User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/19

Need to know

To save you asking,

Date Autolinking is now deprecated per consensus here

Image placeholders are now deprecated per consensus here

Why did I get this message?

Hi. If nasty stuff like that in relation to Brooke Shields belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it belongs in the sandbox. Good job her lawyers didn't see it, and good job you reverted yourself, otherwise you would by now be blocked. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I went to Wikipedia today (29 January 2009) and received a notification that I had new messages. When I clicked it, I saw a welcome and this message. I did not edit the page for Brooke Shields at any point. Why did I receive this message?

It claims my IP is 142.167.174.188. I have a dynamic IP address, if that means anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.174.188 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses tend to get assigned to different users, so the message was not necessarily intended for you. In that case, you have nothing to worry about, and may delete that message. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 17:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - January 2009 Issue

Summary: We lead with the exciting news that we are now recognised as Wikimedia UK by the Wikimedia Foundation. This means that we can shortly open a bank account and approve membership applications. Planning is also underway for a new website and for the upcoming Annual General Meeting. Meanwhile, we continue to support Wikipedia Loves Art, which will launch on 1st February and the bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford, and bring news of recent and upcoming meet-ups.

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.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Peter Falk

First, thanks for the reply to my question. Makes perfect sense. I had not thought of that - great point, and I applaud your integrity. I guess admins are admins for a reason ;) ...Ched (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page edits

That was a legitimate edit, i researched those awards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.149.147 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, congratulations. But it's original research and not supported by a reliable source. Don't put them back, OK. --Rodhull andemu 16:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Grwp

Hmm, maybe. I suggested that since they're taking it too far. If they really did deliberate privacy violations, it might be a good reason for us to report those who are responsible. The Internet may be an open place, but that doesn't mean it's OK to fool around there, right? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, Grwp has been able to tunnel through our processes so far; that's one weakness of an open editing model. However, this will not continue; the openness of Internet works both ways, you know. --Rodhull andemu 04:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bradenstoke Abbey

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bradenstoke Abbey, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syd Barrett

User:Rodhullandemu, I appreciate your diligence on this article. As I mentioned in my last edit comment, Waters does say exactly this. Check out the reference I added to Pink Floyd The Wall (film) for verification.

From http://www.megapinkfloyd.com/band_members_syd-barrett.asp:

"Barrett had one noted reunion with the members of Pink Floyd in 1975 during the recording sessions for Wish You Were Here. Barrett attended the Abbey Road session unannounced, and watched the band record "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" — as it happened, a song about him. By that time, Barrett had become quite overweight, had shaved off all of his hair, including his eyebrows, and his ex-bandmates did not at first recognise him (one of the photographs in Nick Mason's book Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd appears to have been taken that day; it is captioned simply: Syd Barrett, 5th June 1975). Eventually, they realised who he was and Roger Waters was so distressed that he was reduced to tears. A reference to this reunion appears in the film Pink Floyd The Wall (1982), where the character 'Pink,' played by Bob Geldof, shaves off his eyebrows (and body hair) after succumbing to the pressures of life and fame."

Also, you'll find the same information on the Biography channel segment on Syd Barrett. Thanks CassiasMunch (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that your first reference has at the bottom "Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"; that makes the source self-referential and it can't be used for obvious reasons. Do you have a link to the second source? --Rodhull andemu 14:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://lifechums.com/2008/09/23/schizophrenia-series-disabled-legend-syd-barrett/

