of the external links you added to the page Lee Harvey Oswald do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed.” You then further go on to remind that “Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project.”

After having reviewed all of the information that you have provided in regard to your recent deletion of the above cited link, I can assure you that there was never any intent to use the above cited link “as a platform for advertising and promotion.” Further, I find it very difficult to justify the deletion of the above cited link based upon any of the items listed in the "Wikipedia is not a collection of links" article, as the link which you chose to delete is not just another arbitrary link rendering the Oswald External Links section a “[m]ere collection of external links or Internet directories.”

Rather, the deleted link does in fact provide “useful content-relevant links to an article,” which, according to guidelines for external links, “there is nothing wrong with adding.” Specifically, the deleted link to the article, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco," co-authored by two reputable experts within the JFK research community, Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs, provides a much merited factual counterpoint to the opinion promoted by the Wikipedia Oswald article within the section:"4 Backyard photos," when the article quotes Dartmouth Prof. Hany Farid’s conclusion that "the photo almost certainly was not altered." Further, aside from being a much merited counterpoint to Prof. Farid’s opinionated conclusion, the Fetzer/Marrs article also contains numerous specific citations concerning fallacies in Dr. Farid’s research and methods that serve to seriously undermine Dr. Farid’s much publicized conclusion regarding the Oswald “backyard photographs.”

Surely, based upon on these merits, the Fetzer/Marrs article bears mention within any reputable encyclopedia that desires its readers to be well-informed, no matter how controversial the topic of discussion may be.

Finally, as you may probably surmise from my chosen Wikipedia user name – Monticello1826 – I thoroughly appreciate the quote you have chosen to highlight so prominently within your Wikipedia profile:

“That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe for the moral and mutual instruction of man and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature when she made them like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.” (Thomas Jefferson, 1813)

With the spirit of the above quote in mind, then, could you please let me know: 1)specifically, why the link to the Fetzer/Marrs article was deleted? 2)- what measures can be taken to restore the link to the Fetzer/Marrs article within Wikipedia’s entry for Lee Harvey Oswald?

- Monticello1826

First, we do not normally consider blogs as reliable sources, but this guy would seem to be a respected academic, so perhaps on that point, his opinions are worth hearing. However, per our policy on external links, such links should not be added to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article"(#1). In this case, the Lee Harvey Oswald is not to my mind an appropriate venue for such detailed analysis of whether the photographs were faked, because to include this without reliable third-party commentary amounts to original research, synthesis of sources and possibly a breach of WP:FRINGE, as I see this issue is mentioned only in passing in the article. By all means, though, feel free to raise the issue on the Talk page where more knowledgeable editors than I can evaluate your link. Rodhull andemu 19:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu,

Thanks for your response.

Within that response you state: "In this case, the Lee Harvey Oswald is not to my mind an appropriate venue for such detailed analysis of whether the photographs were faked ..."

And yet, the Wikipedia LHO article itself contains an entire section entitled, "Backyard photos," in which Dr. Farid's conclusions are allowed to stand -- seemingly -- as factual, when in point of fact Dr. Farid's conclusions represent nothing more than his own point of view, albeit based upon his own flawed research methods:

"Farid has violated a basic canon of scientific research, which is that all the available evidence that makes a difference to a conclusion must be taken into account." ( -from the article which link you have deleted entitled, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco," found at: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-jfk-photo-fiasco.html)

It would seem that your objection to including the link in question within the Wiki LHO entry, then, would be based upon what you see a the lack of a "reliable third party commentary" in support of the Fetzer/Marr article's arguments and conclusions. If this is in fact your only objection, then I'm quite sure that such third party sources/commentary are readily available for citing.

- Monticello1826

I'm sorry, I missed that section. My opinion is that the whole section is of undue weight in the article, focussing as it does on one facet as against other material that readers might find more relevant. Accordingly, I do not want to get into a content-based argument with you and invite you to replace the link, and see what other editors make of it. I am not a gatekeeper for this, or any other article, and am not qualified to measure competing claims here. Rodhull andemu 22:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Rodhullandemu,

Thanks. Per your invitation, then, I'll update the Wiki LHO External Links section with a link to the Fetzer/Marrs article, this time found at the third party source: http://www.opednews.com/ - Monticello1826

Rodhullandemu,

Viewing the Wikipedia LHO today (03/15/2010), after reinserting the external link to the Fetzer/Marrs article per my note to you yesterday (see above), and find that that external link has once again been deleted.

