User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/24

Fancy notching up your admin orientated edit count?

If this goes ahead quite a few pages will need deleting, would you be able to help with that? I'm guessing it will be about 50 pages including such things as categories. — R ² 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh! I just spent last weekend adding about 500 extra edits by rationalising Category:Black British people, but, yes, I'll take it on for you. Let me know when it's ready- and a list of changes would also be helpful. Cheers! Rodhull andemu 20:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will take a few weeks yet, I don't want to start deleting WP:MJJ and WP:JANET until the new project is up, ready and stable. I'll try setting up a list of what exactly needs deleting to make it easier for you. — R ² 20:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block request

Hello, I see you're active, so since you're familiar, I'll bug you instead of rehashing everything on ANI. User:The One & Only Fools and Horses is at it again: [1] (replacing correct flag with one he created himself, and which is off by 90 degrees). IMHO, this is intentional screwing around; may I suggest we've put up with this enough, and an indef block is probably appropriate? Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, reasons left on his Talk page. AGF can last only so long. Rodhull andemu 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast; from my mouth direct to God's ear, I guess. Thank you. Agreed, he used up his allotment of good faith a while ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who at FAR

I have nominated Doctor Who for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sugar

Alan Sugar will not become a life baronet: there is no such thing as a life baronetcy. He will become a life baron.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever; either way, it has not been gazetted yet and should not result in a change of title for his article until it is. Rodhull andemu 23:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headache!

I need help with a disruptive, irrational editor. Please read the exchanges on my Talk page and his as well, and if you'd like, go to the Hollie Steel article and see if you think anything should be reverted. Radiopathy •talk• 03:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess! However, you seem to have fixed it for now. I will watchlist the article. Rodhull andemu 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mjlouisdbz14

My patience with this editor is wearing thin, he is trolling on my talk page for one thing and he is a persistently uncivil, aggressive, genre troll too. I'm not sure if it's his age, I guess he's only 14. — R ² 10:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 48 hours for incivility and disruptive editing. Let's see if that focusses the mind. Rodhull andemu 13:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With any luck, he could end up a benefit to Jackson related articles, if he turns it down a few notches and learns policy... — R ² 15:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol im chnging the genres cos there true :) --Mjlouisdbz14 (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that; whereas the truth may be obvious to you, what matters here is verifiability using reliable sources, and I advise you to follow those guidelines or be blocked until you make it clear that you understand them. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 22:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok you dont need to be so harsh geez --Mjlouisdbz14 (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paperxcrip

Hello again. Because it is obvious based on the entries in User talk:Paperxcrip that this editor has no interest in making any positive contributions to Wikipedia articles that she should be blocked. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some useful contributions in the recent past, so she is of some use here, and that might just be a glitch. However, I can't block since I've been involved in a content dispute with her. I suggest if this behaviour continues a report to WP:AN or if it's that bad, WP:AIV, might be the way to go. I am keeping an eye on her, however. Rodhull andemu 14:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sasasa1234567

This guy has been playing about all day and isn't listening to the warnings. His contributions speak for themselves, addition of unsourced info, deliberate factual inaccuracies and poorly sourced info. What you think? — R ² 20:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Rod. — R ² 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna archive

Do you have any idea why this is happening. The bot has been sending stale threads to an old archive instead of starting a new archive. Should we stop it and start archiving manually instead? — R ² 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "counter" field in the archive parameters isn't being updated, or someone has changed it. It should be 7, I think, and I've reset it to that. If that doesn't work, it's little hassle to archive manually. Rodhull andemu 13:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ill move those threads that were sent to #2 over to #7, then see what the bot does in a few weeks. Cheers. — R ² 13:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apply for rollback

Hello Rodhullandemu, I would like to apply for rollback on Wikipedia. I hope this is the right way to do it. It would be nice to have rollback as a permission so I can more easily revert bad edits, which I see quite often. Griffinofwales recommended that I ask you, and I hope that you will consider it. Thanks. Sincerely, Airplaneman (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I see no problems with your edits so far, but please bear in mind Rollback is only for obvious vandalism, and if in doubt, please don't use it. Rodhull andemu 16:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will keep your words in mind. --Airplaneman (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

