Jump to content

User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/26

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

Sam Leeson

[edit]

I've been searching for more info on the story of this little boy, and when I got to the wikipedia page I noticed someone had deleted it. And it pointed me to you, so here am I asking: Why the fuck did you do that ?

I don't know why you felt like doing such a "nice" job on cleaning up wikipedia without even taking a look at what you just deleted.

Everybody needs to know what happened to kid and make parents more aware of what's going on on the internet, and as you should know the wikipedia is one of the main source of information in the web. Deleting the page was a really, really sad move.

And I wonder who the hell give people like you the right to delete pages like that.

To sustain an article here, its subject has to be generally notable. I did read the article before I deleted it, and it is a classic case of notability for one event. Whereas you might be correct in asserting that "Everybody needs to know what happened to kid"; that is not what Wikipedia is intended to be. There are plenty of other websites for that sort of thing. What gave me the right to delete pages, within policy, is the trust of the community. Whilst I personally regret Sam's death, Wikipedia is really not the place to discuss this. If you still disagree, you are free to argue your case here. Thanks. Rodhullandemu

That's why I think you should have done a little bit of research before deleting the page. He isn't known only and exclusively because he died in such tragic circunstances or because he appeared in the news, his death raised awareness about teenage suicide and e-bullying, spanned several hundreds memorials and manifestations of disgust at the situation and the mother of the kid launched a campaign to encourage children to speak about their feelings. And while I agree the wikipedia isn't the place to discuss this matter, I believe it was made to inform, without any sensationalism. I'm sure a lot of people would like to know more about this story, without having to read The Sun or The Daily Mail, which are not the most reliable nor the most indicated source of information.

I NEED HELP

[edit]

i edited the List of best-selling music artists page and i edited a part that mj should be 750 million not 350 million here a source http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml

plze sort it out im still new to this --Mjlouisdbz14 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson redivivi

[edit]

What is to become of this article? After yesterday's shambles, I have already had to deal with this and this today. It is no wonder that Realist2 and Iridescent have cleared off, because the article is becoming a sandbox of ill-thought out edits by people who rarely take no for an answer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it has lost some of its quality because of inexperienced editing; I don't have the time or expertise to sort it out myself, but Realist2 has been around and hopefully he will return soon and get it back to standard. I will still, of course, ensure that policy is applied to the article. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: WheelsonWilly1969

[edit]

Can I ask why you have removed this users question from Rschen's talk page? It seems a valid comment, or am I missing something? Jeni (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call me naive, or call me experienced, but Special:Contributions/WillyonWheels is a multiple-sockpuppeting vandal whose activities go back beyond even the length of time I've been here. Whereas it may be a coincidence that this user is different, I feel it's unlikely, given his edits and those of the previously blocked Special:Contributions/WheelsonWilly69. Even if we are wrong (but I don't think we are), it's always open to this person to start a new account with a new, and less contentious name, and edit constructively, if that's his interest. Meanwhile, nobody, but *nobody* with good intent goes straight to Jimbo's Talk page. Perhaps I've spent too long investigating unusual things IRL to be anything other than cynical, even here, but WP:DUCK, you know. Rodhullandemu 23:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming bad faith or anything, I just spotted the revert, and it appears that someone may have jumped in too soon with this one, it *may* be legitimate. Jeni (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well he still has email enabled, and could email the blocking (or any) admin. But if you spend a lot of time here, you get a gut feeling for these things, and mostly, it's accurate. Rodhullandemu 23:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Maybe I am being naive myself, but I don't think a multiple-sockpuppeting vandal would go for such a similar username if he wanted to get back? I just think it may be sensible to at least let him make a few edits first to see what he is up to. Though to be honest, I'm not *that* fussed either way, I don't know the history, I just spotted this happen and was wondering why! I'll bow to the greater consensus. Jeni (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WoW and Grawp and their like don't want to "come back"; they want to cause what disruption they can before they are blocked and bolster their tiny real-life egos. In this way, they seek kudos either to themselves or their claques. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So much so that the developers have had to intervene: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-14/Page moves --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics latest

[edit]

This WP:CB turned up a few hours back: [1][2].--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful. Amateur mathematicians often come up with this sort of thing, which usually fails rigorous examination. I've left a comment at WT:MATH but if this guy just doesn't get it, I'll take it further. Rodhullandemu 13:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Squaring the circle and proving Riemann in one day is pretty good going. Only on Wikipedia (which he can't even spell correctly...)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Action Needed

[edit]

Could you see for banning 81.152.112.183 for at least a spell as they constantly keep vandalising Barbara Dickson, Frances Barber and Anita Harris. Warnings have been given. I think they are just being mischievous rather than deliberately malicious. Many thanks. --BSTemple (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many final warnings and it's obviously the same editor, so {{anonblock}}'ed for a month. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhullandemu 13:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, thank you for the quick action. --BSTemple (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lester

[edit]