I'm a new Wikipedia user, so perhaps I've missed something in regard to a message as to why the link has once again been deleted. Can you help me out in this regard? - Or is there someone else that can? If so, please provide instructions for communicating with such a person. -Thanks, Monticello1826

Looking at the edit, no reason was given, but you might want to ask the editor who removed it here. In general, if you click on the "History" tab of an article, you can see recent edits at the top of the list. Rodhull andemu 19:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie

Comment. Full support, if I had a button I would have done it, I support the long term protection of articles that attract excessive vandalism from unconfirmed edits good work, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I see nonsense there on an almost daily basis. Rodhull andemu 19:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Poetic Anon User

Over the past, oh, month or so I have chosen to watch your talk page (I hope you don't mind). The reason being there has been a fairly amusing anon user who write poems and the like on your wall. I'll cut to the chase; I've been keeping a collection of his musings and odes, ah they make me laugh so much. I was wondering if this fellow has struck lately? He is quiet good you must admit. If you to Reply to me here, please place a talkback notification of my talk page. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm not in a rush. So don't worry about quickly getting back to me, I understand. Outback the koala (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also long been watching this page, recently because of a certain anon who is indifferent (at best) to the sensibilities of Rodhullandemu in his posting of verse upon these pages. Rhae may not be inclined to respond to your request, and in that case I would suggest that you do not pursue the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm. If that is the case, I guess it is for the best. But still, I'll give it a few days. You never know. Outback the koala (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this page? I suggest it goes by {{db-author}}, or I will find it and tag it as {{db-attack}}. Rodhull andemu 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What page are you talking about?? Outback the koala (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I've been keeping a collection of his musings and odes". On-wiki? Inadvisable. Rodhull andemu 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhhhh, no no it's an off-wiki collection. Outback the koala (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely bizarre that anyone would want to maintain a record of a harrasser's persistent and distressing hounding of me, but if you want poor poetry, I recommend "The Stuffed Owl", edited by D.B. Wyndham Lewis. If you wish to show respect to a fellow-contributor here, that is a matter for you and your conscience. 18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC) Rodhull andemu 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I somehow offended you. I will not post on your wall again. Once more, I apologize. Good Day to you. Outback the koala (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just bollocks

Three newly created accounts,
Uclad1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
Merku4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
Rey1212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
have all reverted to the "...in the beginning..." bit at George Harrison; this same edit incorrectly changes Harrison's standing in Rolling Stone magazine's list of "The 100 Best Guitarists of All Time" from 21 to one.

Smells like socks. And bollocks. MPFC 1969 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have quietened down, but if this recurs, I'll sort it out. Rodhull andemu 17:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has recurred, with Dmerkurev3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I've blocked the lot for abuse of multiple accounts and semi'd the page for a few days to get the message across. Rodhull andemu 22:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Need Your Love So Bad"

I have been researching “Need Your Love So Bad” (Fleetwood Mac et al). The song writing credit has me going round in circles. Some sources cite Little Willie John, some his brother (?) Mertis John Jr., and yet others name both of them. This might not be a reliable source but … [2]. I am asking a few Wikipedians, but have you any thoughts, before I go completely insane. No comments on that latter point please ! Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic, for once, is not as reliable as one would hope on this one. I tried a quick look through my "Record Collector"s, but couldn't find anything. Sorry. Rodhull andemu 22:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. You are right, Allmusic seems to not know "what's going on".[3] Anyhow, User:Ghmyrtle has provided me with a few leads, so watch this space - "Now, when the night begins, whoa, I'm at an end". I'm giving up wine gums for Lent, honest.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...

[4] I thought it was funny for some reason... --Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

I read it might be a good idea to open a bot account after getting AWB. I understand why, not sure how to go about doing it. Thanx Mlpearc MESSAGE 04:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a bot account unless you intend to do multiple repetitive edits that are too voluminous to be sensibly done with AWB. I'd suggest you look at WP:Bots to see the criteria and procedures. Rodhull andemu 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI of sorts, you may wish to see this thread. –xeno^talk 14:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Northern Ireland

Thanks for geocoding the now-defunct railway stations in Northern Ireland. -- The Anome (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Some of them were "intelligent guesswork" but for those in doubt, I left the scale large enough to be sure (to be sure) of covering the actual location. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 19:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

News and notes: A Wikiversity controversy, Wikimedian-in-Residence, image donation, editing contest, WMF jobs

In the news: Studies on collaboration and student usage, Main Page drives traffic to Time.com

Dispatches: GA Sweeps end

WikiProject report: WikiProject Ireland

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Pink

Re: Ariel Pink

He actually did do an album with a band called "Holy Shit" - the lead singer was Matt Fishbeck. Although the band name sounds fake, it's a real band. http://www.veryholyshit.com/

