User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/17

a shiny

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Awarded for tirelessly taking care of many of the administrative parts of fighting vandalism. Thank you for your contributions! (and your logs ;-) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion

Could you please have a look at:

and give me the benefit of your opinion? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response.

After having thought about it overnight, I came to the conclusion that it's more than just a little silly to be editwarring over a DAB page. Your response, which I read this morning, indicates support for this conclusion!

Your response has provided me with all the 3O I need. I'll stop wasting people's time.

Very many thanks for your time and effort, and particularly for your good advice.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Editing here isn't meant to be a contest. It's often better for the soul to say "fuck it" and walk away. Much less stressful --Rodhull andemu 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never...

Learn something new about my fellow Wikipedians every day. — Realist² 01:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't take it seriously at this time of night; I can't remember the film I quoted from. --Rodhull andemu 01:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it on Wikipedia, it must be true. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, "yeah, right". Satire sometimes misses its mark. 40 Paracetamol tend to be more effective. G'night. --Rodhull andemu 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Act of Parliament?

This says that your efforts resulted in a private UK Act of Parliament about 20 years ago. Which one?--Aepe D (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to look it up on OPSI. It'd just be cool to see if a Wikipedian has done it.--Aepe D (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that website only says about public acts of parliament, not private ones. I didn't know there were such things as private acts of parliament, can you explain please? Thanks.--Aepe D (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private Acts are those with limited applications, e.g. to a bridge, port or harbour. Just checking back in my papers, it never got as far an an Act, although a Bill was drafted. The effect, however, can be seen in the Statue Law (Repeals) Act 1993, Part XV, Group 4, and this is on OPSI here. --Rodhull andemu 19:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited!

Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

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.

Talk:Michael Jackson/FAQ

Do you think the above thing should be semi-protected, certainly no reason to have IP's vandalizing it? — Realist² 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's still a wiki, but vandalism hasn't reached the level where you'd get it protected at WP:RFPP. I've watchlisted it and will protect if it gets out of hand. --Rodhull andemu 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, stressful times. — Realist² 19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I need major help at the Michael Jackson artile now, there are huge BLP issues going on and it's getting a little crazy. The article probably needs protecting until this blows over or something. The conversion to islam is so crazy for a start. — Realist² 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Rodhullandemu/Archive, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.

I would also like to thank my nominator Realist² and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel ^(talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - November 2008 Issue

Summary: Wikimedians in the United Kingdom are working to set up a chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, which will aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge. A board of five members has been elected, and a company has now been set up. Membership applications are now invited, and will be processed as soon as we have a bank account. The organisation needs the support and involvement of people like you.

In this month's newsletter:

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.

Magritte

I started a train here: [1] repectfully have a different point of view concerning Fair use imagery in important visual arts articles and the need for galleries...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

We have the offical cover, that's a reliable chart company. I think we have the correct cover here. — Realist² 13:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me, I guess we should stick with that one. --Rodhull andemu 13:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will take enforcement though, you know what the masses are like...— Realist² 13:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of User:88.111.158.61

Could you take a look at it? Caught in a rangeblock, it seems. Best, Sandstein 16:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what?

Remember Be Black Hole Sun agreed to stay away for at least three months. And also agreed no to sock anymore. Well... he lied again. You know who has a problem with honesty. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be sure it's BBHS simply for adding a Bryan Adams single, unless I've missed something. A Checkuser would be a bit heavy-handed just now. I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhull andemu 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your library

I would have emailed you, but you aren't enabled. Is there any way I can help about your library situation? I have access to storage (well, possibly) 'oop north' which is I assume where you live. It is a great evil to be parted from one's books. Let me know if there is any small way I can be of help. The Land Surveyor (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaaba

Could you also IP-protect Kaaba? There's a picture there that IP's remove all the time and thats all they do. thanks! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look, the pace of removal isn't really enough to warrant protection right now, but I have watchlisted it. --Rodhull andemu 21:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello!

heya

Since you granted me rollback, for the 1st time, but removed it, since i got carried away, thanks rod. Take care and best wishes. M.H.^{ITrue Romace iS Dead} 01:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC) ^^[reply]

George Sampson

I did an initial rewrite on the entry. I'm still missing lots of information that should be included in the next few days (I've found two sources from which I was able to draw loads of interesting new facts) and I'm still not sure what to do about the logo competition. Perhaps reduce it to something short and merge it in a section on fan involvement or something. Anyway, I'd like to know what you think of my edits so far. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far; the logo competition seems minor and has too much detail for its worth. I think the Royal Variety Performance line in the previous para should move down to that section when it happens. --Rodhull andemu 10:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll relegate the competition thing to a one sentence mention in a place where it's relevant. I'm already going to mention the 5 winners who danced in his video when I can dig up the source again. I'm definitely going to put the Royal Variety in chronological order. Hopefully the section won't be a one sentence stub... - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A day in the life

You sent me a message saying to list a reliable source to change A day in the life genre to symphonic rock. Well, the "Symphonic Rock" page says that A day in the life is the earliest example of symphonic rock. So either they need to change the statement in "Symphonic Rock" or change the genre in A day in the Life. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palaciopalermo12 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not regard ourselves as reliable sources for ourself, paradoxically. It needs a citation in both articles, otherwise it should go.