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/11/06/143831.php

The incident and subsequent inspiration for the film was also mentioned in 2001 BBC Omnibus documentary "Syd Barrett", Biography Channel, Nick Mason’s book Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd and others, including several interviews. CassiasMunch (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First reference is little more than an uncredited lift from our own article, my plagiarism detected rated it as 95% similar, and mostly all that is missing are the headings, references, and proper attribution; however, thanks for pointing out the unattributed use of our work. The second reference, I have a problem with because of its very name- how can we be sure that this is a reliable source? What reputation does it have for fact-checking? However, even given that your other, uncited, sources may be correct, that does not make The Wall in any way an hommage to Syd. As pointed out already, The Wall is open to interpretation; if "Pink", when he shaves his eyebrows, is reflecting Syd, what is he doing when he becomes a fascist rabble-rouser? Sorry, but I do think you'll need a little more, per this to make a substantial case. --Rodhull andemu 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the two documentaries from notable sources and Mason's book aren't sufficient? CassiasMunch (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that; but if Syd was the whole inspiration for The Wall, which is very much Roger Waters' project, you'd think it would be flagged up somewhere rather than being relegated to a reference to the one incident being used in the film. If you can scan the relevant page from Mason's book and email it to me (although he only lives about ten miles away from me, I can't just pop round there and ask him), I'd be happy; alternatively, if you want to provide a cite to the book per {{cite book}}, I'm sure other editors would take it on board. --Rodhull andemu 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, wow, cool, you live close to Nick Mason. I'll explore the cite book option, would be good practice :) Thanks for the help/direction on this, very much appreciated CassiasMunch (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arnfieldroad

Considering his disruption I'm personally not prepared to take any chances with his "contributions". Could you take a look at what he is doing, he doesn't have many edits, most of them are quite inappropriate. — R ² 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this develop; he was actually right about Willard White and the RNCM, it's just that his reference didn't appear because there was no {{reflist}}. His references for the other guy were poor, and could have been improved. however, when he reverts my attempt to help him and doesn't reply to my question, I have little sympathy, and was going to block him for 48h, but Toddst got to him first. If he starts up again tomorrow, he's toast. --Rodhull andemu 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bogarde

Hello,

I was looking looking looking for the "add citation" button, but to no avail. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I'm a stickler for detail myself!

Best

kellyeoin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyeoin (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; WP:CITE links to most of the templates you'll need. For your references {{cite book}} would seem to be the one to use. Ask me anytime. --Rodhull andemu 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Griffin

Please do not make assumption about what people read. And please do not put your opinions of what other people edits. Yours opinions on these two occasions are wrong and without foundation.

The photograph of Nick Griffin in the article showed someone with black hair and eye-brows, and the colour of his face was, well, brown. His features could easily be that of a mixed-race person, or someone from southern Europe or Turkey or the Middle East. 86.166.122.209 (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. If you were actually trying to confirm my prejudices of you, you could not have achieved it with any more aplomb than you have in the above text. Well done. Meanwhile, if you have any spare time, I suggest you familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines here, and if you wish, I can personally arrange for you to have that spare time, away from here. That's up to you. --Rodhull andemu 01:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your world, and the world of Griffin is filled with prejudices, which you want to carry over into Wikipedia. 86.164.57.255 (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} You go first, and show you ain't got those prejudices. Can't be done. I edit here on the basis of our policies. You don't. End of. --Rodhull andemu 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can't be done? 86.134.236.70 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking a match on a piece of soap? --Rodhull andemu 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV commercials on Tesco page

Just a note to acknowledge your removal of my edit to the Tesco page, which consisted of adding a link to an archive of the supermarket's TV commercials. Apologies to Wikipedia as it hadn't occurred to me that there might be a copyright problem, and thank you to you for addressing the issue so promptly.

Regards.

Tellyads (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olegar Fedoro

Hi, Rodhullandemu! I am LucDan the manager of Mr Olegar Fedoro. The files on YouTube have been created by us. They are related to the films Mr Olegar Fedoro worked on so all the producers of the films are happy with the fact that we made and display those files. Thank you for your advice. Could you please restore the changes I made today. Many thanks in advance, LucDun/Aafilms4 Aafilms4 (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Moore

Hello! Please reconsider as I have found a number of sources and have begun revising the article accordingly. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's worth pointing this out at the AfD, but it's now in the hands of the community to decide what happens to the article. --Rodhull andemu 18:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and I will after I make some additional changes. I hope that you will reconsider your stance there and allow us more time to improve. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea to point this out to the closing Admin, who may well extend time for discussion as a result. I'll keep an eye on it, however. --Rodhull andemu 18:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a comment in the AfD and added some more sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make Compatible

Have an article to enjoy! Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External link,

I have been trying to add a fan site called alancarronline to Alan Carr's page. but you remove it and have now blocked me.