Not sure if you've seen the claims just made by Lester. Regardless, this and this written some time ago is interesting. — Please comment R2 00:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total pile of second-hand tabloid crap, and deleted per WP:BLP. We can live without this shit. Rodhullandemu 00:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but I saw him makes the claims on TV just now, he says he donated sperm to Jackson, even if that's true, it still doesn't mean he is the father. What is interesting is that IP's were adding this to the Mark Lester article just after Jackson died, so someone associated with him has been editing his page. I'm coming back to Wiki on Tuesday. I'll be working on the Michael Jackson article in my sandbox and hope to transfer it over in late September, when things calm down. — Please comment R2 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Donating sperm is one thing, but as you say, it actually being effective is entirely different. Until this is confirmed one way or another, by a DNA test, it should be regarded as puffery. However, I am extremely glad that you're coming back soon- I don't have the expertise or commitment to take on such a major topic right now, and I think your approach is entirely correct. As long as the article retains its featured status, I think you should be happy with that, despite all the nonsense that's been added of late. I trust you to get it right. Regards, Rodhullandemu 00:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this this morning at [3] and was pretty astonished. It seems that there is no end to the bizarre claims that will be made about the parentage of Jackson's children. Nothing has changed, because only a DNA test would stop this sort of unverified story.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's all odd, these stories will probably never end, true (quite possibly) or not. — Please comment R2 11:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Haslam

[edit]

I just put the image in. It was sent from her site. There should be an OTRS on the way. FotoPhest (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but the OTRS should precede the image, or at least be concurrent. I look forward to seeing it, being a long-time Renaisance fan. Rodhullandemu 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this (flat earth)?

[edit]

I think there are weasel words and NPOV problems in this paragraph:

"The Flat Earth Society accept or promote the Flat Earth hypothesis , despite the hypothesis having been long contradicted by overwhelming evidence as well as by the modern understanding of planet formation and physics, and the scientific community now dismisses the notion as fantasy."

Most people seem to think it's stylistically bad, but that it doesn't violate anything because in modern times, the flat earth hypothesis is a fringe theory. I think that even though it's fringe, Wikipedia shouldn't call it "fantasy" or use the word "overwhelming," along with a disembodied "scientific community." I'm not a supporter of the theory of course, but I believe my personal beliefs shouldn't be involved here. There are no inline citations for it right now. Since you are an administrator and likely know Wiki policy well, I'd like to hear your view. Please respond on this talk page. - Cyborg Ninja 02:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, "overwhelmingly" is unquantifiable weaselry and should go; "as fantasy" is also unnecessary- why not just say "dismisses the notion?". The general proposition should still be supported by cited sources, however. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss this situation

[edit]

I am have been trying to join Wikipedia for the last week now. Although the only edits I have made is a Thank You note on Jimbo Wales page and a question concerning the first issue on Jimbo's page and the person's page who was involved, I keep getting banned. I seriously have no idea why other than I keep getting this page that says I am a "troll", "obscene username", and various other things. You happened to be the last person to do this to me as far as I can tell. I honestly have no idea what is going on here. What is wrong with the usernames I have used. WheelsonWilly69 and WheelsonWilly1969 were references to my name, nickname, and birth year. Why do I keep getting banned when I have done nothing wrong? Is this an inside joke? Is there something I should know about. Honest to God, I have no clue. I am just a guy who has been casually editing from time to time via ip and decided to form a user name, and I get this kind of treatment? Please explain without banning me.76.177.224.98 (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask PMDrive1061, the person who deleted your WheelsonWilly1969 account. It was deleted yesterday. Not that Rodhull won't look into it - I just mean PMDrive1061 might have more insight. - Cyborg Ninja 03:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New editor with a sense of humour

[edit]

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

created an article entitled David Samuel Chapman, copy-and-pasting from the Mark Chapman article, wikilinked the new article at the John Lennon article, then put a "Retired" tag on his user page! Shall we make his retirement official?

BTW, I've already speedied the hoax article. Radiopathy •talk• 03:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange behaviour, and could just have been testing. Unless he's a sock, I'll give the benefit of the doubt for now. Rodhullandemu 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For reverting that attack on my talk page :-). Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: EDWOOD11

[edit]

Hello, just thought I would request a block for this user as he has vandalized the page on Christian Bale with frankly childish crap. Have a nice day. (This guy needs no warning other than reverts) --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Smashville beat me to it! Rodhullandemu 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh curse him! I know how that feels...Went to add a guy who had died to the deaths list of 2009, but someone had beaten me to it...By 3 Minutes!--Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An old problem renewed

[edit]

Hi, and thanks for the smile from the WP:AN/I post you made the other day on the complaint from User:Little Professor. I've apparently annoyed him and he's been difficult about it. I'm posting now because I made a complaint at WP:AN/I yesterday here, to which no one has responded. I saw that you were actually the adminstrator who placed the 3 month block on the earlier IP on June 21 and I'm just looking to settle the issue with this very problematic, very young, very trying editor without a long haranguing process, since it's more than obvious this is the same person. Could you possibly look at this and decide what needs to be done? I think a longer block on the current IP due to evading the earlier block? The IP keeps making threats, as you saw, about getting the police involved and being a genuine pain. I don't take the police threats seriously, but I do take having to deal with this so. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is time to contact the internet provider [4], although I have no idea how one goes about reporting abuse to the providers. They all go back to the same internet provider [5], [6], [7], which are all in the same general Allentown, PA area and are all obviously the same person. Either that, or contact mommy and daddy? :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! In my experience, larger ISPs aren't great at dealing with complaints from us even in the face of sustained abuse- their response to me is usually of the form "So what? You claim to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and there is a point there. All we can do is look at rangeblocks, although if they're too wide, they'd be indefensible. Protecting targeted articles might be an option, but my impression is that there are too many of them at present. I'd say let him/her continue long enough to build up a plausible rangeblock. I'll look at the current IPs, however. Rodhullandemu 22:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's getting ridiculous, isn't it? The person does move around and doesn't seem to plan on relenting. I even commented once that I'd be happy when school starts, only to be told "i will still edit when i go 2 school !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and its not a big deal!!!" Sheesh! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a sense of humour you Autistic tap. Sorry about that chaps.