Noi non la consideriamo come noi stessi fonti affidabili per soli, paradossalmente. Ha bisogno di una citazione in entrambi gli articoli, altrimenti si dovrebbe andare.

--Rodhull andemu 01:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

worthlips

What was all that bollocks about the Liberty Belle? I didn't follow that at all. Anyway the campaign continues. I have made some improvements to Horace Walpole but it still stinks. Frank Ramsey (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re edit summary on John Lennon revert

I find this inappropriate - we have a sister project Wiktionary which you could have directed the editor to! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't occur to me; but I get annoyed enough by those who confuse "refute" and "deny", let alone an error as basic as this. --Rodhull andemu 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing this issue, care to clarify any confussion I have

I see you deleted the image, could you read this and give me advise, cheers. — Realist² 23:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong (as it's been a particularly difficult day) but CSD is there for a purpose, and an unused image with no source and no fair-use rationale should go forthwith, as far as I'm concerned. The two things we are most sensitive about are libel and copyright, and rightly. I prefer to err (if at all) on the side of caution; after all, it doesn't prevent anyone re-uploading the image, with proper sourcing, WP:FUR, and actually using it. HTH! --Rodhull andemu 23:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts too, I'm just a little confused, under that admins position, CSD 16 seems almost redundant... — Realist² 23:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for reverting vandalism to my user page and blocking the user. Oda Mari (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalar

Just to let you know Jamalar is editing again, when all the article she edits pop up on my watchlist it's a sure sign. Jamalar seems to be making some effort with this account, although we both know she would return to her normal ways if she could get away with it. — Realist² 17:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She knows she can be blocked anytime for evasion of the original block, however if she's doing good edits & not warring, I'm inclined to let her prove that she can edit constructively. All for the good of the encyclopedia, of course; some blocks tend to be counter-productive. Let me know on the first sign of trouble, though. --Rodhull andemu 17:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's more a case of filling you in on the latest goings on in "World Jamalar" :-). If she stops taking the happy pills I'll let you know. — Realist² 18:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wonder how I ever managed to get that article featured. — Realist² 18:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

how do you get a user's mainspace edit count

thanks, 98.164.215.57 (talk)

posted: 20:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you type {{AWBUser|username}} (in the sandbox, for instance) and save or preview, you'll see "count" in the list; clicking on that opens a page which shows all the counts. For AWB purposes, the "Mainspace edits" is the important figure. Hope that helps. --Rodhull andemu 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eela Craig page

Hi Rodhullandemu:

You proposed to delete the band page I created for Eela Craig. I'm a little surprised to see that recommendation. I agree that not every local xyz band be put on Wikipedia, but this is an internationally known band - which I created by the way, because their contribution to another page was missing (Fairlight CMI instrument).

Either way, the guidelines for notability of bands lists that any one of the criteria should apply and criterion is:

  5. Has released two or more albums on a major label

which is easily matched by Eela Craig. Quite frankly, and that, of course, is my personal opinion, is that any recording band should have the right to be on WP. Plus, if it's good enough for the German WP, I dont'see why it shouldn't be allowed on the English version...

I am a new editor and don't know how to formally dispute your deletion suggestion and would appreciate a pointer on how to do so (WP's instructions for editors are rather lengthy and cumbersome to follow...)

Thanks - JLeditor (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-term (thirty years+) author on progressive rock music, I've never heard of them. To dispute the PROD, all you need to do is delete that tag. It's then open to any editor to apply for deletion on the basis of lacking notability, and to avoid that, some independent, reliable sources would help. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 00:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radar (song) - The edit wars continue

They are still fighting over the image. — Realist² 13:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has made two identical copes of the same special edition cover. Could you at least delete the one I haven't tagged as it's a redundant. I still have to wait the few days to expire before someone deletes the other special edition cover I tagged. This guy is getting on my nerves a little, he's been blocked for this before. — Realist² 21:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually deleted the one you tagged as redundant, and will tag the other as needing a full FUR. It keeps thins a little tidier that way, I feel. --Rodhull andemu 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, I just don't want two identical images running around Wikipedia, particularly when neither of them are necessary. :-) Could the images cracks be the new genre warrior? Scary to even think abut it. — Realist² 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're just fankids who don't get our image policies- and it even took me some time- but I see that uploader has already been blocked for image copyvios, so he should have got the picture by now. It gets harder to AGF as time goes on, however. --Rodhull andemu 22:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just stayed well clear of uploading images after the first few failed attempts. I could do it know that I understand the policy. I've just never had the need, someone else will do it eventually. This very issue is currently being discussed at ANI actually (I assume you watch list that ~~bloodbath~~ helpful noticeboard). — Realist² 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid the self-preening drama that goes on at ANI but watch it so I can know what's going on generally; I have better things to do than even develop an opinion on some of the threads. Some people just have too much spare time. --Rodhull andemu 22:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. — Realist² 22:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thanks for approving my Rollback request, much appreciated. Paste ^Talk 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but AWB is not Rollback; I know you won't do anything silly, however. --Rodhull andemu 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I can't believe I typed that, sorry! I have just been granted AWB and Rollback and like an idiot thanked the wrong man.Paste ^Talk 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Thanks for approving my AWB request, much appreciated.:-) Paste ^Talk 16:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right man, wrong tool. (I'm sure that would make a great sitcom)! --Rodhull andemu 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

you can searching about islam michael jackson http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=Islam+Michael+Jackson&btnG=Search+News and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q_RoK_wrDw

No. WP:RS is still policy here and this debate has gone on for too long. We don't do unsubstantiated rumours. --Rodhull andemu 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor, does the user name mean something rude in English?