Just a heads-up... your revert here is wrong. The lead section is not for unique information. If anything, content should be trimmed from the lead to create a better summary style. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong? I think you contradict yourself. WP:LEAD sets out what should be in there. The BNP were notable long before winning their first Euro seat, so per that guideline, their first Euro election win doesn't contribute to that, although as part of the overall summary it's perhaps worth mentioning; but that would contradict your last sentence, wouldn't it? Rodhull andemu 00:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reply. Your edit deleted content from the main part of the article and left it in the lead section. Your edit summary seems to suggest this is what you were intending to do. WP:LEAD very clearly explains that the Lead is a summary collections of the most important points in the rest of the article. Why, then, would you delete the main location of the information? Bigbluefish (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought I was doing the opposite- my mistake, and apologies. It must have been very late. Rodhull andemu 20:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for requesting AWB

You are very right. My edits are surely quite small in number in comparison to people who've been here since ages. But actually i've been spending my free time correcting spellings. So this is why I requested the use of AWB. It'll be convenient for me to correct using AWB. Chao ! Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 13:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankus Maximus ! Hamza ^{[ talk ]} 15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rodhull andemu 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi, you have granted permission for me to use the AutoWikiBrowser, but when I click 'Start', it says "Mr pand is not enabled to use this". Why is this? Do you think it is because of the underscore in my username? Any help would be appreciated. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried logging out and back in? That normally fixes this problem. I don't think the name should be an issue. Rodhull andemu 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried that several times, but it still comes up with the same error message. Any other ideas? Thanks for your help Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try fixing your name on the approved list- it may be the AWB software ignores underscores. Give it five minutes and try again please. Rodhull andemu 14:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Thanks for your help! Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Ramsay Personal life revert

The original edit is supported by cited source. If you watched the video, Tracy calls Ramsay a bully, arrogant and mistreating his wife. Does it have to in text only. You can't use video sources? Jammyfox (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The video isn't linked so the edit fails WP:V; I doubt we could link to it, because we do not link to copyright violations. However, {{cite episode}} is a way of citing broadcasts. Meanwhile, per WP:BLP, we can only use words that are supported by cited sources. Hope that helps. Rodhull andemu 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how about this source: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25604587-10229,00.html? Jammyfox (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

status quo

Rod Hull and Wee Mu. Can you please explain why you think you own the Status Quo page. From looking at the history it seems that anyone who creates an edit that does not agree with you, whether it is sourced or not, has absoloutely no chance of their edit staying on the page.

I think you need to remember that no-one owns the page - if comment is sourced and is factual what right do you have to remove it? 86.0.25.94 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links of where you think I've done this, apart from reverting vandalism? Thanks. Rodhull andemu 21:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now just shut up and listen instead of vandalising this page. As far as I'm concerned, "heads down, no nonsense mindless boogie" is only one valid description of Quo's music, but if you examine the history carefully, you'll see I didn't remove that description myself (as far as I remember)- other editors objected to it. Please take it up with them. Rodhull andemu 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kite Response

It's in the article of Mr. Kite! that says that it was banned because of that reason. See Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite article, and there's where you can find the banning.

--TheOneBeatle (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use ourselves as a source and without seeing the cited book, I have no way of checking that it was banned. It may well only be authority that Lennon denied a heroin connection in the song. I will try to find a copy. Rodhull andemu 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brons

A while back you were good enough to intervene on the Andrew Brons page when an editor continually removed categories that were accurate and relevant. The same is happening again - Sumbuddi has removed the category British neo-Nazis on the grounds that Brons is not a neo-Nazi now. I have replaced it on the quite correct grounds that categories are not a description of the here and now but reflect present and past. This is likely to develop into an edit war. Emeraude (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you...

please block the facism guy? He's ignoring my warnings, and keeps undoing edits. See his talkpage. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31 hours for edit-warring. Rodhull andemu 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing statements

Hey there. I had a quick question about something on your user page.