[edit]

If you read the summary it was to be changed back right about now. Besides Lenny Henry himself reccomended that his Wikipedia article be worded so. Metrolink-Boy (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good going insulting an Admin, enjoy your block twerp.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to block this guy. Yet. I'll see if he evolves first, although the irony of someone whose username and contribs indicate an interest in railways calling me autistic is not lost on me. Rodhullandemu 20:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh getting bitchy are we? look ffs all i'm saying is get a sense of humour. it doesn't hurt and thankyou for at least not being an arrogant american and calling it a Road.Metrolink-Boy (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also my respect for you has gone up to learn you studied at Manchester uni. Metrolink-Boy (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, Lenny Henry is a comedian and shouldn't be taken seriously, but you did remove a whole load of sourced information. That, according to our standards, is vandalism. I'd prefer you not to do that again. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 22:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okay sorry i admit my error. also i need help with something, cheek i know. Metrolink-Boy (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm available for constructive help to those who need it. That's my (sadly, unpaid) job here. Rodhullandemu 00:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing the page on Wrexham & Shropshire to include correct info on the number of locomotives we have (I work for them) but it seems that this isn't proof enough. How do i put info there without Wikipedians deleting it due to their incessant pedantry? Muchas Gracias. Metrolink-Boy (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need a reliable source, as your own knowledge is considered to be original research. Is there a company website that can be cited, or a public document? That would solve the problem. Rodhullandemu 16:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not as of yet because it's under wraps until naming. And we own 67010 and surely the number of Loco's could be allowed. Metrolink-Boy (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the information is not publicly available, sorry, we just can't use it here, because it has to be verifiable. Whereas some things like "water is wet" are common knowledge and don't require this, your information is specialised and does. Why can't it wait until an announcement is made? We don't "break" news here. Rodhullandemu 21:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tehehehee...Enjoy it. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Grahamivers

[edit]

Persistent disruptive edits to (Yet again) the article on Christian Bale. Warnings have not worked, reverts have not worked. Just thought I would inform you! Hope you get it this time... --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been dealt with, but I'll watchlist the page. Rodhullandemu 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User_talk:Mjlouisdbz14

[edit]

I see you have delt with this user in the past but it appears his editing is now getting disruptive since his last blocking some time ago. See this edit with him using all caps and spamming links. I don't think he has learned his lesson and may as well deserve an indef block. Momo san Gespräch 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Ahern

[edit]

Bertie Ahern isn't an accountant period but describes himself as one this is part of his life and should feature. He has specifically referred to himself as an accountant in interviews. He was an accounts clerk in a Dublin hospital. This basic fact has been on this site for most of the last 3 years though from time to time people who perhaps have an agenda try and change it by either deleting it or hyping the importance of his membership of accountancy associations given to him in his capacity as Irish prime minister and given in an honorary sense. Please stop messing with this part of the article it is no way libelous. That is just an attempt to justify the removal of an appropriate part of the article.--78.16.174.110 (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a source, per WP:BLP. Please see your talk page. Rodhullandemu 10:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bertie ahern

[edit]

See Irish news of world october 6, 2006 

http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/28651-bertie-ahern-accountant.html

etc

He isn't an accountant in the sense that most people understand the phrase but it is not an accussation of lying as there is no legal definition of accountant in Ireland so hence the reference to him not being a member of the associations.

Had he said he was a fellow of such and such an association that would be a lie and descend into fraud.

As he said he was an accountant no actual lie arises but most people would assume that he was a member of an association though he did not say this.


The point is he embellishes; he embellished his 3rd level history.

It is a statmement about him and his psyche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.174.110 (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A forum is not regarded as a reliable source for this. If you can find a reliable source that says that Ahern lied or embellished, it can go in, but we are not allowed to do this ourselves. Rodhullandemu 13:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlackWidowRon

[edit]

Hey :). Mind taking a look at this user's contributions? Looks a bit like a certain prolific error-introducer. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risker got to him first. Rodhullandemu 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say. Judging by editing behaviour, and the IP associated with the user, I'm more than certain it is the return of 79.97.111.90. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

As the biggest contributor to this article, I wanted to let you know that the article is currently up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only the largest contributor because I continually revert vandalism & unsourced edits, but I m'm thinking about this. As the admin who closed one of the previous AfD's, I have to take care before stepping in. Rodhullandemu 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for How Sweet To Be An Idiot

[edit]
Updated DYK query On August 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article How Sweet To Be An Idiot, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rodhullandemu. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wall

[edit]