I am friends with Alan and he allows me to run a Fan site along side his official site.

I am not spamming, I only have Alans interests at heart. I often check that nothing bad is put on the page

Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neillsteps (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the messages not clear or numerous enough? WP:ELNO- we do not link to fan forums. And evading a block is itself worthy of blocking. Please take some time to get used to our policies here; you've only had three months so far. --Rodhull andemu 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well then maybe I will stop using your site and spread the word in all the websites that I run not to use the site. I will of course tell other people how crap it is, you do not know what line of work i'm in that allows me to do this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neillsteps (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and its not a forum, its a site that gives News, Tour dates and other useful information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neillsteps (talk • contribs) 15:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete my comments on my talk page. You've been warned for spamming as long ago as March last year, and again since December last year. Not once have you explained your website to anyone, as advised in messages on your talk page. That's not the level of cooperation we expect from contributors here. And we do not exist for promotional purposes. --Rodhull andemu 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not deleted any of your messages.

Also I have only recently set this website up so where you get March last year from I don't know

I find you a very rude and nasty individual —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neillsteps (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then I know I am doing my job properly. Thank you very much. --Rodhull andemu 15:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ka-block!

Wow, that[1] was fast. Not that I mind, mind. Thanks. ~~SIS~~ 17:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is such a fragile concept, and can be thrown away on a first edit. --Rodhull andemu 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ohhhh.

OK, I apologize. I thought it was just some really bad spelling haha. KP McZiggy ^{(they talk 2 me)} 21:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for the AWB permissions ;) — Ched (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Quite right here. It's a poor habit to direct all one's meagre critical faculties to the status quo without considering the possible deficiencies of the "improvement". Good thing one of us was looking both ways. Cheers, Skomorokh 15:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a vision for relevant subheadings, and it includes "Early life" covering parents, birthplace, and schooling, if these can be sourced. Also to be dealt with, of course, is the Apple computers issue, and this is on BAILLI, at least, the mediator's judgement is. --Rodhull andemu 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CofJ

You are correct that the other user did not inform me of the discussion. The non-registered user also identified me as having an affiliation with the Community of Jesus. This is false. I agree with the statements in the US and Canadian media that state that the Community of Jesus is a "cult". Therefore I take offence to non-registered user stating that I am affiliated to that organisation. My choice of name was for lack of imagination in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CofJ (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read nothing into your username; it might just as well stand for "College of Journalism" as far as I'm concerned. I have marked the WP:AN thread as a content dispute and outside the remit of Admins at present; the two of you can always seek dispute resolution if you can't agree, but this should take place on the talk page of the relevant article. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 16:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CofJ has edited the article Community of Jesus numerous times (Special:Contributions/CofJ) and is now deleting sourced material, without explanation, on the controversial activities of Baroness Cox. This is an unacceptable situation. --84.69.58.145 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI on a user banned for years

Hi Rod -- I just noticed this. This user is the "George Reeves Person"; please look at this deleted page and this deleted page. Note who deleted them and why. About once a month I check for sockpuppets and shut down his ranges again; he's a long-term pest, with a spectacular history of real-life harassment of various people on the project. The same thing seems to happen every time: he comes back after a brief absence, adds incomprehensible and ungrammatical bits of fluff to articles on chess, sports, Eastern European politics, or some other subject, and then collides with someone who reverts him, calls that person a vandal, causes a lot of time wastage as one user or another attempts to persuade him to be civil and abide by policy, and then he gets blocked again, typically acquiring yet another sockmaster tag. In reality it's just one disruptive user with hundreds of throwaway accounts. We've been blocking him since 2005, and he's been blocked or banned on many other language Wikipedias as well as Commons. Best, Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; I haven't encountered this guy except recently, although he hasn't edited with that account in nearly six weeks. I can't really block him without a CU, though, since it just may not be him. However, I'm sure if it is, we will know soon enough. --Rodhull andemu 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Submarine Blue Meanies

