Jump to content

User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/21

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

Cool user page star

[edit]

(*) - the text barnstar! I don't recall how I ended up on your user page, but I've got to say it is one of the most succinctly entertaining I have seen. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't regard it as being particularly special, but I'm glad you like it!>--Rodhullandemu 03:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Brando

[edit]

Sigh, Harv has to get a new life. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked and protected. I'm not convinced by his protestations. --Rodhullandemu 21:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Family???

[edit]

[edit] My Family images Buying the DVD or video does not mean you own the copyright to those images; the BBC retains that right, and will sue to protect it. If there is anything that the Wikimedia Foundation takes seriously in legal terms, it is (1) libel and (2) copyright; this is why we have a policy for using copyrighted images. In this case, using them for mere decoration of an article does not satisfy any justification within that policy; the images have to provide information that the text of the article cannot, and more so, using them in a table cannot possibly satisfy the criteria.

I have done the same thing with various other images that i have uploaded to wikipedia and it has never been a problem in the past. I have even had confirmation from the mods that the images i have uploaded have been varified for use - so why is this any different suddenly?? Those images have been uploaded to the My Family article for months now with out any problem or issue from moderators.

Ammera (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page says otherwise. However, if you look at WP:NFCC, you'll see the use has to be (1) minimal (2) encyclopedic and (3) justified. Using DVD images in a table cannot satisfy (1) and (2). It would be different if each DVD release had its own article, but my experience is that that won't happen. Compare the situation with album covers; an image of the cover may be used in the infobox for the album, for recognition purposes, and it helps a great deal if the artwork or photography is discussed in the article. But we cannot, and no do, use album covers in discographies, however much we would like to, because that fails (1) and (2). As for (3) justification, "to illustrate article" is too weak an argument to be legally sustainable, which is why so many such images get deleted. However, even on the basics of NFCC, those images do not satisfy fair-use policy. Other Admins may get it wrong; that's a different issue, but I've been around long enough to know at a glance what's permissible and what isn't. Thanks for asking, however. --Rodhullandemu 22:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at the seperate series articles.

Someone has been using them in those articles. It's a shame the rules are not more lenient Ammera (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't make the rules; our lawyers do, and that's why we have them; if we didn't, we would risk being sued by copyright owners. For this reason, our fair-use policy has been carefully drafted to minimise that risk. Some non-English Wikipedias insist on only images that are free of copyright, so we are lucky in having the option for justification and defence here. However, those images are more defensible in the separate articles you cite, by analogy with album covers, because they provide images of the characters in the referenced series, although strictly, a case could be made for their removal. However, I'm not going to make that case. But a collection of images for purely decorative purposes in a table which links (or should do so) to those articles, is indefensible as regards image usage policy. That's why they're gone. --Rodhullandemu 23:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this

[edit]

I was staring at the history of the page debating whether or not to request protection. Just as I decided to go to WP:RFPP, I noticed that you semi'd it. Perfect timing!

Thanks again!

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on a different Lennon page

[edit]

Greetings,

Recently I created a page for the "Roots" album -- the other "John Lennon Rock N Roll" album from 1975. I did so because it was an album and it had a bit of a storied past. Of course, it's bound up in "Rock N Roll" and some of the content of both pages are similar, but more is not. Anyway, I'm in a debate with someone over the merit of a seperate or merged page, and would like your opinion, if you have a moment. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my; it's late here, and I've only spent a short time looking into this. Whereas I was aware of "Rock n Roll", I'd never heard of this album, and there does seem to be some overlap in content. Certainly, both albums appear to derive from the same sessions, which is a useful starting point. The acid question is whether "ROOTS" deserves its own article. A three-day mail order release says "No", but against that, it may be notable for its rarity alone. I'll try and take a deeper look at this later, but my inclination would be to raise this at the WP:Beatles project talk page, where a wider input may be more useful than mine right now. --Rodhullandemu 02:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General help

[edit]

Salutations, I am new to wikipedia and I'm feeling a tad bit overwhelmed. I've read as much as I could last night to understand most of the rules here. I've had a few problems concerning my band. (more on that later) You seem well versed in wiki-rules and I was hoping you could help the new guy. I have a question concerning articles needed references that appear in reliable third-party publications/ Primary sources? Correct me if I'm wrong, but reliable third party sources don't include blogs, do they? Doesn't that mean that anybody could just put up a blog and quote themselves?