That source don't say that The Wall sold 30 million copies worldwide. Read the article. --Simone Jackson (talk) 2:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you review *all sources* before making such pronouncements. The sales of this album should be certifiable somewhere. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The certifications don't arrive at the 30 million copies worldwide. --Simone Jackson (talk) 2:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Then don't include them. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to Wikipedia, every info must be supported by a source and in that article, there isn't a source that claims that The Wall sold 30 million copies worldwide. There is a fansite (it's not realiable for Wikipedia) that claims 22 million copies worldwide and a magazine that not claims figure sales. --Simone Jackson (talk) 2:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I so very nearly care. It's been a long day, as usual, and this can be sorted out on the relevant talk page by those with time to commit to this sort of detail. Face it, it's not a critical issue right now. Rodhullandemu 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, you are a Pink Floyd fan..... --Simone Jackson (talk) 2:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of irrelevant; I have no need or wish to puff up sales figures. However, I don't see you discussing this on Talk:The Wall. This issue, however, has been previously discussed here and having checked the RIAA database, the most current certification for the USA is 23xPlatinum with sales of 11.5m, but that was in 1999. That's all we can go with as a reliable source since aggregating such figures worldwide is not allowed. If somebody else has done that, however, I think we can use it as long as they are considered to be reliable. Rodhullandemu 13:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but don't arrive at the 30 million copies worldwide, at the limit 20-22 million, but not 30 million. Don't forget that the Guinness World Records certified in late '90s HIStory by Michael Jackson like the best selling multiple-disc of all time and all articles reported it, also to date HIStory is reportated like the best selling multiple disc of all time. Simone Jackson (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with leaving it out if it can't be reliably sourced. Rodhullandemu 15:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Brett birth date

[edit]

Hiya! I'm sorry but can you please comment and act upon this. ancestry.co.uk is not a WP:RS and the 13 other sources I've cited outweigh it greatly. I, personally, do not know which date is correct, but we have to go with the most reliable sources until proven otherwise. The Brettish Empire is also not even close to a reliable source. Thanks! :-) fr33kman -simpleWP- 00:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comment on Talk:Jeremy Brett. That multiple sources may be wrong doesn't impress me. I had other plans for Monday, but it now seems I have to go the extra mile in the interests of factual accuracy, which I strongly believe in. Would that others would do the same. Rodhullandemu 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

Which person is this in reference to? If it was the pilot, I don't know of any people who have died and had an article created on them unless they have done something notable. I do understand where you're coming from though there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know which person, but the deaths pages follow the normal rules on redlinks, which is that although there may not be an article now, there may be in the future. The fact that a death has been reliably reported is an indication that the person *may* be notable, and it relies on any interested editor later creating that article. For that reason, until the article is created, we don't prejudge notability, unless it's an obvious no-hoper, e.g. some mechanic from Iowa. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best selling music artist

[edit]

You've done an extraordinary job on several pages and I was wondering if you could bring your input onto this page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists#elvis_and_beatles_sales_are_inflated_too . One editor changed record sales for one artist and didnt do it for otheres that are in the same boat as he. Its leading to harsh debates. Can you please lend a hand to what you believe? ITalkTheTruth (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Amin

[edit]

She is arguably the biggest Chinese (country of a billion people) pop star of the 1980s and 1990s. You can listen to and download 31 of her songs from Amazon.com that are included on "Greatest Hits" albums. Most of the sources on album sales, etc. are in Chinese, but that does not diminish her notability by any reasonable stretch. The thing to do (which I will do next) would be to ask Chinese wikiprojects to help with the sourcing. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to establish her notability, but when I saw the article, I don't think it make it. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Published books described her as "both household names among Chinese around the world," and note such achievements as " It was the highest honor a Chinese pop singer had ever been given in an international competition." And these are just the English language sources, not even taking into account all that is in Chinese. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am not Johnali123

[edit]

i opened this account to inform you about the false aligation, i am not this Johnali123 ok so unblock me now, so please understand--Mjlouisdbz18 (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the evidence is against you, but you are blocked as Mjlouisdbz14 until tomorrow, by me. In the meantime I suggest you read this. Rodhullandemu 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - August 2009 Issue

[edit]

Summary: Our Initiatives are starting to be developed - please get involved! In this newsletter, we also announce the results and prizes for Wikipedia Loves Art, and we bring you the latest on our Charity status application, in addition to our regular features on Other Chapters' Activities, recent Press Coverage and recent and upcoming Meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Initiatives
  2. Wikipedia Loves Art prizes
  3. Charity status update
  4. Other Chapters' Activities
  5. Press Coverage
  6. Meet-ups

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.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rafferty

[edit]

I invite you to revisit the cleaned-up and now-sourced article. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work on this. I have withdrawn the nomination even though the Afd has run its course. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the withdrawal. Happy editing, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in other news...