Thoughts on this? My understanding of english slang isn't perfect. Aside the edits, is the name OK. — Realist² 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give the username the benefit of the doubt, but the edits show no intention to contribute constructively, hence indeffed as a vandalism-only account. --Rodhull andemu 02:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sure a strategically placed "e" makes that a rather rude user name...anyway, good night Rod, I'm off to bed. — Realist² 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what did i do?

You are blocking a dynamic IP range FFS!!!

"Editing from 88.110.0.0/17 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Rodhullandemu for the following reason(s):"

Collective punishment is not a solution!

Thank you for your well-argued and temperate comments. This block would not have been necessary if your common ISP, Tiscali, had taken my complaints of abuse seriously. But they haven't, and occasionally some of their customers are caught in blocks which protect the encyclopedia from abuse by Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992. I suggest you take it up with them. --Rodhull andemu 12:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable excuse. And pointless non-remedy. All you are achieving is making people disconnect and reconnect to a get a new IP outside the range. Banning an IP from certain pages would make SOME sense, banning them from the whole site makes non whatsoever unless they have a static address (and don't know what an open proxy is). 88.111.37.94 (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It stops him. You obviously don't understand how much of a pest this user is. Every time he gets to edit here it wastes up to an hour of otherwise useful time reverting his edits. There is a script running which is used to try and detect his edits before they cause too much damage. He wastes our resources. He targets numerous pages, mostly connected with soap operas, for which semi-protection is not an option. I have sent about thirty emails to Tiscali's abuse address, with extensive diffs, but they won't act. I suggest that if their innocent customers complain enough, they might, but at present you are the lone voice crying in the wilderness. Sorry, but the integrity of the encyclopedia is worth a little inconvenience. Editors with registererd accounts are not affected. --Rodhull andemu 13:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't stop anyone. I have stumbled on this block just TWICE. And each time I just disconnected and reconnected. So, unless this person is brain-dead it's just making innocent people's interaction difficult.

You are right, I don't understand how much of a pest he/she/it is, but frankly I don't care. How would you like to get an ASBO just because you live next door to some window smasher? You have a gripe with Tiscali (assuming that the guy isn't using a trojan) not ME.

Great. Okay, I'll complain to Tiscali if you take the guy who just ripped me off on Ebay through the County Court system for me? That sound fair? You want me to wash your car when I am finished???

LOL! It's not YOU that is being inconvenienced, so you have no right to decide what is "worth it" for others.

You are pointlessly abusing your privilege. Please lift the ban and be reasonable. 88.111.37.94 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since your pram must be completely empty of toys by now, and you're obviously very upset over such a minor matter, I'll lift the block. But the first sign of abuse and it goes back, you can deal with User:WJH1992, and the quality of this encyclopedia can go to hell in a handcart. Deal? --Rodhull andemu 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Is all I have to say... 88.111.37.94 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you, and I apologise for my rudeness" would be more to the point, meanwhile WP:DFTT applies. --Rodhull andemu 16:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would and I would graciously accept your apology should you wish to proffer it! 88.111.37.94 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the use of a rangeblock like 88.110.0.0/17, if the block is covering a provider (Tiscali) to whom we have complained with no result. Let's allow the ISPs to enjoy some responsibility in this matter. If they have no interest in controlling abuse of their service, then their customers may wind up not being able to edit Wikipedia anonymously. Maybe we should enlarge the file on Wikipedia:Long term abuse to have a section listing the ISPs who have been unresponsive to abuse complaints in the past. Of course we'd not be charging them with abuse, just recording that they don't respond to complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree. ISPs have T&Cs, and should be prepared to enforce them on request. Meanwhile it is more than faintly ludicrous that the quality of the encyclopedia should be held hostage by some overactive schoolkid and one ~~whiner~~ disgruntled victim of collateral damage who has no understanding of the problems we face. --Rodhull andemu 17:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu wrote: "Editors with registered accounts are not affected." Registering is free, it only takes a minute. And everyone lives happily ever after :-)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am slowly but surely moving to the position that unregistered editing causes us more trouble than it's worth, despite the purported openness of a wiki. Registered users, for example, benefit much more from anonymity in the normal course of events than unregistered. Other websites seem to have no problem with requiring registration, even proof of identity in some cases, and the way the encyclopedia has developed means it has become vulnerable to those with an axe to grind who are able to switch IPs at the drop of a hat. Perhaps I will review the positions of current candidates for ArbCom on that basis. --Rodhull andemu 18:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow the advice at WP:RANGE in particular the part that says "If you propose to block a significant range, or for a significant time, consider asking a user with checkuser access to check for collateral blocks - that is, for the presence of other users who may be unintentionally affected by the range block."? --neon white talk 19:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISTR that I remember for one of the early ones I put a notice on WP:AN inviting checkuser intervention but it was ignored; but it's somewhat irrelevant since I've only blocked anonymous editing from those ranges, existing accounts should not have been affected. I did give one account an IP Block exemption but then found I'd blocked non-anons as well, which I quickly tweaked. You may want to check out the SSP reports linked above and this script to see the measures we've had to take with this guy- it runs every hour, on the hour and takes up a browser tab I could use for something better. And when I unblocked the range earlier on the IP's complaint, the sockpuppeter was back within an hour. That's what we are dealing with. He makes the Energizer bunny look like a slacker. --Rodhull andemu 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the action taken and also with your feelings about anon editing in general. I was just trying to see it there was a way to solve the problems for 88.111.37.94 --neon white talk 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I sympathise with his problem, I have less time for his attitude. As he himself said, all he has to do is reconnect and get an IP that isn't blocked, and that, if he doesn't wish to create an account, is all he has. I doubt he'd disagree if he'd spent the last ten months trying every which way to either get USER:WJH1992 editing within policy or go away. Fortunately, I don't have to travel to Kidderminster to ensure physically that he can't edit here; that might have rather less than useful consequences for myself. --Rodhull andemu 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could always go to London, Stevenage, Milton Keynes or Stoke Mandeville, and deal with Tiscali - that might solve a lot of problems :D. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the names on the handful of replies I got, Kolkata might have been more useful. --Rodhull andemu 20:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right there... ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you can't pretend to have anonymous editing AND ban dynamic ranges. You may as well give up the pretence when you start that. It's a charade.

