User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/03

Johnny Vegas

Hi there -- thanks for dealing with the vandal at Johnny Vegas. I saw it in recent changes, and before I was able to do it, you had already reverted it. Just a friendly reminder, though, that your edit summary calling him/her a "childish idiot" (even though it was a vandal) can be considered uncivil, and you might want to refrain from that kind of characterization in the future. Dylan 22:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know what you mean (what he's doing clearly is childish, I'm not arguing that), I'm just saying that characterizing as such (even if accurately) is often considered uncivil or a personal attack. The best thing to do in that situation is not to stoop to his/her level: just revert it with a "rvv," and report him/her for blocking if it continues. Dylan 22:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also -- (I didn't realize s/he was changing IPs) -- might want to list Johnny Vegas at Requests for page protection so that switching IPs won't help. Dylan 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Never mind, it's just been done! Dylan 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was working in 3-4 tabs and I must have clicked your Archive, gone off to do something else, and rediscovered it. Seeing the recent timestamp, I replied to Umma (who I guess had already made that mistake), thinking I was at Talk:Johnny Vegas. Sorry 'bout that! Dylan 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My username

Thank you for expressing your concern over my chosen username, but I believe it will be useful in aiding other users to identify me and the jobs I carry out here.

Also, you forgot to substitute the warning template on my talk page, see Wikipedia:Template substitution on why it is important to do this.--Professional Deletionist 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ regarding my username, but that is a matter of opinion.

I try to make sure all my edits here are within wikipedia policy and guidelines, whether it be deleting something or creating it. I removed the category from your userpage as it seemed odd that all the pages in Category:Notable Wikipedians were actual articles and there was only one pointing a wikipedians userpage, so I took the decision to remove it. I can't see how it has degraded the quality of your userpage in anyway, I like your userpage especially the part which says:

"Don't forget to substitute these templates (more information)" :-)

Yes, some userpages I come across are very unhelpful whether they be flooded with userboxes and other unhelpful nonsense.

I hope you are in good health again after your trip away.--Professional Deletionist 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you win?--Professional Deletionist 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an admin

This guy User talk:78.146.211.125 just broke the 3RR. King of the North East (T/C) 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin but you are OK to revert him & report to WP:ANI for blocking. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Thanks

No problem, glad to help. Hope you enjoyed your break, i wish i could make myself take a wikibreak ha.--Jac16888 01:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clown

I would suggest that some work be done as far as figuring out what IP range he is from, I'll look at the range shortly. If its the same guy, I'd hate to disable all anon editing because of one dude. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always the same guy, from a floating AOL IP. Very little point banning, he'll just log out & log back in. He's quiet tonight but it's clear from past behaviour that he's determined to test us. Semi-pp would do for now. A week usually quietens him down, since this is the only page he vandalises. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right but there has to be a better way then locking down the article. Perhaps the WP:XFF project? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm beginning to lose patience here. I've just reverted for the second time and left a VW4im on his talk page. He's a recidivist and I'd rather be writing articles then protecting them. Meanwhile, I will look at WP:XFF but it probably won't solve the immediate problem. He's clever enough to wait a while until he thinks no-one's watching before he vandalises, and if the page isn't protected, he'll be back tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes, which means in essence we have to semi-protect the page indefinatly, which is not something I want to do. I'll add this page to the pgkbot on IRC. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not need indefinitely. He won't set up an account. Past pp's have been for a week but it's clear he is fully aware of this since he seems to know exactly when to come back. Perhaps a month & he'll get the message? I don't want to seem rude but I guess you haven't been an admin for long. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only about a year and 3 months or so, in any case, I'm watching the page. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on both my talk page and RFPP, please pick one (I suggest WP:RFPP and stick with it). Thanks. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just William

It was moved from Just William to Just William series, because it regarded the whole series and not the specific book, I'm still editing and working on them. Thanls

Google Question

RodHullandEmu, I'm asking you this because you seem to know everywikithing. Why do all references in Wikipedia connected to -Alex Finlayson- show up in Google, including obscure lists, but not the main entry? It shows up in other search engines. Does Google take longer? Another entry I submitted showed up almost immediately. Just curious. Thanks! Vidamasvida 21:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I FOUND THE ANSWER TO THIS! I woke up this morning and just knew what was wrong. You had inserted a Wiki-Task Graph of some sort for me to check off tasks that needed fixing. So I did that and you PASSED me on all counts. However, that little chart sat there and I didnt' remove it (like hex, crouching there to wave Google away.) So today I removed it, and Alex Finlayson showed up on Google immediately. Coincidence? Those green warning kinds of things may have embedded powers to keep search engines away. Vidamasvida 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copywright question