[edit]

In researching Kevin Rafferty's notability, I found enough to easily create a new article in the last couple hours to address one of the article's redlinks. I thank you for being the motivation behind Harvard Beats Yale 29-29, which itself has a tremendous notability per WP:NF and WP:GNG, and further underscores the notability of the filmmaker. Good editing, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm only interested in making this project a useful encyclopedia for all time, and if whatever I do makes that possible, I'm happy, even though it may not seem so at the time. When I was a child, before television, all I had was printed encyclopedias, and there was little in the way of "popular culture" available to me; so it's rewarding to contribute on such a wide and permanent scale. Thanks for your comments. Rodhullandemu 01:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

[edit]

Hi Rodhullandemu. If you're online at the moment, would you mind restoring semiprotection to the Michael Jackson article? It's been on semi for vandalism practically since the semiprotection feature was created. Thanks! szyslak (t) 01:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All taken care of by Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs). — Σxplicit 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
I just have to give you this for all of the time and effort you put into reverting the (sadly far too frequently occuring) cases of vandalism on Bono. You seem to beat me to it all the time, and it's fantastic that it vanishes almost straight after it appears. Good job, and keep it going! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

[edit]

Thanks for approving me. J04n(talk page) 13:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rodhullandemu 13:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And did those feet in ancient time 8-25 edit

[edit]

I was wondering how you could consider an entire sketch revolving around the song "Jerusalem" to be trivial and yet you consider a brief mentions:

"The hymn features in the movie "Four Weddings and a Funeral", being sung by the congregation at the first wedding featured in the film.

The poem is referenced by Bagley's final soliloquy in the Bruce Robinson film How to Get Ahead in Advertising."

are not considered trivial?

In Monty Python's Flying Circus the song is sung in part several times throughout the sketch and even cuts to an entire crowd singing the song in an arena as referenced elsewhere in the article at a cricket match.

I fail to see your logic in considering that reference trivial yet those other brief moments are not considered trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.55.162 (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus from other editors is that the Monty Python use is unencyclopedic and does not assist a reader in understanding the topic. That is why I invited you to see previous discussions on the Talk page; you are entitled to make a proposal for inclusion there. You might want to consider, however, WP:NOT, in particular "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Cheers. Rodhullandemu 21:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Dury - Lyricist

[edit]

Hi. Can I ask you to take a look at Ian Dury. An opinionated editor has gone in and changed all the "songwriter' mentions to 'lyricist'. I reversed once, but won't again. It's true that I.D. wrote all his songs lyrics, and collaborated with Jankel on the tunes, but it does seem, for example according to the article on Sex& Drugs& etc, that he had musical input? What say? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McCulloch (singer)

[edit]

"Former frontman"?[8] The Bunnymen have an upcoming tour and album plus I've not seen anything that says they've split-up. What is your source for this? --JD554 (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I was probably confusing him with somebody else. Ian McNabb, possibly. Rodhullandemu 13:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, I'm quite looking forward to the new album. --JD554 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't source it myself away

[edit]

I simply fixed someone else's edit. My mistake. But more there's. Jacob Richardson (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be there anyway- it says nothing about the BNP and is therefore irrelevant. Rodhullandemu 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An FYI for you

[edit]

RE: the Honorific Music Titles page and some of its contributors as well as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination). Thought you should know that five of the "keep" participants in that lengthy article debate and in the pages recent edit history have showed up here: Nishkid64 checkuser. Whether that would have any bearing on the outcome for the Honorific Titles I cannot speak to as I am not familiar with that article debate. But the votes of those sock accounts have compromised a more recent AfD discussion and their votes have been struck from that debate. And the accounts blocked. Just thought you would like to know. Cheers and have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Deletion Review is really appropriate for this sort of thing, but one option is to ask the closing admin, Jayron32, to review his decision. However, having read his closing comments, it appears clear that his decision was based more on the "Delete" arguments than the "Keep"s, and I doubt that striking the latter would persuade him to change his mind, since AfD defaults to "Keep" in the absence of consensus to delete. At most, I'd guess he might change it to a "No Consensus Keep", but that would be so minor as not to be worth changing the rationale. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhullandemu 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SKanderbeg

[edit]

Hey. Well, the guy I was arguing with has decided that he could get his way by simply not responding to the discussions and that the page would stay the same. What should I do from here? Its certainly not fair that he get his way just by avoiding discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he won't defend his position, I'd suggest you are free to revert as long as you cite sources. If then begins edit-warring, he should be blocked for disruption. This is, after all, meant to be a cooperative environment. I still have the page watchlisted and will keep an eye on things. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 17:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Also,sorry if I came off as a bit of an ass on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I made the response that you wanted. What else do you want? I'll put in that Skanderbeg liked Serbian food and music. That should make him a Serb, everyone will believe it.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you're after here, but this is a content dispute with which I am loath to get involved, because I do not care particularly what nationality or origin Skanderbeg had. But when I see sourced material being removed without discussion or reason in the edit summary, that is vandalism. If you can't agree on the Talk page, I advise you seek some sort of dispute resolution. Meanwhile, I like Indian food and music, but that does not make me Indian. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 16:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I made a response in the talk page and therefore, the topic should be left as it is now until the dispute with the dubious nationalists is finished (which will take a very long time; this is why I try to ignore them!). BTW, I'm not sure if you were joking about the Indian food or not, but this is something that would be used by nationalists as "evidence" if found to be true.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Michael Jackson

[edit]

I removed a thread which veered severely off topic and then reverted its restoration by User talk:Jamesyull who then added a bunch of ridiculous ramblings. I considered deleting a number of threads on the talk page that deal with arguments of sales (which really aren't arguments, but lists of links with little to no relevant discussion on how to improve the article) but decided to see if you'd agree that. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User not taking due care

[edit]