I might have known that if you'd cited a source at the time. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 15:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted references

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie ⚔ 03:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Didn't notice that, but thanks for pointing it 0ut. Rodhull andemu 15:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for approving me

Thanks for approving me for AWB I appreciate it! :-) Evenios (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from The Black Velvets

Hello Rodhullandemu, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Black Velvets has been removed. It was removed by B.Wind with the following edit summary '(deprod - there is plenty of coverage by reliable sources; whether or not this is sufficient enough for a perennial backing band should be left to wider discussion (WP:AfD?))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with B.Wind before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.148.20.38

Appears to not want talk page priviliges either. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revoked. Rodhull andemu 17:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#How_do_you_report_administrators_and_bots_who_vandalise.3F

It's back. Time to start issuing some blocks, methinks. Woogee (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

83.9.218.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Woogee (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and it's probably about time you had your Admin bit back. Rodhull andemu 23:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would pass an RfA at this point. Thanks. Besides, everybody would want to know who I was in my past life, and I'm not really interested in revealing that to the general public. Woogee (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't need to know unless you wish to email me, but unless you left under a cloud, or there's some personal harassment or distress involved, I don't see why you shouldn't regain your previous ~~victimhood~~ ~~position of absolute power, ha ha haaarr!~~ responsibilities here. Rodhull andemu 23:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyhagan Petition

Just letting you know that I've left a reply regarding the "Ballyhagan Petition" here.
Feel free to remove this message once read. ~Asarlaí 16:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Peasgood

It looks like Julie Peasgood is going to be a continuing pain in the rear unless you semi-protect it until the flap either produces reliable sources or blows over. Your call, of course. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on it, but it seems slow at present. Rodhull andemu 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Wikipedia-Books: Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts

News and notes: Explicit image featured on Wikipedia's main page

In the news: Campaign for video, costs of crowdsourcing, iPhone app, brief headlines

WikiProject report: Percy Jackson Task Force

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello

I would like to ask your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania with an important Hungarian population

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.".

My opinion is that according to wiki rules Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name)

We just want to respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule

User:Rokarudi, instead of focusing on the discussion, falsely accuses the editors who don't support his POV that are sockpuppets of User:Bonaparte

Can you please express your opinion here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hungarian_names_of_Romanian_places

Thanks in advance for your answer and sorry if it wasn't a good idea to post this message here (Umumu (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not an expert in this area, and don't have a ready solution to offer. In general, my preference would be to use the "official" name as defined by a country's constitution, but equally I'm aware of nationalistic interests who would refight old wars here. It's not really an admin issue, and you might want to look at some form of dispute resolution. Sorry if that doesn't help. Rodhull andemu 16:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before committing yourself to answering, you might wish to review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umumu. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks anyway (Umumu (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, LHvU, my opinion is just that, and would have been the same whoever asked for it. This is better sorted out elsewhere, in my view. Rodhull andemu 17:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on here, but Umumu left the same message on several people's talk page. Enigma^msg 20:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI

I saw and removed this a minute ago... I'd say someone has a nice little grudge against you... (Though you seem to be on the lighter end of the spectrum... I on the other hand get attacked sporadically by Grawp and 4chan...) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert; this has been going on since January, this is is a couple of idiots with nothing better to do, and is now blocked. Rodhull andemu 00:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

...that every doggerel has its day. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if he's claiming that "he's nearly as pissed as me", he is well mistaken; judging by his ~~pottery~~ poetry, he's way ahead. Skype me sometime. Rodhull andemu 23:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catch you later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something crashed my 'puter. Good to talk to you, and I'll get back to you. Rodhull andemu 01:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza

Hi, I wonder if you would take a look at The Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza. I'm stuck. Newbie editor is removing sourced content and adding OR. Won't communicate. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left a final warning. Rodhull andemu 19:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That did the trick. Editor is now conversing on the talk page. Since the joint has been going almost 120 years I am finding an absolute shitload of references. It should turn out to be a interesting read when it's all put together. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Bands and the Beatles

Ref your revert comment - were not the Bay City Rollers a boy band; manufactured image, songs chosen for them, indifference to musical ability? I mean, even the Monkees fit the criteria as regards their origins and early fame. I happen to agree that the Beatles weren't, since they were performing their own material a bit better than competently and sold their records on that basis before it was realised that they photo'ed well - but even then their image was carefully managed to maximise their appeal to the widest audience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (and thanks for the help on my talkpage - I wonder why they don't do it at the time I am active; it would at least cause me some interruption, whereas you and a couple of vandal fighters get it sorted...)[reply]

I suppose the criteria might fit, but as I remember it, the term "boy band" wasn't in use until the 90s, when Take That came along, so I don't really think it's an appropriate term. If some reliable source has described them as such, however, ugh!. Rodhull andemu 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC) no problem, I've had to block his range for 12 hours, and it seems to have stopped him[reply]

How the hell do you do that??