And as for MY so called rudeness= you cast the first stone by blocking me, and a load of other innocent people! I'll leave you to little giggly snide remarks now.

88.111.37.94 (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've manage to bridge the gap between anonymous editing and banning dynamic ranges for about five years now, so I don't see that's a runnable argument. However, this discourse is rapidly running out of point, and you don't seem to be making any headway, so I'll wish you a good evening, and goodbye. My final word: "When in Rome..." --Rodhull andemu 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first email to Tiscali

I am an Administrator/Sysop on the Wikipedia website wiki.riteme.site. For the last six months or more, one of your clients, whose name is apparently William J. Howes, of Worcestershire, has been persistently blocked from our site and is now effectively banned since no Administrator/Sysop is willing to unblock him.

Having blocked all his named accounts indefinitely, he persists in editing using an anonymous IP address within your ranges. It has got so serious that I have been forced to block three separate CIDR ranges amounting to a potential 81,920 of your customers. I'm sure they will find this as unacceptable as we do. His abuse has also necessitated the development of a script to monitor his edits, and its output can be seen here: http://james.dev.greenhead.ac.uk/dev/wjh1992.html You will see blocked IP addresses, but they are part of the ranges. By clicking on the "contribs" link, you will be taken to his edits, but they are many, and almost all unwanted.

We have also set up separate pages to manage your client here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_WJH1992

with discussion and analysis here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category_talk:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_WJH1992

On any reading of your Terms and Conditions of Use here: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/legal/aup/ he is in breach of Condition 10.2 as we have explicitly denied him access to our website on numerous occasions.

We have tried to persuade him to go away for a while, return and edit properly, and apart from the insults we get, he promises to do this but returns with the same nonsense within 24 hours. Our time is better spent than reverting all his useless edits, and we would appreciate some intervention from you. We would rather not involve the police under the Computer Misuse Act 1981, but we don't rule it out either. I look forward to hearing your response.

Regards,

And this is how they respond

Don't be stupid. The Wikipedia servers are in America, I am in the UK and don't have access to the firewall logs. I have given you IP addresses, dates and times and the name of your client. From these you can work out from which account the abuse is coming. At present 81920 of your IP addresses are blocked from editing Wikipedia and you owe it to your customers to work out which of them is committing a criminal offence, and stop them.

You don't need the firewall logs, it is not a case of someone hacking into Wikipedia servers, it is a case of someone gaining access who has specifically been forbidden access.

Thanks.

Original Message -----

From: abuse-various@uk.tiscali.com Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 2:48 AM Subject: Abuse of Terms and Conditions [Incident: 080723-000027]

Subject Abuse of Terms and Conditions

Discussion Thread Response (AB_RajkumariB) 24/07/2008 02.48 AM Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for contacting Tiscali Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) Team.

We regret the inconvinence caused to you in this regard.

Please note that the firewall logs taken from your computer will provide the details about any attempted hacking made to your computer.

In order to investigate the Internet abuse report you sent us, it is a must for us to have the "Firewall Logs" of the abuse incident with correct time and date. Without this information, we cannot proceed further with our investigation to trace the abuser.

Also, please be informed that we take all the internet abuse reports very seriously and definite action will be taken against the abusers, if traced out.

Therefore, we kindly request you to send in the Firewall Logs, which is very critical in enabling us to identify the user abusing the Internet. Please note that if we have not heard from you within seven days of this e-mail being sent we will have to close the investigation due to a lack of information.

We apologise for the inconvinence this may cause.