Please see this and advise if you think access should be revoked or just give him a solid trouting. –xenotalk 15:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late response, I didn't want to jump the gun in the absence of a response- however, looking at it, not all his edits were incorrect, he has realised and explained, and on that basis, I think he will use AWB a little more circumspectly from now on. If he doesn't, of course... Rodhullandemu 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of Talk:Michael_Jackson

[edit]

Clifffrichard has been abusing the Michael Jackson talk page. In fact, nearly all of his "contributions" to Wikipedia have been soapbox posts on that page. Please sanction him appropriately. Thanks. Mktyscn (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baitullah Mehsud

[edit]

You reverted his (unsourced) addition to the recent deaths page, both AFP [9] and the BBC [10] are reporting his death and giving a date of the 23rd of August, but are both giving the same news from the same source (Hakimullah Mehsud). Are we to take this as fair evidence? Not entirely sure, not only due to the dispute from Amerian and Pakistani authorities (who claimed they killed him on 5/8), but due to the one source of the news. I've not heard anything disputing his death after the reports, but wanted to take some extra advice. Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP and convention require reliable sourcing for reporting deaths here; when I saw it, no source was cited, but if the BBC are reporting it, that should not be a problem unless they say "it is claimed" or "unknown sources state...". It has to be pretty watertight. HTH. Rodhullandemu 23:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly happy that the BBC are happy with the reliability of their source, so I'm adding him. If someone else disagrees, then they can remove it and I'll not particularly care! Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue with that. Rodhullandemu 00:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salley Vickers

[edit]

I have removed the ridiculous PROD - if you feel so stronglt, take it to AFD. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ridiculous"? In what way is she notable? Rodhullandemu 07:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

This is the original Kelvin Martinez user I started the List of honorific titles In popular music page but you have been the true heart and soul of it and I thank you. I care dearly about it and I didnt want to see it go in the AFD so I recruited two of my brothers one with a user name already ITalkTheTruth and another one to create a account. He created a three. It's my fault for being a meatpuppet I should have never had did it and so I got blocked by an admin cause we all have the same IP address but I saw the scumbag named Wiki Libs/ Fairdeal whored himself to like 4 admins to get everyone using that IP address blocked because he thought they were all the same and he had a long argument with one of my brothers who made him look bad but thats beside the point. I was wrong for doing it and I'll stick to my own debating skills and not others. I appreciate you for keeping it alive and showing why you are a true admin. I've seen you around on many music pages and you even consulted me when I first made the page you and realist2. I guess even though Ive been a part of Wikipedia on and off for 3 years, Im still a learner and will make silly mistakes. I cant thank you enough for what you have done for the page. Thank You The Greatest Show On Earth (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had my doubts about the page initially, but successive Afd's have suggested that it's a worthy concept, despite the warring between different factions. It is an article that requires careful editing and oversight, and a handful of editors (other than myself) have invested a great deal of effort into keeping it within its intended scope. But doing that is tiring, however much time you have to spend here, and although some tightening of sources and a cull of poorly-sourced entries might be advisable, it needs someone to spend about a week reviewing those sources and making proposals on the Talk page. Additionally, it is a minefield for neutrality issues, since it is not for us English language editors to determine whether Japanese or Chinese artists really deserve these titles. In a global working environment, we must take some things on trust. I would agree that "padding" a deletion debate tends to obscure the merits of the article itself, but it should not be a witch-hunt. Again, thanks for your comments. Rodhullandemu 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity

[edit]

Which Whig should I be reading here? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Liberal Party (UK) is the closest, being strongly influenced by the ideas of John Stuart Mill. Rodhullandemu 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting read- thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Jackie Hamilton

[edit]

Hello Rodhullandemu, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Jackie Hamilton has been removed. It was removed by Fences and windows with the following edit summary '(Deprod, had a Radio 4 programme made about him and was a local legend in Liverpool)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Fences and windows 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) 01:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

User:Waterspaces

[edit]

Hi,

I was wondering if you could help me regarding User:Waterspaces. I called upon you rather than anyone else, as you indefinitely blocked him a few months ago, however I am led to believe that he is still frequently editing articles using his dynamic ip-address, as judged by the similarity of ip-addresses used for edits on particular articles (see below). I am also almost certainly convinced of this by the style of language used in his edits, and very similar behaviour from a very similar username and ip-addresses on a different wiki, with a less stringent blocking policy, where he has also been very insulting to users. See here towards the bottom of the page. Quote: "You may be retired and near to dying, most in the city are not".

I notice that you have come across edits from his ip-address before. See User_talk:79.65.26.42 and here. As is still avoiding his block to unconstructively edit articles, I was wondering if you think a block on his range of ip-addresses over a period of several months perhaps may be more appropriate. I'm not sure if this is possible to do though, and being a fairly new user, I'm not sure whether this would be deemed apporiate by you, even though I can clearly justify it.

I hope you can understand the situation, and I'm quite fed up of wasting my time chasing after him to revert and extensively modify his edits.

Here is a list of the ip-addresses that I believe he has operated from:

I would be most greatful if you could help me with this, so that his edits can be stopped once and for all.