Let's say I come across a statement like this: "The Marker" has estimated that his family's holdings are worth between 200-250 million dollars.[citation needed] (from Yaakov Aryeh Alter). It's unsourced and it's in a biography of a living person. Should statements like this be moved to the talk page? Should they simply be removed? Should they remain in the article indefinitely? And if the answer is yes to any of these questions, under what circumstances? Would a quick Google search that doesn't reveal anything be sufficient to remove the text? If it's not evidently negative, does that mean we should default to keeping it in the article indefinitely?

I'm not trying to be bothersome, but I am genuinely curious how editors view this particular topic. And you added the emphasis on your user page, so I assume you have some views on the matter. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this would be negative or controversial, but it's obviously better if sourced, for verification. Whether to remove it? Arguably, since it's an unsourced assertion, but I wouldn't edit-war over it. Moving to the Talk page might be a compromise, but my feeling is that it would just languish there forever. Rodhull andemu 14:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass spelling alterations

Can you cast your eyes over this guy's one-man-crusade to alter spellings in European and British war-related articles to US English http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Semper-Fi_2006. There have been dozens of such edits in recent days, most still unreverted. Some of his changes are however useful corrections of genuine typos. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure this is the same individual as the style and interest areas are identical http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.166.154.108 and he has an "interesting" attitude to British spelling. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 14:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to tell, the IP leaves tendentious edit summaries, and User:Semper-Fi 2006 doesn't leave any summaries at all. I have left a reminder on the User's Talk page and will keep an eye on him. Rodhull andemu 14:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Spector

It is also incumbent on YOU to think about what you are reverting and doing even a cursory research on your revert. Based on the way YOU operate, we should delete Spector's middle name at the top of the page - why? - it's not sourced (the link to the police department that booked him does not list his middle name - thus it is unsourced). My guess is that you are a teenager - that's based on the sheer number of edits that you are doing - you can't be married. You are one of these busybodies that "dumb down" Wikipedia by making reverts on things that you know nothing about. I happen to know the law and Spector's case quite well. In any event, I won't be making any more edits - why should I try to help other people if busybodies like you are buzzing around, spending your entire day reverting edits by people - I don't have problem with you making edits of obvious vandalism, but what was originally posted on Spector's page was fully truthful and not vandalism. That guy, Realist2, if you go to his page, you will find that he is heavily into music - that is most likely his motivation for reversing the original edit about the parole age and likely life sentence - because he likes Spector's contribution to music and dislikes negative edits to Spector's entry. Again, my suggestion to you is get a life. Oh, and stop bothering people with your useless edits - again, I don't have a problem with you making reverts of obvious vandalism, but none of that entry was vandalism. If you don't like "unsourced" information, then go down the entire Spector entry and eliminate everything without a source (start with his middle name at the top) - otherwise, butt out.