Should you have any concerns or queries relating to this, then please do not hesitate to respond to this e-mail.

Yours faithfully, Tiscali Abuse Team. abuseresponse@uk.tiscali.com

This email and its attachments are confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). This email and its attachments may also be privileged or protected by legal rules. If you have received this by mistake please let us know by reply immediately and destroy the email and its attachments without reading, copying or forwarding the contents.

If anyone requires the full horror, I'll gladly forward all emails. --Rodhull andemu 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was more?! Oh dear! That said, I'd be quite interested to know what was said - you should have my addy already :). ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 23:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much more, but it doesn't get any better. An executive summary would be "complain as much as you like, but we don't give a fucking toss; he pays and that's all we care about". --Rodhull andemu 23:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially that is all the ISPs care about really... if they actually bothered to do anything, he'd probably only get a few warnings before actually being removed! ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Disabled

I can't nominate it for deletion because creation by IPs is disabled. -- 92.17.56.95 (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if he's that offended, why doesn't he nominate it? And it's extremely unlikely that it would be deleted unless there were WP:BLP concerns. I prefer not to work in the dark with my hands tied behind my back, if that's all right with you. --Rodhull andemu 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, and I am not him. The accused user will do it himself. I'm finished here. -- 92.17.56.95 (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Permission

Hey Rodhullandemu,

I would like your permission to use this quote, "The defendant must be functionally unaware that his actions are legally wrong at the time of the offense to satisfy this requirement", from the McNaughton Rules Wiki page. I appreciate your response.

Thank you 38.102.244.86 (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, since all written content here is licensed under GFDL, you don't need permission as long as you attribute Wikipedia- and I'm not sure I wrote that part anyway. --Rodhull andemu 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening?

In the middle of editing, I found myself suddenly blocked. I am not sure why you did it. What is happening? I have never been close to being a vandal!! --Natsubee (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the subject of a thread at AN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, check out User_talk:62.30.249.131 apparently all Virgin Media traffic now goes through one IP address and not surprisingly that will include loads of editors vandals and editors alike. So its nothing personal Natsubee. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Rodhull andemu 16:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock of IP

Hi Rodhullandemu, could you lift the autoblock on the IP address that User:Jonnyh93 used. I also share this IP, and considering he only made 7 disruptive edits it seems a bit much to block the IP? Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Rodhull andemu 16:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Jack (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jonnyh93

He is not caught in an autoblock. He is the reason for the autoblock. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do re-block him, them please make sure you don't autoblock everyone else on Virgin. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise; my psychic powers are a little below par today. --Rodhull andemu 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod you should be onstage with wit like this. — Realist² 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your input

Could use your input regarding this disruption (and this language/behavior) by Shutterbug (talk · contribs). Please also see related AE thread (could use your input there as well). Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are also now using a sock account (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS) to disrupt and add an attack site/unreliable source back in to the article [2]. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice, these accounts should most certainly not be acting in concert on these particular articles in this fashion. Warnings would be pointless as this point in time, as this organization/these account(s) are already well aware of this, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Cirt (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the best time for me, 11pm on a Friday evening, and it's been a bad day all round but I have asked Shutterbug for an explanation of the blanking. Depending on his response, I will decide what to do next. --Rodhull andemu 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize the timing and I apologize. But I thank you for looking into it. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reply by Shutterbug (talk · contribs) wholly ignores the fact that he was disruptive by adding back in a source to a "free web" hosting site that is both a dubious site and an attack site. And Misou (talk · contribs) (read: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS) participated in conjunction with the other sock to re-add it back in, again. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to look into the detail, just the first link you sent me. It's far too complicated for me to manage at present, however if this is a hot edit war I will gladly fully-protect all relevant articles for a short while until the AE & CU threads have been evaluated, say 48 hours; this maintains the status quo (rightly or wrongly) until it all falls out of the bottom; I add that I would only do this reluctantly to allow the dust to settle. Let me know if this is useful, otherwise, I would think a "more eyes" thread on WP:AN might be a better way forward. My judgement is not currently as sharp as it might be. --Rodhull andemu 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes might be the better way to go. For now I am doing a bit more research. Thank you for your help. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am the Walrus

Hi Rodhullandemu. Since you know more about The Beatles than any admin I have encountered, I wonder if you could take a look at an ANI report I made about original research, POV, and personal attacks here. My comments on the anon's talk page are here, and you can look at the edit summary comments in the edit history of I Am the Walrus. I'm not necessarily asking for any admin action on your part unless you feel that it is appropriate. But I would welcome your opinion on the matter, either at the ANI report, the anon's talk page, or here. Thanks very much. Ward3001 (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it. I agree, this sort of nonsense should not be allowed. But if I remove it, I can't then use admin tools in relation to the article. I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhull andemu 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I posted messages on the article's talk page and on WT:BEATLES. I've only made two reverts, but I'm going to wait for 24 hours after my last edit, then remove the passage with a note to discuss on the talk page. If a consensus emerges to include the passage it can be restored. Thanks again. Ward3001 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, although there's no "allowance" as such under WP:3RR, it's the fourth revert that triggers that policy. --Rodhull andemu 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. And I've only made two so far. But I'm just playing it safe to avoid anything close to edit warring. Now that I've posted info on the talk pages I think one more revert on my part a little later today is appropriate. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cotton