Forgive me, RodHullandEmu, for using you instead of the Wikinstructions for which I have no patience. How do I qualify the photo I inserted into the entry "Douglas Day?" It is a personal photo given to me by Day. I don't even know where to begin with the copywright instructions. Thanks for tutoring me. Vidamasvida 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find [[Image:Annie2007small.jpg]], your image you suggest I use as model? Yes, I will attribute the photo to Day's wife who took it. I studied the copywright tags, but don't know which one applies to a photo like this. Vidamasvida 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VOILA! I typed in the tag above and there she is. now I think I got it. Vidamasvida 23:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did what you suggested. I copied and pasted your tags. We'll see if it works. Now-- am I corresponding correctly with you by going to your page and entering these words here? Or am I supposed to click "edit" and reply to where you left me the last message? Vidamasvida 23:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Now, final question. How should I have located your Annie photo properly instead of the way I did it? Everything I do here always seems to be trial by error. Vidamasvida 23:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeremy Kyle Show

I currently have this as a GA nominee, but I'd like you to take a look at it if you could, and identify any problems that you notice with the article and leave them on the talk page there. Thanks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have your opinion on the special episodes of the show, have added a new section at the bottom of the article's talk page, but haven't added anything about them yet to the article itself. Thanks.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:LallaWardVC.jpg

RFU added. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 01:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors

I was trying to fix it so that comments could be added, and I've made things worse. You might want to renominate this one for November 2 (which is now posting); I'm in agreement with you on deletion, since there's nothing on this list to show any contribution made by any of the named persons to foreign relations between Germany and Japan. Even the aricle Ambassadors from the United States lists current ambassadors, and "selected" former ambassadors, i.e., those persons who were noteworthy. I can't figure out what went wrong with the way you posted... I'm going to try to revert the original version that you had. Sorry to make things worse Mandsford 02:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes not happy at all with his decision and reply.

So I'm all for getting it reviewed and even getting that user's "powers" reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7aresslubnan (talk • contribs) 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks!
Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

Spelling

This makes me curious:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Annie_in_Wonderland&diff=169233658&oldid=169184480

Why not remove the explanatory note and simply use correct spelling? Keeping the bad spelling only makes them look bad. Is that the intention? By using correct spelling we could then use wikilinks. -- Fyslee / talk 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HitsOnOpera.jpg

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Island ElPea.jpg

Fixed. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format of AfD discussions

Hello. Please note that there is a specific format and template (AfD 2) for deletion discussions. It will create a header and the like without which the discussion is hardy visible in the log. The easies way to do so is to first apply the AfD tag and the click on the link for "preloaded debate". Thanks. --Tikiwont 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NiceFiveBridges.jpg

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NiceNice.jpg

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Niceelegy.jpg

Fixed. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry George

As far as I am aware motive is only relevant at the sentencing stage. At no point prior to this can motive be used to consider guilt. Of course, it can be used by the prosecution for a more compelling case, but this is merely superficial, as the judge will be prohibited from directing the jury to consider the defendant's motive. The judge can, however, consider motive at the sentencing stage. This is an extremely settled area of law, put simply, if the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the appropriate actus reus and mens rea of the offence and subsequently has no defence, he will be found guilty of murder. I understand your point about motive, but it would in my opinion lead to great uncertainty within the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben stephenson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trowbridge

Spot on! My leaving date has been confirmed as January 4 2008, others will be departing over time in a phased move of business volume from Trowbridge to Nottingham, the deadline for which is March 31 2008. However, nothing goes to plan (esp. at Bowyers), so it could be sometime April.

If you mean get-togethers of Bowyers staff, nothing happens like that since the demise of the Social Club (Town Bridge → Bradley Road → nowhere).

I probably sound like an "old hand", however (in this incarnation) I have only been there 4½ years. I spent nine months in the 'old' dough room upstairs in 1980, but left due to (first) marital disharmony. Just think, if I had stayed, I would have collected my watch already, plus would be banking circa £26,000 due to the most generous terms of redundancy. Oh well...