Hi, my reference for their color being red was from from Bilboard 1999, The Hidden Stories Behind Yellow Submarine by Robert R. Hieronimus, Ph.D http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/NP-10-01-99.html.html amongst others, which indicates: "THE BLUE MEANIES Who were the Blue Meanies spoofing? There are almost as many theories as there are Meanies, but the general consensus among the artists and writers who created the film is that they stood for a composite of all the bad guys in the world. Producer Al Brodax says the Chief Blue Meanie's profile resembled that of his Production Coordinator, Abe Goodman. Art Director Heinz Edelmann designed most of the Meanies over a weekend and remembers intending them to be red, only to discover too late his assistant had painted them blue by accident. Millicent McMillan, the assistant, on the other hand, distinctly remembers Edelmann asking her what she thought of purple meanies, and that she had suggested blue, which pleased him."

Regards, Aggrav8r (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, looks like a reliable source. --Rodhull andemu 19:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod, Thanks. Are you OK with me putting this back in then (I'll try to make it clearer). regards,Aggrav8r (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I thought you'd already done it! --Rodhull andemu 19:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

british isles

Whenever I get smarmy about the eastern Europeans/balkans editors tiredly thrashing out their nationalist prejudices I remember the absolute pain of when I edited Cornwall related subjects; the arguments of whether the county should be included as part of England or the United Kingdom - we settled on the "compromise that no-one likes" of including both. An area I have avoided on WP is "The Troubles" where again nationalist/republic factions warred over how the political landscape was described. I try not to get involved, being a Brit who takes pride in his mongrelism, and I do pass on that advice to all who may yet get entangled (no matter how well intentioned). Facts lose out over The Truth every time in these battles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I find these nationalistic debates unconstructive, and whereas I know that history is always written by the winners, and usually later rewritten, I don't think geography is up for grabs in that way. --Rodhull andemu 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an element of politics to even geography, especially when it comes to the naming of things. I try to stay well clear, but sometimes it will trip you up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I read with some amusement the Arb case about Liancourt Rocks (which I thought originally to be some sort of slogan): utter waste of resources. --Rodhull andemu 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

Volume 5, Issue 7

Weekly Delivery

2009-02-16

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Tennant awards

Hi, Apologies if this is not the right etiquette (I am relatively new to wikipedia) but I want to defend my changes (and I am reinstating them anyway). Whatsonstage Theatregoer awards: I didn't have time to put up the source, which I will put now, BBC News (and several other mainstream papers, Guardian etc). These sources should be enough to convince you that the award is notable enough for wikipedia. Besides, if Michael Grandage (artistic director of the Donmar and about the most notable theatre director in the UK), Greg Doran (director with the Royal Shakesepare Ccompany), Eddie Lizzard care enough to show up at the ceremony to pick up their awards and Kenneth Branagh, Josh Hartnett, Neil LaBut send acceptance speeches, I would think it’s important enough for a mention.

On the other hand, on the awards list for David Tennant, there is a mention that he topped the Most Eligible Men List in Scotland on Sunday in 2007. Not an award. It warrants a mention for popularity maybe, but not an award.

Hope this is enough to convince you. I am trying to sort out some actors' pages who have too much fluff stuff and not enough referenced serious information. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notmetheother (talk • contribs) 12:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've no problem with that. --Rodhull andemu 12:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Bratz angel14

Hi

I noticed that you had previous dealings with this user and wondered if you could advise me.

I went and had a look at the contribs. once I spotted some unusual editing on the Obama page, namely adding brackets to dates yesterday.

After following some of the edits and looking at chat history of the user I started to feel a little concerned that I might be out of my depth with this one and again after I tagged a couple of images that I thought were not licensed only to see the user has blanked their talk page again.

I do not wish to appear stalkery or invasive so I thought it best to ask someone else whether anything should be done such as watching them more or if I am maybe being a bit bitey.

Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a while since I warned her, but will keep an eye on things. She's entitled, generally, to delete talk page messages, but, er, that doesn't make the problem go away. Perhaps she doesn't realise this. --Rodhull andemu 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder if it was deliberate or not, but it just looks like "she" wanted to put some nice images on there and maybe didn't know about the license issue

Thanks for having a look --Chaosdruid (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello - I don't believe we've encountered one another on Wikipedia before, so I hope you don't mind me popping up out of nowhere and asking for help! I'm asking this of you specifically because I have the Torchwood article watchlisted, and often see your name attached to reversions of IP editors attempting to delete Mori & Burn from the cast list because of their characters' in-universe deaths. I've had the unfortunate experience of being accosted by a rather hostile editor who is intent on removing two main cast members from the Criminal Minds infobox, instead only mentioning those who star in the current series. I could understand if this was a show with a massive cast turnover, but the fact is there have only been 9 leading characters throughout its entire run. The opposing editor maintains that the two departed cast members can only be added to the infobox once the show is off air. My query is, while I'm sure the MOS for Fiction supports the stance it is wrong to slant the article towards current events only - is there a particular section that is specifically relevant to this situation, which I might try and use to convince the other editor? Having read it through three times now, I'm struggling to pull out a particular quote or paragraph which would aid my position. Honestly, it seems like common sense to me, but then I'm sure the other editor feels similarly about his POV... My apologies, you can probably tell that conciseness is not really my forte, but any suggestion you can give me would be very much appreciated. :) Frickative 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's a perennial thorn in sides. The key here, I think, is not writing "in-universe"; I don't think infoboxes should be written to represent the current situation of their subject, because that is not what an encyclopedia is meant to be; certainly, printed ones don't, but just because we are a highly reactive medium, doesn't imply that we should become a news service. The {{Infobox television}} template doesn't give any guidance as to what "starring" means, probably quite rightly. But to take one example, it would be silly to add everyone who has ever starred in "Coronation Street" to the infobox, but then there is a list of previous characters; but when a programme has limited scope, such as "Torchwood", I don't see a problem with adding all the stars to the infobox. As a middle-ground solution, I think the "Doctor Who" infobox is a good way of handling the issue. In general, I think removing actors and their main characters from infoboxes to represent an "in-universe" perspective is not to be recommended; the infobox represents a topic from an external, i.e. our, or a reader's, perspective, but also represents the article subject as a summary across its lifetime. Hope that helps. --Rodhull andemu 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That helps a great deal. I definitely agree with your take on the matter, though I suspect you've explained it far more eloquently than I could have managed. It seems as though avoiding an in-universe perspective is the key issue at hand, which should definitely be defensible in discussion from a guideline perspective. Thanks once again! Frickative 02:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karma

Well, no actually karma is a spiritual/religious concept and korma is a mild curry.--AbilityAgility (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHOOSH!!! --Rodhull andemu 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees of Murder in the United States

I see that you revered my edits regarding the degrees of murder in United States. The so-called "first scheme" in the article is said to be based upon the degrees of murder as they exist in Pennsylvania (and other states). However, what is currently listed is not the law in PA, which is why I made the edits that I did. Specifically, second degree murder in Pennsylvania is not simply a non-premeditated killing, but rather, is "felony murder," that is, murder committed while a defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. Previously, the state legislature did define the degrees of murder is a fashion similar to what is currently seen in the "Murder" entry, but it has been over 30 years since the law existed in that fashion. I would refer to to section 2502 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code for more information.

I do not see what OJ Simpson and his various run-ins with the law has to do with the matter, and in the interest of providing correct information, I intend to restore my changes. 71.60.106.168 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the latter point, and apologise if my reversions inadvertently removed your constructive edits; that was not my intention. However, a citation to the relevant Code would be useful, as it is mandated by verifiability policy. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 23:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Citation added!--71.60.106.168 (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Do you have any advise for what can be done about the recent events at Michael Jackson over this businessman issue. The objecting editor has started a request for comment and spoke to the FAC director about reassessing the articles featured states. This, along with POV pushing on the talk page of Tina Turner is causing a lot of editors stress (see my talk page). — R ² 00:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the RFC is defective, but I have commented on the Talk page. --Rodhull andemu 02:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I feel this editor is applying unnecessary pressure (the request for comments/threats of article reassessment) in an effort to make us...give in to his POV. — R ² 08:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

79.97.111.90 is socking again

Apparently from this new IP - 89.101.46.212 (talk · contribs) - which is registered in Ireland (big give away!) Created two accounts - Robertcoolh (talk · contribs) - which was indef blocked yesterday for vandalism, and now Robertcoolh Channel 911 Terrorist (talk · contribs), which is trolling on Abigail Clancy (and I've reported for an offensive username). ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 11:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable, and blocked for three months. --Rodhull andemu 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube video as a reference...