Every single time I go to my watchlist, there you are removing the same old unsourced BLP crap from umpteen million articles! Anyway, your efforts haven't gone unnoticed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your constant and thankless (until now!) efforts in keeping crap out of BLPs! HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, it's appreciated! Rodhull andemu 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Keep up the good work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PL290 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

is changing spellings at Beatles articles again, against WP:RETAIN and WP:TIES. MPFC 1969 16:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

News and notes: Usability rollout, downtime, admin phishing, Wikimania scholarships and more

In the news: Overdue correction, Critical Point of View conference, brief headlines

Sister projects: A handful of happenings

WikiProject report: The WikiProject Bulletin: news roundup and WikiProject Chicago feature

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Democrat = Sinbad Baron

Neutral Democrat (talk · contribs) is a sock. If you need evidence, i will send you. But i know for sure. If you need something regarded, i am here. All best --Tadija^taking 13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he'd been here before, but wasn't aware of Sinbad Baron; I'll know from now on, and thanks for the heads-up. Rodhull andemu 14:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary on vandalism is not true

This [5] is absolutely not vandalism by the IP. Was that a mistake on your part? Caden ^cool 21:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the IP's talk page, since you posted there first. Rodhull andemu 21:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

How has April Fools day finished ages ago? It's still April 1.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's default time is UTC. April Fool's traditionally finishes at noon, otherwise the fooler becomes the fool. It's now 21:33 UTC, and the nomination should have been a {{tfd}} on the DYK template rather than an {{mfd}} on its talk page to have had any procedural validity. Accordingly, the nomination was not only late, but also malformed. Sorry, but try again next year. Rodhull andemu 21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fine. I was'nt useing twinkle anyway. Sorry about that. I was the fool this time.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is a cultural thing. the noon switch-over isn't common in the States. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. But an {{xfd}} still needs to follow the correct protocols. There's always WP:DRV, I suppose, but I would anticipate a lukewarm response. Rodhull andemu

Oh well. I did my part this year, nominateing a major component of the main page for deletion.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you ever become an admin, you'll be able to delete it yourself. It would probably be the last thing you did as an admin, however. Rodhull andemu 21:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can't, since the page has more than 5000 revisions. Ucucha 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Was this edit intentional? Ucucha 00:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

er, no. Problem is that I am faster than my computer and sometimes I push buttons before my watchlist has settled down on a refresh. Call it commitment to quality, if you like, but feel free to revert me. Rodhull andemu 00:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ucucha 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of all of my edits - Why?

You gave no explanation in the edit summary - perhaps you did not look at my edits. Before I made any changes to the article there was no consistent style of citation.

I put all the cites into template form, checking each one, adding dates and titles where needed. [6] [7], Rechecked for any small errors [8] [9] Removed duplicate external links that were already cited in the body of the article [10] Removed extra lines for a better appearance [11], references to display in columns [12], expanded info box to make it more informative at a glance and corrected some minor grammatical errors and added wikilinks [13] 209.44.123.1 (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no idea how that happened; I've reverted my edits. Rodhull andemu 13:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! — 209.44.123.1 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant sock

~~Dmerkurev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~
~~Dmerkurev444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~
~~Dmerkurev666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~

seriously disrupting at George Harrison. MPFC 1969 03:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~...another one:~~
~~Uclad1611 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~
MPFC 1969 03:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~...if the cap fits:~~
~~Ucla16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~
MPFC 1969 03:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin semi-protected the article and blocked the socks. MPFC 1969 04:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire

Could you have a look at British Empire please. If I act again it will only be reverted but this user. This is a pointless edit war, and they are going against the consensus. See the Talk Page. Happy Easter! ;) --BSTemple (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've left him a 3RR warning and will keep an eye on the article. Rodhull andemu 20:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Do you want me to undo his edit that undid mine etc? --BSTemple (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it already. It seems he's not the only IP address, so the article may need protection until he provides a source. Rodhull andemu 20:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just saw you had! Sorry about that, you were obviously doing it as I posted. Another Editor told him to provide a reference, but he never has, and one from Wikipedia does not count. Thank you again for a speedy response.--BSTemple (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]