I just put in that reference because the official spoilers hadn't been updated, I've changed it now Alex250P (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but digitalspy is a reliable source. I've referenced the OFFICIAL spoiler page not the forum it includes pictures etc. Alex250P (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that looks better. --Rodhull andemu 18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

79.97.111.90 (talk · contribs)

Here we go again... wonder how long it'll be before they are blocked again. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 22:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was mainly giving an FYI, but thanks anyway - one more vandal down (for a month anyway...) ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 22:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Given the history, and a fixed IP address for one user, about 8 minutes. We can celebrate Christmas without him. --Rodhull andemu 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still a few more days to go before then though! ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 22:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Re: this, what's the process for an anon that has only made 4 edits, all within a 10 min period, and all ~~very mildly amusing rubbish~~ vandalism? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd normally revert and warn, then report to WP:AIV if they continue past a level 4 warning; in this case they seem to have stopped before this can happen. Over 6 hours ago so not much we can do now. HTH. --Rodhull andemu 13:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time...

Hi Rod, are you still open to providing a short nomination here. I've decided to bite the bullet so to speak. Any comment would be appreciated. It's going live on Saturday-ish. Best, — Realist² 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure 3 co-noms is going to go down well, but I would keep it short and to the point. Balloonman & Iridescent have said most of it already. I'll put a draft and you can remove it if you're not happy. It will be an interesting RfA anyway, and I wish you all the best with it. --Rodhull andemu 18:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman said 2 is best but 3 is OK. I feel you know me very well and respect your input, even if short and sweet :-) It sure will be interesting and thank you for the good luck wishes. — Realist² 18:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, that's great. — Realist² 18:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jane Couch

On 7 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jane Couch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

DYKBot (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear sirs

whoever you think you are, I am not the one you are looking for, I am just an ordinary reader of this homepage, looking into it from time to time. it appears to me that someone uses my IP address to put inapproriate notes. I have never ever written any note here and not have any intention to do so. please investigate the case yourself. yours faithfully, rene regal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.145.139 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon Joke Sorry, it was a joke. I was making a basic change to grammar and forgot to take out the joke part.71.41.126.43 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.126.43 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what would be cool?

You, stopping your weird answer-questions-for-jimbo thing on his talk page. That would be cool. I know you want to piggyback on his fame for some time in the spotlight, but you're really just embarrassing yourself. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.121.61 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wiki. Editing is open to all. If you don't like my opinions, don't read them. That's all. --Rodhull andemu 06:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rian13

Hi Just thought you should know that Rian13 is beginning to fall back into her bad habits again. I've urged her to think again and hope it works. Cheers. Paul Largo (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paul, I noticed her recent return and have left her a last and final warning. --Rodhull andemu 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion

Could I get your opinion on these edits: 1, 2. Do they qualify as trivia or do they show (as I think) that a company decided to add a Wikipedia page verbatim to it's corporate website instead of writing it's own information? Trying to clear up a non-consensus backed dispute. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 10, 2008 @ 00:19

To be honest, not keen on "interestingly", because that is a non-neutral assessment. They are entitled to copy our text as long as they attribute it, that's allowed under GFDL. If they don't acknowledge us as a source, they should be asked to, and I can't put my finger right on the way of doing this right now because it's late here for me. Paradoxically, our text is most likely originally sourced from their own PR material, creating a somewhat circular debate, but for now, it can probably wait. Please catch me tomorrow if it's still an issue. --Rodhull andemu 00:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie, thanks for taking the time to look into it. Have a Good Evening :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 10, 2008 @ 00:44

Rodhullandemu, when you get around to it, do you think you could address whether or not you believe that this statement belongs in the article? That is the crux of the dispute here. Neutralhomer believes that, while trivia, it belongs in the article. Others (it has been removed four times now by four separate users) believe that it is unnecessary trivia. Your input would be appreciated, either way (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its encyclopedic value, or lack of, struck me while I was away doing something else. My test is "What does this assertion/information/edit add to our understanding of the topic at hand?" Unless that fact in itself is notable, my inclination is to treat it as trivial. So a radio station pinched info from our article? Sorry, that's the Internet, and it happens all the time. It would be different if this grew into a plagiarism issue, but I don't see that happening. The GFDL issue of using our content is different, however. --Rodhull andemu 01:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of relation to famous people

Just out of curiosity, let's say (hypothetically of course) that I'm, oh, Angelina Jolie's sister. (For anyone reading this, yes I do know Angelina Jolie doesn't have a sister - that's why it's hypothetical.) Let's say I go through proper Wikipedia channels and prove this beyond a doubt to the proper Wikipedia authorities. What happens then? Obviously WP:COI comes into play. Is my account (assuming I choose a username) marked as a relative of the actress? Am I allowed to say, add what college she - okay, her kids - are attending, without being fact-checked? I know WP has a list of famous people who have edited their own article, but what about relatives? If any famous relatives are "out" here on Wikipedia and editing their relatives' articles, are they generally well-respected? RainbowOfLight ^Talk 03:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this happens but have not seen it. There would be no point identifying as such, because any information added to articles would still be subject to policies such as WP:V and WP:OR. Remember that when we look for notability, we require "multiple independent reliable sources", and a close relative would not be regarded as independent. We generally avois self-published sources for the same reason. Having said that, WP:COI is a guideline and not a policy, so has some tolerance. In the case to which I think you are referring, that article and its subject has been something of a problem, and per WP:BLP, we should resist any inclusion of improperly-sourced personal information wherever it claims to come from. HTH. --Rodhull andemu 13:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that in said article we should avoid including that person's information. I was just curious about it on a general level as well. Thanks. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 05:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IWF/blocking/filtering