Hi.

If something is put into an article and the only source for it is a youtube video, is it OK to take it out of the article? Is a youtube video a reliable source? Example, Philip DeFranco. There was some stuff on there about another channel of his but the only source was his own video. That's not allowed right? Anyway I removed that section. --TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed this earlier, but I think you were right. --Rodhull andemu 02:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy in the Sky issue

I would appreciate your opinion at Talk:Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds#Written by whom? that might help avoid an edit war. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Walter Potter

On February 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walter Potter, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Goody

Hi there. Would you mind changing Tweed back to Goody on her article? If I do it again, I will be in violation of the three revert rule. The source provided by the person who keeps changing it is not saying what they claim it says. Sky83 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, it's actually not a 3RR issue since WP:BLP applies, and all you are doing is complying with that by removing "poorly-sourced information". However, if this continues, I will fully protect the article until this dies down, and have left an editors' note. --Rodhull andemu 18:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice you had replied to my message on here. It's a bit late for me to reply now, but just wanted to say thanks for your help :). Sky83 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. --Rodhull andemu 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna

I'm having a content dispute based on genre Talk:Rihanna#Genre. If you could interject, I would appreciate it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mel C

Hi, what was wrong with my edit re Mel's new baby - are you saying the BBC have it wrong? Many thanks 86.29.225.165 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It only needs to be in the article once, and it's already there. Hence my edit note. --Rodhull andemu 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I guess I need new glasses. 86.29.235.206 (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced, maybe, but true

Please see the following concerning Beckham's implants

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.makemeheal.com/news/images/victoria-beckham-breast-implants-3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://hollywoodactresswallpaper.blogspot.com/2008/04/victoria-beckham-biography-n-wallpapers.html&h=371&w=501&sz=79&tbnid=9LC0at6RefrmsM::&tbnh=96&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvictoria%2Bbeckham&hl=en&usg=__LnI8wlQ92OP4DXCBr-mxBeHrU64=&ei=by2jScL_D-KYjAeg8KzLCw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=9&ct=image&cd=1

http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16364773&method=full&siteid=93463&headline=exclusive--posh-admits-to-boob-job-name_page.html

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/beckham%20lied%20about%20breast%20implants

Professor J Lawrence (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat strangely, I have worked with Professors in my time, of Computer Science, Law, Social Policy, and Mathematics. The enduring influence I have drawn from those experiences, not least including my own PhD submission, is that these people understand reliable sources; now, unless you are a professor of Media Studies, which, so far, I doubt, you are unlikely to grasp the essential nature of an encyclopedia. Sorry if you've not understood this, but even Professors have limits; but they don't need to show them. --Rodhull andemu 23:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you could be at least a little polite

I found your message condescending, brief to the point of rudeness, threatening and pompous. You think your Paul Daniels remark funny (well, i imagine you do). Others might find it offensive. Whether it is offensive or funny or neither, I do think it jars with the tone/content of your email to me. If you wish to be taken seriously, then I would delete your "humour." Professor J W Osborn (a friend, and a little better qualified than you - Google him) was shocked when I showed him the email and your home page - but then he is a real academic. Sincerely JL

I haven't emailed you, for the simple reason that I don't want to waste time on you; sorry about that, but your edits don't give me any confidence that you understand what an encyclopedia is. --Rodhull andemu 23:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, concerning Ms Beckham

Returning to the Beckham problem - and only because my edit was recorded as vandalism - I presume you would have no objection to my reinserting the information with a couple of references? Of course, if you were to say that you would hunt me down and get me banned if I were to do so, then of course I would not attempt the new revision..