There is a Closing Down Party being held on January 15 2008 (can you believe it? Pay £3 for the privilege of celebrating the loss of your job, held when you've already left!), but that's likely to be present staff only. If you think I can help with any more questions, please email me.

Anyway, thanks for getting in contact, good editing. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Van Eede and Barto Vanliquez

Agreed on BLP and Attack deletions. I have deleted them. I would have deleted the murder stuff from the Van Eede article if anything had been left other than a statement that he was in the band. Good catch. Dsmdgold 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MEM Degree Userbox

Hey, could you change the background color of the info box so the degree name can be seen? It disappears after you click on it. Thanks.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Cover

Hello, I noticed you left a message on my talk page about that cover. I removed the image from my user page, to save myself from getting jumped on by other people because of the fair use thing. On the More Fool Me article linked to from Selling England by the Pound, where I posted the image again, would I have to write another fair use rationale for it? It already has one, so what do I do? Thanks.

Teh_Squonkz 06:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, I went to the More Fool Me article, and when I clicked on "edit this page" after clicking on the image, I re-wrote the entire fair-use rationale. But I made sure it was the same as before. Will that help any?

Teh_Squonkz 21:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Day

I noticed you voted on the List of the Day proposal. A new one has been made and your comments are welcome. The Placebo Effect 02:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ghost Town Parade speedy

I wasn't sure whether or not to put that on speedy; I thought I had [Back]ed out of that page to NP but I guess not. I was thinking it wasn't exactly notable but I put a reason that was incorrect instead of using a {{stub}} and {{expand}} template. I realize now that that was a rather stupid speedy on my part. --tennis man 16:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know most of the criteria pretty well but articles like that one are tough to decide on, I guess the best idea is "If in doubt, don't tag". (I didn't think I'd get a response till later - it's nice having Computer Essentials and having tons of free time every day in class :-)) Cheers! --tennis man 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me wondres what you do that you get that much time to just do this. --tennis man 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sucks for you but it's definitely a good thing for the community. --tennis man 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do any vandal stuff at school is my problem, as we don't have incredible speed, and the computers won't let me open Firefox Portable. So this is when I vote in RfAs and do my WikiGnoming. --tennis man 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

RfA thanks!

Hi Rodhullandemu, thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate your comments on my grasp on policy. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner edits by Moor-Larkin labelled "vandalism"

You reverted some edits in the article The Prisoner by Moor-Larkin, identifying them as vandalism. Just for future reference: I have had some dealings, still going on in fact, with this person on the message boards for this at the Internet Movie Database, specifically the threads, "Prisoner questions" and "What order do the episodes go in?" I assure you that he made those revisions in good faith ("Booby" Kennedy was undoubtedly a typo). I agree with your reverting them, but there is no doubt that he was sincere. He believes what he wants to about this program and doesn't let new-to-him facts get in the way, a most unfortunate attitude. If he should make any future edits here, please keep this in mind, to be fair to him. Ted Watson 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Fajujonu v. Minister for Justice

Hey there Rodhullandemu! You're right, it's probably beter to start out with Lobe as it's the current common law and gave rise to the 27th amendment. I think that Fajujonu has a lot of merit on its own though, because it had been precedent for seventeen years, during which time tens of thousands of immigrants were able to emigrate to Ireland as a result. If you're interested in helping, which would be awesome, you might want to check out this issue of the Law Society Gazette, particularly the cover story on page 20, entitled Guests of the Nation. Thanks a lot for the post, mate and hopefully we can get started soon! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Annie2007small.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Annie2007small.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question: In the above text, "reasonably" is not a technical term from U.S. law, but rather a term used in discussion of Wikipedia's own non-free content restrictions. (Please be aware that those are stricter than the U.S. fair use law, see also [1].) Specifically, it is used in the licensing policy resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation this year:

...may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals

Of course, there will always be cases where the precise interpretation of such a term is subject to debate (as you will certainly be aware from you own experience in practicing UK law), but as the above quote should make clear, a recent portrait of a notable and still active media persona is not one of them. There are many possible sources of free alternatives for such individuals (in the past weeks, I myself have found and uploaded dozens of such photos using this tool).

Perhaps you can get her agent and the photographer to release it under a free license? Did you ask them about this or did you only ask for permission to use "in Wikipedia"?