Regards, Raywil (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, blocking all of the above would lock out over a million IPs, but I have blocked a subrange for a month (anon only) to deter this person. The alternative is semi-protection of the articles he targets if there's too much fall out. Rodhullandemu 12:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my ignorance, but in what ways would protecting articles work? Would it be possible to protect articles from being edited by the annonymous, such as himself? Raywil (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection prevents anonymous editing but it has the downside of excluding good-faith editors too. I'd prefer to avoid that. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 13:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's a tough one then I suppose. This has been going on for several months now, and although his current edits aren't as bad as earlier ones, they're still a pain. What would you suggest at this stage? Raywil (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All we can do at present is to block on sight; in my experience ISPs don't take abuse reports seriously enough so I don't want to waste any time on that route. I'll take a longer look at the articles he targets and see how much collateral damage would be caused by semi-protection, but that would still leave the Talk pages, where I have seen his tendentious ramblings. I think I have the articles watchlisted, so I'm well placed to spot his edits. Rodhullandemu 13:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest. I'll wait for further news from you, or get back to you in a few days if the situation worsens. Raywil (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very prompt reaction yesterday with regards to this issue. I suppose we'll just have to see if he returns once the protection period has ended. Raywil (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Hepburn

[edit]

Why did you replace my informative url about Audrey in Elham with your rubbish one? Are you the author of the section on her early life. If so you need to do more inestigationh instead of reproducing the usual cliches. 87.113.170.202 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Audreyfan[reply]

Your url was malformed and was no use to a reader. Please see WP:CITE for how to do this. Rodhullandemu 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this image cannot be used within the article as it is still in copyright. An external reference to it might be of some use, but links to text are preferred. Rodhullandemu 22:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an image it's a text from a newspaper dated 1996 which discusses Audrey's stay in Elham from 1934 to 1940. I can't see why it's any more in or out of copyright than a text from Kent County Council which you have to scroll down to find a tiny vague and inaccurate mention of Audrey's connection with Elham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.170.202 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a .jpg file, and therefore an image, and we cannot use it any more than we could copy and paste text straight from any other website. It could be used as an external source, but not embedded into the article. If there is a better source, it could be used, because that doesn't raise the same copyright problems, for example, is the text of that article online somewhere? Rodhullandemu 23:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a text which has been put online by the people who run www.elham.co.uk. Its a link inside the text at www.elham.co.uk/Famous_People.htm and when you click on it you get www.elham.co.uk/images/hepburn1.jpg. I presume it's a jpeg because it's a scan of a local newspaper article. It is much more informative than the one-liner in the Kent CC guide as it includes reminiscences by people who knew Audrey before the Second World War. The Kent CC article is also wrong in saying that Audrey spent 10 years of her childhood in Elham as the earliest she can arrived there is after May 1934 and her last possible leaving date is May 1940. I was not trying to embody the whole text in the body of the AH article, but merely to include the url as a footnote reference. 87.113.13.19 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Audreyfan[reply]

OK, thanks for that. I've added the link for you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 13:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

[edit]

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Peter_Andre&diff=next&oldid=311756086 this edit was hardly vandalism Flappychappy (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced WP:BLP is maybe not vandalism, but still deprecated. It would also help if you learn how to link diffs. Rodhullandemu 00:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, links fine for me. Anyways, ciao Flappychappy (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your message to me regarding christopher biggins

[edit]

I would like to state that i have not written anything on the page regarding christopher biggins so i would appreciate it if i didnt recieve a message claiming that i have done this again.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.214.122 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please.

[edit]

I wonder if you would be willing to give me some advice? We have interacted a few times and I respect your work on Wikipedia, you also seem to be one of the few Brits about my age around here! Last Dec/Jan (not exactly sure when) I self nominated for Adminship, more to test the water than anything but I genuinely thought that I had a good chance. Suffice it to say I crashed and burned, primarily due to User:Balloonman who I thought went somewhat over the top. I then asked him if he would be willing to mentor me but he never gave me the courtesey of a yes or no. Anyhow I am now pondering whether or not to try again, I would not be prepared to self nominate but wondered if (after you have given me the once over) you would be prepared to offer me some advice on what I should do? I was pretty appalled by the last experience so I'm keen to only go forward if its the right thing to do. We could do with some more 50+ admins! If you are too busy, no problem. Regards. Paste Let’s have a chat. 14:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry for the lack of response, I am not resistant to the idea of nominating you, just that the concerns raised in the previous RfA need some thought. I hope to get round to this shortly but I am both busy and tired at present, and I'd rather do you proper justice. Rodhullandemu 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely fine, no rush at all, indeed it's advice much more than nomination that I was looking for. If indeed after thought and perhaps some communication between us you feel a nomination would be something that you want to do then great. Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JACK TWEED/JADE GOODY

[edit]

If the article has information about him being arrested/jailed in the past, then it should also have recent information too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.78.173 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that if he were notable enough to have his own article, but he isn't. The acid test is what this tells us about the subject of the article, Jade Goody. "Nothing" is the answer as far as I'm concerned. Are we still going to be adding stuff about him in ten or twenty years time? I doubt it. Rodhullandemu 18:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The article needs indefinite semi-protection. its receiving heavy vandalism. Thanks! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Seems to have fallen off my watchlist somehow, but I'll keep an eye on it for now. Rodhullandemu 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ello

[edit]

bye.--88.110.67.219 (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles discography

[edit]