Best regards,

JL

Whatever; you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about me. So have many, in the past; few have continued to be constructive editors here and generally improved this encyclopedia. It's your choice whether you want to buck the trend, and I leave that up to you. Otherwise, to be blunt, I don't think we need your input. --Rodhull andemu 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question

1. If I resubmit the sentence that offended you, referencing The Telegraph, Guardian or Times, I presume you would not object or try to get me banned? 2. If you look at most of my edits, they are concerned with spelling or grammatical mistakes I spot or adding a Wikipedia link that might be useful or the insertion of a piece of information I judge more important that that already posted. I am not an editor, unlike you, I just add or correct snippets. 3. I was offended that you did not use a milder form of correction (ie correction with a note and a "Thank you" - instead preferring to use the vandalism definition. As the facts are, in fact, as I reported them (as you can see from the sources I sent you) I believe you have overstepped the limits in a very Captain Mainwaringish fashion. I do realise you will be unable to step outside yourself and analyse your behaviour dispassionately, but, for our Saviour's sake, please do not behave like this towards others. It really is very unbecoming. Professor J Lawrence (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why you removed this page Nilufer Faruk Khan?

Hi, Rodhullandemu, Why you removed this page Nilufer Faruk Khan?

Hasanuzzaman T Shemul (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it did not include an assertion of notability within our guidelines. Being a social worker does not meet this requirement, and neither is being married to somebody, however important. But thanks for bringing this to my attention, because I am now able to delete the article again. Please don't replace it, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but she is really famous in her locality as a social worker.

Hasanuzzaman T Shemul (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think her fame would have to be somewhat wider to qualify for inclusion here. Sorry. --Rodhull andemu 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism charge

I would be very grateful if you would remove the vandalism charge, and change it to a good faith mistake. I will not repost anything about Victoria Beckham again and apologise for my thoughtlessness. It was very foolish of me to have attempted an edit when I was/am obviously ignorant of the facts of the case and stupidly believed the half-dozen articles I had read, even though they were not from approved Wikipedia sources. Professor J Lawrence (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK; I will reduce it to a Level 1 warning (which implies a good faith error); apologies if I overreacted but your edit caught me at a bad time. You will be aware that one of the legal issues that can cause legal problems for the Foundation is libel (the other being copyright). --Rodhull andemu 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UserTalk:Bratz Angel14

I have often seen users revert other people's talk pages. This usually occurs if there was a warning on the talk page when it was blanked. Other users have, in fact, reverted edits made by this particular user to her own page. I realize the history is there, but not everyont looks at that when issuing a warning, thus they don't alway realize that a user may have had several warnings in a short period of time. This user has been making a plethora of un-constructive edits recently, which is important for people to realize. Perhaps you should have considered these things before you decided to lecture me. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that. As I said, however, this is something that I have seen many prominent and well-established users do. Also, my point was that any particular person who goes to this user's talk page to issue a warning may not be aware of the user's history. Even if this user is, as you say, "under the microscope," that does not mean that every user who visits this user's talk page will be aware of that fact. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for interjecting for my rights to delete a discussion from my page. I am only trying to help on wikipedia and this person seems to believe otherwise. I do not want to get suspended... --Ivejustbegun (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally taken that you should discuss issues with other users, but you are entitled to remove conversations from your talk page; and you should be aware that the other editor may want to take the matter further, by using some form of dispute resolution. --Rodhull andemu 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Post

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Jim Post, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. Although the article is unreferenced and terribly in need of clean-up, the subject does satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criteria #2 and #5, please see my notes at Talk:Jim_Post for details. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of UnTrooper