Can I just point out that I don't have any objection to providing objective sources for the block. The problem is that there are none!! When the block was first placed a week ago, it was between 2 - 3 days before there was any public comment on the issue (media releases). Discussion on the issue was very slow, and it was almost after a fourth day before the problem became widely known about. The delay was caused by the lack of working hours over the weekend.

But having agreed to reverse the block, why should it be re-instated?? And for how long will it continue?? What if the block is in place over Christmas?? That would mean a delay of up to 14 days before any remedial steps might be taken (OK, there might likely be wider awareness of it before then). What I'm trying to say is, at what point should an issue move from being unsourced to sourced?? Well afterwards, or whilst it's still in progress??

It would be a lot less of an issue if administrators had more understanding of the issues!! That's not to criticise administrators, but all I (and many others) could see was a talk page that didn't belong to any of us. This demonstrates that there is an event in progress.

Why not qualify the statement, add a rider that the block may not be entirely removed, or something similar?? It cannot be allowed to rest for days and days, simply because no office has made a public statement on the issue. (Kreb (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

this section here is supposed to reflect our current knowledge of the situation. If you have any specific knowledge of which ISPs are still blocked, or have reblocked, that is the place to inform. However, given the volume of media interest in this matter, we cannot afford to make accusations without something, even if it is our editors' own experience. This is verifiable by any other user of the same ISP. And, er, some Admins are very tech savvy and understand the situation; we do have one or two Admins in the UK, you know. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 19:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. BTW, I wasn't suggesting there was anything wrong with the admins., but it always seems like it's the non-UK admins that impose the blocks first!! That, and the fact that the IP is temporarily shared by thousands of writers, so has a disporportionate effect. Pity that they're not always able to check the admin. noticeboard, perhaps. (Kreb (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Alvaro Arbeloa

Hi. Im still new to editing wikipedia and wondered why you changed my edit on the alvaro arbeloa page? I dont mean to get at you I just want to know what was wrong with it to avoid that sort of thing again. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acidulantes (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalar

Jamalar seems to be playing with IP's again and not in a good way. I'm reverting at light speed. — Realist² 16:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have stopped for now, but I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhull andemu 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Na, this is Jamalar more fired up than ever, infact . — Realist² 16:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rian13

Hi
I was about to warn User:Rian13 for his misuse of fair use images here and here when I noticed that he has been warned and blocked for same issues a number of times. Since you gave him a bolded last and final warning and are familiar with the user I'm bringing this to you directly.
Cheers, Amalthea 21:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, he's a she. I keep an occasional eye on her but I'll look at these and block if necessary; bearing in mind she's recently come off a six month block, during which time she sock-puppeted, I think it's about time to say goodbye to her. --Rodhull andemu 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a year. Enough is enough. --Rodhull andemu 21:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Amalthea 21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterfield

I had the impression I did not need to give an edit summary as the "undo" page says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." However, if you are happy to sort it out, please carry on. Thanks. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you didn't leave an edit summary; and I'm not happy to sort it out, because I have other things to do. The editor is clearly able, because he produced a new, properly wiki-linked section in one edit. all it needed was a reliable source. So goes the rest of my evening. Hum. --Rodhull andemu 22:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain what I thought. Here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism is says "If you see vandalism on a list of changes (such as your watchlist), then revert it immediately. You may use the "undo" button (and the automatic edit summary it generates), and mark the change as minor. It may be helpful to check the page history to determine whether other recent edits by the same or other editors also represent vandalism. Repair all vandalism you can identify." Now what I thought I was doing was You may use the "undo" button (and the automatic edit summary it generates) and my reading was that I did not need to leave another edit summary in addition. The undo page also seems to say this. Was I wrong? Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification: I'm not dealing with this article any further, so as you are not happy to, I guess it is staying like that for the moment. And did I do something to your evening?? I'm confused by that sentence, and I very much hope not! DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an auto edit summary of "Undid...", but that only explains what you've done and not why. And it wasn't vandalism, which is "a bad faith attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". But for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and the editor you may have frightened off, I will now see if I can Goggle a source for his edit. If not, I'll put a {{cn}} on it, which is something you could have done rather than revert without leaving an explanatory edit summary. Meanwhile, vandalism will continue happening while I'm doing that. I am also disillusioned, bitter and knackered, but I also believe in going the extra mile for the benefit of "the sum total of human knowledge". Sleep well. --Rodhull andemu 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod, I will. Cheers. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a chance to look at it in detail, I sincerely doubt that an extension of the Northern Line would reach as far as Chesterfield, and it is in fact vandalism. An edit summary, ever "Rvv" sould have helped. I'll now nuke that edit. Serves me right for trying to do eight things at once. --Rodhull andemu 22:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

_David ^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message!