I haven't been a teenager for nearly 40 years. Get your facts straight. And as an administrator here, it is part of my job to ensure that edits remain within policy- and that includes, if necessary, blocking editors who will not follow them. Get the picture? Rodhull andemu 16:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ip is getting rather annoying now and seems to be editing disruptively to make a point. — R ² 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I noticed. If only he had stuck to his assertion that he would be making no more edits, but I think I'm too involved to block unless he goes over WP:3RR. I am watching the situation, however. Rodhull andemu 20:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God, today has been a totally draining day at Wikipedia. — R ² 00:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Pretty much normal for me, but at least we have policy and precedent on our side. Too many dickheads. Rodhull andemu 00:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. I rarely seem to have time to write any articles these days. At some point I have to stop watchlisting articles lol. — R ² 00:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of being able to write articles again; however, on Friday, I did have my library delivered to me out of storage, which means I now have a valuable resource at my disposal, once I manage to organise it. About a week, I think. Rodhull andemu 00:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, that's good. Well happy editing then, hopefully. I really should use my Uni library more, I just don't like writing about Law. Studying it is annoying enough. — R ² 00:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a collection of law books, there's a lot of other stuff in there, including a lot of pop history and other stuff. I must confess I only used Cardiff University library once, and that was over 20 years ago while I was doing research there; but the staff there were helpful enough. Unfortunately, Bailii omits many important cases, so you have to go to the original law reports; that, actually, is useful for the reasoning in the case, but doesn't tell you about overrulings or distinctions. Halsbury' Laws used to be the source for that, but I suspect it's more online these days. Rodhull andemu 00:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if your still watching the Spector article but you should see this. — R ² 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fully-protected for three days to enable consensus to be negotiated on Talk; I have set out quite clearly the issues to be addressed. Sorry if it's the wrong version, but that wasn't my choice; some people seem to have limited vision, but it now means I can't yet do the work I was intending to on that article. Not constructive. Rodhull andemu 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly it's the wrong version, but you have an obligation to not pick sides. But seriously, his demands are ridiculous, if he won't accept MoS then he should simply leave. — R ² 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I would like you to put me right on something, and no need to sugar-coat it either. You may remember that a few months ago I asked you about adminship, and whether I should apply for it. Seeing as though I'm now going to have more time on my hands, I am once again considering - this time seriously - putting together an RfA. Now, I have it my head that you offered to nominate me in some capacity, but obviously I could have got completely the wrong end of the stick. Am I deluding myself? If not, I would like to file in the next few days. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with nominating you, I've seen the good work you've been doing around and on WP:BAG. If you want to put the RfA page together, I'll add a nomination and then it can go live when you're ready. Rodhull andemu 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jarry1250. Many thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've transcluded the nomination. Have a nice day! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I've now added a !vote. I doubt you'll have any problems, but good luck! Rodhull andemu 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report

24.15.125.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hello. Since I'm a fairly new editor, I'm not sure how to report edit warring. IP 24.15.125.234 has been quite obnoxious in his editing of multiregional hypothesis. He/she recently violated the 3RR. I'm not sure if this is the right place to go (I can't seem to find where) so I'm just going to tell an administrator this way. Please keep an eye on him/her. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for three days for this to be resolved on the Talk page; my reasons are there. If the IP doesn't want to argue his case, then he doesn't deserve to have it considered. I'll keep an eye on it. Rodhull andemu 23:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. I dislike edit wars...--Airplaneman (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

76.16.176.166

It is very likely that 76.16.176.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same as User talk:24.15.125.234. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I see politically dissimilar edit summary styles, albeit both with somewhat unusual mis-spellings, but nothing that necessarily needs any action right now. Of course, that might change. Rodhull andemu 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ilamb94's Autowiki Browser Rights

Hello sir, I am trust with other tools such as rollback rights and new page watcher tool. I also think I would make great use of this tool. Thank you! --ilamb94 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'When Janet Met Jonny' dispute

Okay, so it seems like every time I edit something on the Two Pints article then you always change it back. Now I know now that I have edited articles incorrectly in the past but do you really need to threaten to block me from editing. Listen I am 14 okay! give me a break. oh and by the way. Two Pints 'When Janet Met Jonny' is a special. In the Two Pints outtakes which features interviews with the cast and Susan Nickson she talked about the specials. She said and I quote 'they are currently 4 specials. A Musical, a horror, a live episode and a comic relief special'