Hi, Rod. Can you do something about this, please, if it pursues. What we have spent a long time working on in the discography is being drastically changed by someone who says the page is too long. It's not too long, as the article is to include the entire discography of The Beatles. This person made six edits, so I undid all six. Please check this out if you would. Thanks a lot! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look tells me that this requires discussion before it happens- have you thought of informing a wider audience at WP:BEATLES? Meanwhile, I'd invite these editors to discuss on Talk pages. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiltshire

[edit]

Hats off to you, Rod. Excellent work. You are not alone, but there are fewer of us than there might be. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's an unsung task, but in my view potentially enriches the reader's experience. Those of us who do this sort of thing neither expect, nor receive praise, but we do learn as we go along- that, I think, is why most of us are here. Category:Merseyside articles missing geocoordinate data is close to being finished; if not tonight, then tomorrow. Meanwhile, this encyclopedia becomes more defensible as a reliable source as a result. That, too, is worth working for. Rodhullandemu 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just spotted the Merseyside progress, and purposed to came here to tell you that you were not alone ... but found from http://toolserver.org/~para/coordmissing/ that it's your work, again. User:82.20.52.30 is very active right now; she or he has polished off at least one county and is currently doing for Gloucestershire. It is a thankless task - like most on wikipedia - but like you I think it enormously improves articles. (Not an opinion shared by all, sadly: in truth we get more brickbats than bouquets). --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you likewise for adding the coordinates for Dovedale Infant and Junior schools. Radiopathy •talk• 03:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

09/09/09

[edit]

Happy Beatles Day, my friend!!! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (formerly User talk:76.198.234.254)[reply]

Why thank you; I hadn't realised it was today. Keep up the good work! Rodhullandemu 22:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:AssignedPA_.282nd_nomination.29

[edit]

FYI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reversion

[edit]

You undid a edit I put in the article "Video Killed the Radio Star". That same info is in the article later. I went to www.mtv.com and found the info. Im not that familiar with how all this works (esp. the citing part). Please stop undoing what someone else puts in an article. BTW, I do have an account but I just didnt log into it b/c I clicked a link to come up and happen to see this article. Use wikipedia as it is designed to be used!

Which article and who are you? I'm not psychic. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've mentioned the article, I'd just ask "in what way is this important enough for the lead?" It's minor detail we would not normally mention at all. Rodhullandemu 22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See previous statement. "Video Killed the Radio Star". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.32.11 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's unimportant detail, but I've left it, but unlinked dates, because we stopped doing this about a year ago. Rodhullandemu 22:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The please correct the year and cite it as mtv.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.32.11 (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm busy right now. Please see WP:SOFIXIT. Rodhullandemu 23:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

[edit]

Haha, very charitable of you! I noticed you reverted an edit about William Shatner beating Jesus in hand-to-hand combat as a "good-faith" edit!  :) I wouldn't have been that charitable, lol!

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 06:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

92.8.35.32

[edit]

Hi! Could I trouble you to take a look at 92.8.35.32 (talk · contribs) - 99.999% certain it's HarveyCarter/JohnRedwood/GranvilleHouston up to its old tricks.

Ta! TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31 hour block, and Jack Wild semi-protected for a week. ThHanks for the tip. Rodhullandemu 18:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Lolo games

[edit]

Hi, while I think your block of this user was sound, your block message seemed overly harsh. I hope you don't mind this random criticism, but it appeared overly bitey. ThemFromSpace 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously blocked twice for vandalism, then continues? He's either here to commit to this project, or he isn't. Whilst I await his unblock request, he should shape up or ship out. Trust is difficult to achieve for editors when we don't know whether their next edit is going to be useful or not. He isn't barred from creating a totally productive account and put his past behind him- but so far, his past is against him, as far as I'm concerned. Rodhullandemu 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And given his latest contribution to his Talk page, which included "is a vandelizer from california. that also could griffiti.", I think that says it all. Perhaps that's why I'm an admin here; instinct. Rodhullandemu 00:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think the block was totally sound; he definitely deserved it. It's the message that you left that was concerning. ThemFromSpace 00:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF for persistent, and now self-confessed "vandels"? I may be older than most people here, but SRSLY, I do not think so. The learning process may seem harsh, but in an open editing community, you either subscribe or you don't, and if you don't get the behavioural message after two blocks, chances are you are not going to. That leaves open the option of starting afresh with a new account, which this editor may do after his autoblock expires, and if he does not repeat the behaviour, he may well become a useful editor. However, that is not apparent from his edit history so far. But his future here is entirely up to him. Rodhullandemu 00:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nick Griffin

[edit]

There's currently a discussion about how to deal with the persistent vandalism on the Nick Griffin article. I've semi-protected it for a month, but since we'll have the same situation then, BritishWatcher (talk · contribs) has suggested changing the protection to indefinite. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Rodhullandemu 18:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Craven Fault

[edit]

Hello Rodhullandemu, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Craven Fault has been removed. It was removed by Snigbrook with the following edit summary '(remove prod, this is probably notable enough for an article)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Snigbrook 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) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Patrick Swayze

[edit]

I think your removal of my so-called good faith edit of Patrick Swayze deserved some discussion. I have reverted your revert and added a discussion explaining my reasoning for the addition of the sentence. --Crunch (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/26&oldid=1257918826"