Hello Rodhullandemu. UnTrooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, So Why 12:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Views placed on UnTrooper's talk page --Rodhull andemu 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I decided to unblock this user, giving them the benefit of doubt here. The editing history, albeit brief, shows a certain pattern of times used for editing and there was none later than 23:00 (UTC) before the ones leading to the block, so it might be a possibility. I'll keep an eye on their contributions of course and if they start like that again, we can easily block him again. Regards So Why 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Cooper

your discussion on miranda cooper is interesting, where you say most successful you are quite right it could mean anything but it was established it was on weeks spent on the uk singles chart, secondly he is not just some guy if you look at the very last guinness book of british hit singles isbn-13 9781904994107 you will see his list first appeared in this publication, i hope your not saying that guinness publications are not able to be used as references. the list is merely updated where i see your point i believe that the facts published on the site are genuine and should be known to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasperhunt (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hadn't heard of him; if, however, he is a contributor to the Guinness Book of Hit Singles, for which I will assume you are correct, then I presume his figures will be correct; however, as you accept, we shouldn't go beyond those figures unless he himself does so, in which case, this should be quoted and sourced to the correct page in his website (and not just the top-level page). Thanks for getting back to me. --Rodhull andemu 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your tireless work keeping things moving at the AWB check page, outstripping the 2nd ranked user by a ratio of 3 to 1, I award you The Admin's Barnstar. Keep up your diligent efforts. =) –xeno (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks (takes out small onion); ... I really don't deserve this, I'm just around a lot, but it has been a while since I had one of these, so I'll accept it graciously. --Rodhull andemu 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do deserve it, your too modest. "Rodhullandemu for bureaucrat" - That's my summer campaign, hype it! — R ² 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Cameron

Hi, RH&E. Just wanted to say that this is an excellent summary . Thanks for putting it so succinctly. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Admin noticeboard.

Thanks for your helpful comment regarding my issue on the Admin noticeboard. Unfortunately, I couldn't respond there because the page is now semi-protected. Which of course, makes it impossible for me to respond on my own pending issue. Welcome to my world. Thanks again. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about Russell Brand edits

The weight of the comment comes from the weight of the letter itself. I've rather trimmed the comments from the letter. If you research the commentary I'd suggest rather than reverting material well cited you edit constructively that content.Smkolins (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I shall replace it and recast to match more perhaps what a reader of Russell Brand would expect to see there. --Rodhull andemu 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know that a reader of Brand is the standard of what to do - rather what Brand himself has done - but my aim is to bring to light such things, not tell other people what to do. I'm working on a revision of the persecution page and this reference is a small part of that process that was more or less "ready to go". I struggled with how much of their letter to include but that perhaps more why I'm just a contributing editor and not so much an admin. :-) Smkolins (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your position, but too much detail risks an accusation of soapboxing; if readers are interested in following it up, there's the reference and the Wikilinks. --Rodhull andemu 22:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the idea you are referring to. I see several of these people have small sections about their activities outside of entertaining though one did. Alas I cannot just stop and balance the overall content of their lives in these articles. Over time I'd hope for balance by growth though I'd not want to make a monster of an article my growing parts of it way out of balance with the rest. However that's a struggle of a thing in process. If the content itself has merit, it's why I try to write about it. I'm taking a break from a very long endeavor of writing a long series of articles that didn't exist and for balance sake should. But the news of these events has been swiftly growing over just this month and little of the content has made it anywhere.... But thanks for keeping with making perspective and balance constructive. BTW you can see my in development stuff about this at User:Smkolins/Sandbox3 Smkolins (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

petulence

Your tag line says it all about you really... Just prey that I don't decide to block you.

W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.73.229 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's not a tag line (2) Learn how to spell "pray" and "petulance", and (3) The day an IP editor can block an Admin is the day that Wikipedia dies. Meanwhile, please stop being a dick. --Rodhull andemu 02:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hey,

I'm having problems with a user. Just emailed you about it. Computerjoe 's talk 23:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef with no email as a WP:SPA for WP:NPA, WP:NLT and WP:HARASS; no contribs, no loss. Thanks for letting me know. --Rodhull andemu 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lets just hope the DHS consider innocence before extraordinary rendition. :P I've added a disclaimer to the bot's page to prevent further confusion. By the way, would you block User:CJBot? I have no use for it these days, so better block it than it fall in the wrong hands. Computerjoe 's talk 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Silly person used his own email address to you- hope you've blocked it in your client. --Rodhull andemu 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Books extension enabled
News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]