62.254.14.176 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because your edits are sometimes unhelpful; we have ways of writing about fictional works which you should take a look at. As I pointed out, we have already discussed "When Janet Killed Jonny" and whatever Nickson says, that is not necessarily the test we use here. It was shown as the last episode in a series and the narrative at least began in the fictional world set up by that series. For formatting purposes, we thus wouldn't separate it from its parent series. If you're going to make such major changes, you should at least propose them on Talk pages so that other editors have a chance to comment, since that's the way we work here. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 20:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

federico macheda

was on twitter and someone posted a link saying check this out and it was the dating thing and i seen it has been removed and i am wondering why because i am pretty sure on his facebook it says something about him dating mel or something just thought i would let you know incase u wanna have a lil look dont know if its real or not mind you but thought u would wanna know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viva la beth (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not regard things said on Twitter as reliably sourced, and it's much the same as a blog. If you have such a source, and I invite you to examine what we would consider to be reliable, please cite it. Meanwhile, per our policy on biographies, if it's not reliably sourced, it must stay out. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cool i am new 2 this so anytime i wanna edit a page do i nd 2 post proof 2 u or is it automatically done?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viva la beth (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not to me. You need to add your information then add a citation for it. It's a good idea to look at how articles already do this, but full instructions are here; you also need to understand what sources are reliable, because someone will revert your edits if you don't use them. And in future, please sign your posts with ~~~~ otherwise a bot does it and messes up editing this page. Rodhull andemu 21:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay cool thanks i will have a lil look over and try and get used to this oh sorry as i said new to this saying that i seen it and was like should i put it but hopefully this works Viva la beth (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C Clarke

I saw you had reverted one of my edits on his mainspace page about email, and I had just gotten off the 2010_(film) page which implied the correspondence was through snail mail. Guess that will teach me for not reading sources. I've changed it on 2010 and added the reference so they should match. Email in 1984? I learn something new every day. Thanks! Livewireo (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

email's been around since the early 1970s, and in its present universal form since 1977. [2]. I wasn't surprised to find Clarke was an early adopter. Rodhull andemu 21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change/Editing

why do you keep editing my quote. What I have written is true and I am a personal friend of James and he has asked me to update the site. He now resides here for the summer months and returns in August to the mainland I shall edit the page again and then change it back when he returns in August to the mainland.

Cheers NS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuntonsteadings (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a reliable source for this, and your own knowledge is insufficient. However, I am aware where Jimmy spends his summer months as I've known him since 1964, and unless he's changed his plans this year, I don't believe you, sorry. As I say, please provide a reliable source, otherwise policy dictates that this should be deleted. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of a source

An editor just added this to the Jackson article, for the claim that he is "the biggest-selling artist of all time". While the source passes the requirements of WP:RS, the fact that they say "he has been proclaimed the biggest-selling artist of all time", indicates that the source is not actually committing itself to the assertion. Am I right in that view? — Please comment R ² 14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would want to know whom they are citing as having issued the "proclamation", and use that as the actual source, otherwise it fails WP:V in my view. Hearsay is not usually reliable, as you know. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 14:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately they don't say. I very much doubt such things are possible to prove anyway, since Jackson's sales rely heavily on areas of the world that don't track their sales very well, such as South America and Japan. — Please comment R ² 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I was told to frequent ANI a little less often. I didn't think a couple of edits from a new account would be a problem, but your comment is noted. Sum ding wong (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are- yet; but I could find out. But having a go at a good-faith editor isn't going to be appreciated, particularly when you are not the first to do so. My advice is to tread carefully, lest you be misunderstood. Rodhull andemu 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He gawn. Maybe he missed the friendly reminder on my talk page that all the harassment positions were filled weeks ago. And I hasten to add that even on my worst punning day I wouldn't stoop so low as that joke user's name. Could hurt my back. Although that reminds me... Q: Why was the Chinese man angry when his wife bore him a light-skinned, round-eyed child? A: Because two Wongs don't make a white. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, and have just seen what happened to Sum ding wong. However, some people think this is a serious encyclopedia, for some reason, but confusing the issue is too much for me. I'm too old and tired to be able to deal with subtleties now. Perhaps in my next life... Rodhull andemu 00:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of impostor accounts turning up ever since the User:Axmann8 brouhaha in March. They come, they see, they get conked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Meryl Streep

How is removing a template regarded as vandalism when I made the edit in good faith and another user did the same exact thing and probably wasn't warned about it. That's completely unfair imo. 01:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engelbert