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs, 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Sampson

When I did my rewrite, I dug up all the sources I could find, but I didn't find enough about the BGT tour which is kind of a major omission. Is this something you can fix?- Mgm|^(talk) 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have access to any better sources than you; if it's out there and reliable, use it. --Rodhull andemu 23:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:77.99.105.58

Hey there- I noticed you blocked 77.99.105.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely. Is there any particular reason for this? Per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Was this a mistake? Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably meant to be 31 hours, but it's been dam' busy for a Tuesday evening. Leave it with me. --Rodhull andemu 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recipe etc

You said on User talk:S. Dean Jameson "if you have a recipe for three sausages, four bananas and some onions, I could do with it, because it's all I currently have in my fridge". Well you might have eaten now but my suggestion would've been to fry the sausages with the onions, if you have some bread to eat them with then even more yum. As to the bananas- cook them, they go sweet and tasty, even nicer if you have a bit of sugar to sprinkle on them, that could make a very basic version of this simple treat.[3] There you are- two courses. Hope this helps.:) As to SDJ, I've warned him against badgering in the past, and others advised him against it as he was doing it to opposes on the arb voting pages. Sticky Parkin 02:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated appreciation

What I said to Balloonman applies to you too, thank you. — Realist² 17:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request Notification

Hello, Rodhullandemu/Archive! A user you have blocked, Mezarapper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for AWB approval

User5802 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Clarkson edit

Sorry for my mistake regarding Jeremy Clarkson. What I changed was what I took for fact. I had heard it from another source and seen it on his page so I assumed it to be true. I went back to the page and it was gone, so I put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twalker94 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterfield revisited

Hi Rod

I was left somewhat angry and upset the other night after my encounter with you over Chesterfield. I hope not to bore you with my opinions of this incident in detail but there were a couple of things I was wondering, the first of which was whether you were considering apologizing to me? Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do apologise for misunderstanding that you were reverting vandalism, because the edits looked perfectly formed and initially plausible to me; your edit summary did not say that you were reverting vandalism, or indeed, anything. On that, I was mistaken. The problem with automated tools, as you point out, is that they give you a default edit summary of "Undid...." and without more, three such summaries in quick succession without an additional "Rvv" even, may look like vandalism itself. When you deal with the volume of vandals that I do, it can sometimes be difficult to tell which is which. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Rodhull andemu 13:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rod, that's very kind, and honestly is much appreciated. Thank you. You've actually thought ahead of me and gone on to my other point, which is the use of edit summaries. My confusion here is that neither the page that "Undo" lands you on, nor the page about vandalism, seem to require any further edit summary. They are both quite clear, one (as far as I recall) implicitly and the other explicitly, that if you're just reverting vandalism then you can just use the default that the tool provides. Now, having thought about it I see that I might have been able to avoid this unpleasantness had I used a more descriptive edit summary, but it seems unfortunate to me as a (relatively) inexperienced editor that I have to second-guess the system and do something which it seems to make clear isn't required. So there seems to me to be a mismatch between what you're saying is correct/helpful/whatever and what is actually required. To avoid any kind of repetition I can see that it would be better if I did provide more of an edit summary (if I remember!) but I wonder also whether the instructions to editors should not be changed, in those two places at least, so that we are all clear about what is a useful approach? Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Undo is that it's frequently used in edit-warring, so tends to raise a red flag. That's why edit-summaries are encouraged, however, the defaults can be less than informative. It's more helpful to recent changes patrollers to see "revert vandalism", or "Rvv", than just "Undo". I'll take a look at the instructions and see if they need clarification. --Rodhull andemu 16:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - all is now clear: thank you very much. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaz Glitter

I took that photo actually, and sold it to the Sun. I own the rights to it. Er, who the hell are you anyway? Traumatised (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Administrator here and as such responsible for the proper application of policy and in particular issues that can affect the Wikimedia Foundation's legal liability. Now, if you retained any rights to that image, I wonder why are News International claiming all rights to it on The Sun webpage? Perhaps you could take that up with them. Also, if you own the original image, why did you not upload it to Commons as a copyright-free image, and why is it lacking Metadata such as make and model of camera, exposure time, etc, or even a Photoshop tag? Additionally, the name under which you uploaded it is not the sort of filename that would be applied by anyone outside the photo-journalism indistry, and I would have thought that its owner would have given it a more easily understandable name. In the meantime, and pending an explanation of these issues, I am unwilling to allow that image on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request Notification

Hello, Rodhullandemu/Archive! A user you have blocked, Traumatised (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BBHS sock

Thanks for the Question44 block. Remember to tweak it because he abuses his talk page. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as WP:AGF I was going to ask him on his talk page to elaborate, but since it's BBHS, and consensus is strongly against an unblock, so be it. --Rodhull andemu 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. He's a prolific sock-er. It's unfortunate and disappointing, to say the least. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 23:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block refactored. He can do good content, as he said, but his attitude sucks. "Not wanted on voyage", as they say. --Rodhull andemu 23:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]