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you received a response yet regarding the possibility of this image being released under a free license?—Random832 21:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Copyright question

Wikipedia cannot use "by permission" images except where we can use the images as fair use. See WP:NFC. Basically this means we cannot use the maps. You are of course free to draw your own map conveying the same thing. Megapixie (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today (Australian TV program)

Hi, I see you have been editing the article Today. I am unsure whether you are aware that I have placed this up for Peer Review? I would appreciate it, if you would kindly give your own review, suggestions or perhaps opinions on the article's quality and its suitablity as a FA or GA. Please go to the article's discussion page, click on the link to the review page, and leave your thoughts. Thanks --Tjkirk (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Cox

As of November 16th, HIGNFY was not repeated on Friday 16th but was repeated from its original run on Friday 9th Nov' 2007, it was also repeated on Saturday 10th November 2007, but strictly not on 16/11/07.

Unless, the locations and schedules for the broadcasting of HIGNFY are different from me in London?? PoliceChief (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I apologise for any raised tension... it probably is the later scheduling from where I am to where you are in being broadcast PoliceChief (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOTD experiment

Now that my project is fully up and running, I though you might want to consider the four main benefits of my method over the one that you seem to be supporting:

There is a set of orphaned articles for persons who do not have any featured lists of their own or persons that would like to take responsibility for more. Anyone can nominate such orphans. This benefits WP by getting people involved in list articles that might not have active editors to update them or defend them against vandalism. Please consider adopting one of our orphans.
Each list will be encouraged to respond to commentary and feedback during the candidacy period, which will hopefully improve the quality of the articles.
Articles without pictures will be encouraged to find them. E.g., List of Harry Potter films cast members had no image before its nominator added an image for this experiment. This type of thing, of course, improves the project.
Articles are encouraged to add relevant projects to their talk page. This alerts other project to articles that they would likely have an interest in and would be able to either improve or protect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP edit-warring at Rush Limbaugh

Hello, I am the IP who was allegedly engaged in an edit war at Rush Limbaugh. I find the move to protect the page procedurally strange. Since the objective was obviously to prevent me from continuing to edit the page, presumably a request to block should have been issued. However, as there are no good grounds for blocking me, the page was protected instead. I don't appreciate my recent edits as being glibly dismissed as IP edit warring. Perhaps edit-misunderstanding would be nearer the mark. What happened was this: one editor had rolled back the page too far in his or her efforts to fight vandalism. As a result, some vandalism was removed while other vandalism was in fact re-added. No one else seemed to catch this mistake. When I tried to correct it, other editors got the idea that (despite my repeated entreaties on the talk page), I was somehow vandalizing the page. Finally, in order to convince the world at large, I carefully rolled the edits back one at a time, documenting what I was doing on talk and in terms of the edit history of the page, using null edits (for summaries) where appropriate. All in all, I have been quite mistreated by a rather significant number of editors. I don't blame anyone personally: it's just part of the Wikipedia hivemind. And at least one editor has apologized for the oversight. Yet I find that this current administrative action only adds insult to injury. The lesson to learn here is not that IP trying to make changes should be prevented from editing, but rather that they should sometimes be listened to, and indeed can make substantive contributions to a page. If anything, the biggest offenders here are the regular, registered users, not the IPs. Can't you block them from editing instead for once? ;-P 71.182.215.210 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rep

Less concerned with my rep than being someone who stood by and did nothing. Probably it was a meaningless, thoughtless, dumb kid type remark. I've just been trained to exercise due diligence, and could not let it slide. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close the Cuntains

response

sounds great. I'd be more than willing to contribute.--Keerllston 03:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem, will bring it up on the talk page.--Keerllston 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts

Hi Rodhullandemu, random thought based on your comment over on Shalom's RfA, "an (ec) wiped out my reasoned response." Just wanted to make sure you knew that when you get edit conflicted, it doesn't actually get rid of your edit; if your scroll down the page that opens, there's a box under the first one with the page as it would have been with your edits, and even with your edit summary intact. Hope this helps (and it took me a heck of a long time to figure that out lol!) ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Arts & Desert Strike

We should probably take this up on the EA talk page, but Desert Strike does not have it's own entry in the List of EA games. Yes, it is listed there, but all the games by EA are listed, whether great or dreadful. The link you gave me is a section in the article on the Strike series. Again, most games, whether great or bad, have articles. Given the fact that it only has a section of an article about it and not even a whole article, I again assert that Desert Strike is not notable and should be removed from the notable list. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]