His father was probably British, as he was in the British military, but I don't know about his mother. She may have been German or Indian. As for the American part though, do we really need documented proof of American citizenship to call him American? Marcus2 (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. Per this policy. Rodhull andemu 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NI flag

It is not single minded disrupiton, I have been a willing and civil contributor on Wikipedia for a year now and I was using the Wikipedia policy on NI flags to determine that NI use the Ulster banner in Football and so I was placing the UB next to NI football related articles. The C of E The C of E (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then if policy is on your side, please argue it with your fellow-editors rather than edit-warring. If necessary, pursue some sort of dispute resolution. Your block record should be telling you that your way isn't working. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 15:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

||the way I genrally discuss things is by leaving my reasons in the edit description box which is often ignored so thats why I continued the way I have.

I'd like to know (just asking) do blocks affect my chances of becoming an Admin? The C of E (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to individual voters in an RfA, but in general a lengthy block log is frowned upon, since it shows either a lack of knowledge of policy or an unwillingness to work constructively with other editors, or both. I would look at number of blocks, lengths and reasons, but more importantly how recent the blocks are, since everybody makes mistakes when they start editing. I'd expect at least six months of constructive editing to follow a last block before considering supporting a candidate. It's a trustworthiness issue. Rodhull andemu 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

For the spelling catch on De Iniusta Vexacione Willelmi Episcopi Primi. For some reason, I kept typing "trail" for "trial" throughout and thought I'd caught them all, guess I didn't! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. It's an interesting article. Rodhull andemu 15:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Admins

Hi Rod,

So do you literally spend all day looking for people like me and catching them out? Do you get paid for it? Sorry I just find it very interesting.

S

No, and no. Thanks for your interest. Rodhull andemu 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess you must have a fascination for Engelbert Humperdinck then. My interest needs no gratitude, you do a fantastic job and the fact that you spend a great deal of your life contributing to something that will never reward you in any way whatsoever amazes me. I guess I must be self-obsessed.

No, not really, his article is just one of the 1000+ I watch for vandalism. It keeps me reasonably busy. Rodhull andemu 15:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wogan

I apologise for my edits to Terry Wogan. I just think with a bit of editing he's pretty funny. Imagine Wogan, Uncle Terry, with no pyjama bottoms on. All lovely and that. Stare into his lovely brown eyes, bulging with experience and charisma, into each greying hair that tells a story of 'nil points', and tell me my edits were invalid. Why did you delete my posts!! 92.30.20.230 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, pure and, er, simple. Rodhull andemu 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wogan's not simple! He's a complex and often cruel and malevolent creature. Ah well. Thanks anyway, kept me amused for 5 minutes. I'm off to vandalise Rolf Harris. I'm joking, of course. Or am I? No. I am. 92.30.20.230 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I watchlist his article too. You might get one in before being blocked. Rodhull andemu 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that coincidence? Or were you given all the 'past-it' presenters to keep an eye on? In that case, I may try Paul Daniels. Or Dale Winton.

Honestly, I am sorry for all this. I only finished my A Levels a week ago- starting to remember what free time is like... 92.30.20.230 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury. Get outside and enjoy the sunshine. Rodhull andemu 15:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emminently deletable thankspam

Thanks for co-nominating my RFA, which I'm sure you will be glad to know passed today at 77/2/1. I shan't go on, but needless to say that your faith is greatly appreciated. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c, rfa)} 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I have every confidence in you and was pleased to see the level of support you have. Now, of course, your initiation ceremony involves blocking Jimbo and deleting the Main Page. Rodhull andemu 16:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - June 2009 Issue

Summary: This month, we have details on our response to HMRC, updates on our Initiatives and Membership drives, as well as our regular sections on Press Coverage, Upcoming Meetups, and activities from the other WMF Chapters around the globe. We're also pleased to announce that we now have a Paypal account! We also want your input on the future of this newsletter - get involved! We are hoping to get the July issue out very early in July in order to fit with our new distribution schedule, so don't be surprised to see two newsletters in quick succession.

In this month's newsletter:

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

The Jackson 5 page that u locked

There were 3 edits to The Jackson 5 & only 1 was a vandalism edit. But I do get what you're tryna do. 70.108.49.84 (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin....

....as you can probably imagine, I won't be editing Wikipedia for several days, I'll clean up the mess that is his main biography in a week or so, when everything has died down, and we can actually seek consensus on issues. Currently I can't edit without getting into a edit conflict anyway. Every Jackson related article has gone into overdrive, I have a big mess to come back to. I did not get to sleep until 9am, I was glued to the TV, so I've only slept a few hours. I cannot believe this has happened, Michael Jackson is dead. — Please comment R ² 12:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

How do I contact the Beatles Wikipedia? I definitely think ALL Beatle albums should be listed. To do otherwise is to promote inaccuracies. I tried ADDING an American chronological order of albums. Why can this not be done?....Have both a UK listing and an American/Canadian listing. Once again, NOT recognizing albums is purposely promoting inaccuracies. Me Troglodyte (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Project is here. You may wish to join and read previous discussions. I think the difficulty is that this is the English language Wikipedia, and although an American chronology of releases might be arguable, it follows that Canadian, Australian, South African, etc. chronologies would also be arguable. Personally, since the albums were largely released in the UK first, and they were a British band, I would think it logical to follow the UK chronology; others are still viewable at The Beatles discography. Rodhull andemu 22:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V, Fancruft, Satire, et al.

Hi. You and I had a discussion here about interpreting satire, and now it seems that I may have scared off an editor who insisted on adding this material to the Towelie article. I tried to explain to him all the policies that prohibited this, including WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:Fancruft, WP:Trivia, WP:Crystal, etc., but he insists that I have "misinterpreted" Wikipedia policy to suit my own viewpoint. His counterarguments include pointing out that WP:Crystal forbids speculation about future events, and not past TV episodes. I tried to point out the spirit of WP:V and its related policies forbids speculation of any kind, as well as facts whose relevance to the article cannot be established by sources, but he would not budge, and after I warned him not to revert the article further, he felt that I had used my power as an admin to force my interpretation of policy. I told him that that's not how it works, and that if he wanted, I could start a consensus discussion on this so that he could see this (I honestly didn't think initially that such a discussion on a point where policy is so clear was necessary), but he did not respond. I've made my offer to him again just now, and pending his response, I was wondering if you could look over the discussion and chime in on his Talk Page with your thoughts. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and he's right, and I want to show him that WP works by consensus and transparency, and not unilateral activity by one editor or admin. Can you? The prior discussion on his Talk Page and mine is here and here. The relevant portion of the article's History is from 18:41, 28 June 2009 to 18:51, 29 June 2009. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grief! That was a long time ago, but I haven't changed my position. With regard to the particular edits, as far as I can see, two sources are being used to suggest that Trey Parker "must" have used the word okama as he did in South Park knowingly because of the time he spent in Japan. That, on the face of it, is an attractive argument because it is intuitively "obvious"; on the other hand, it fails verifiability because it is a synthesis of those sources. To a relative newcomer, that's a subtle distinction, but I see you have tried to explain it to the editor. If he hasn't been driven away (and I don't blame you for his leaving), I would suggest you follow some form of dispute resolution or ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for opinions. Hope that helps. Rodhull andemu 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SSholden

This may warrant a block. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jeremy brett

sorry, i'm new at this. i didn't think of looking at the history before i applied an edit. i see there is a running debate about brett's date of birth. so, maybe my edit is wrong. in any event, i think some kind of consensus should be reached. the page, before i edited it, stated 1933 in the body of the story, but 1935 in the infobox. additionally, the infobox stated an age at death of 61, which could only be accurate if the birth date was indeed 1933. either that, or the age at death should be changed to 59. one way or another, all this data should agree with itself. it looks pretty silly otherwise. jmo. 4.154.129.117 (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]