Also, could you point me in the direction of a reliable neutral music editor or administrator?

Any help would be most appreciated. Xtian1313 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your band, to qualify for an article, should satisfy the criteria in WP:BAND. We don't normally accept bands' own YouTube or MySpace pages for obvious reasons, unless say, it is obviously the band itself announcing a new release or tour. Blogs, as you point out, are not generally reliable sources. The music press, local newspapers, specialist music websites may all be considered reliable as long as it's not just a passing mention. I know it can be tricky for new bands to break through, but Wikipedia isn't meant for that. Any editor here should be able to help you; meanwhile I suppose I am a reliable, neutral music editor, and an Admin, if that helps. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 20:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was quick. Thank-you. My band isn't really the problem. It's called Scarling. and it's already has a wikipedia page, as do my wife Jessicka and myself. I'm Christian Hejnal. We are getting harassed by a third party whom played live with our band for a year and has recently been interviewed in a blog format to substantiate and legitimize claims he's made on his wikipedia page.

Basically, we had him sign a leaving member agreement. It's the only one I've ever had to have anybody sign because he has some axe to grind with my wife and myself. The year we played with him was a nightmare. Our friends and ex band members have tried to correct his page ( not vandalizing it in anyway- but clearly not knowing the rules of wikipedia) He's now using a blog where he basically slanders us as a reliable third-party publications /source.

He now goes under the name Kyle Justin.

How do you think I should proceed? Is there anything you can do to help? I've done all I can outside of wikipedia. I've sent him several letters via email. No response. I've contacted myspace, who is in the process of reviewing/removing his myspace page. I've contacted my lawyers in order to review the leaving agreement he signed. I'm just not sure how to go about having the section about our band on his page stay neutral.

Trust me, I know how trite and silly this is. He's been out of the band for 5 years, constantly slandering my wife, and has been a constant thorn in our side harassing us (in a passive aggressive manor) and our fans since the day he left.

Again, any advice would be most appreciated. Xtian1313 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I get it now. Wikipedia isn't really geared up to sorting out disputes elsewhere, but if it spills over into here, we can take action. If he's attacking you here, that can be stopped. Having read his article as it currently is, it seems reasonably neutral about his leaving Scarling, and I will watchlist it to ensure it stays that way. That's all I can do for now, but let me know if you have any problems here on-Wiki. --Rodhullandemu 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ah, yes! It seems like a lot has been taken down which is good thing. The only section that is still false is this "Kyle and guitarist Rickey Lime became friends quickly. Not wanting to use his birth name, the two agreed he would take on her last name, as if they were siblings.[1] He went by Kyle Lime during his stint in Scarling." Couldn't it just read, "Not wanting to use his birth name, he went by Kyle Lime during his stint in Scarling." ? Neutral, yes? Here's the blog that was put up very recently (March 2009) that supports that claim, it's not a third party source. "Tommy. Kyle Justin interview, Sonic Emission. March, 2009." Should this even be allowed to be linked at wikipedia?

Is it alright if I make that change since it's a blog interview that supports this claim ? Our ex guitarist (whom I work with- Rickey Lime aka Rickey Goodling) wants no affiliation with him especially since the sentence suggests them as "siblings" and no third neutral third party supports this claim. Thanks so much again. You've been extra helpful and patient. I'm glad that I came to you with this. Xtian1313 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better if you don't make that change, but there's no reason why I shouldn't check out the sources. If it's unsourced, it should go. Leave it with me, and thanks for your confidence. --Rodhullandemu 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I truly appreciate all of your help. Thanks so much for checking into this matter. I'm quite sure you have many more important and stimulating tasks to do to, so I extra appreciate you taking the time to investigate on my behalf.

I look forward to becoming a helpful wikipedian myself- once I'm more versed in all the rules and protocol. Xtian1313 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but looking at it, however, that's what he said in the interview, and unless there's a reason to remove it altogether (which I can't see, since he is specifically asked about his names(s)), it should stay. But it's only what he says happened, and if a reliable source elsewhere said otherwise, we'd have to put that in to maintain a neutral stance. Sorry. --Rodhullandemu 21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Got all my answers here:neutral stance. We'll have an interview up soon. Thanks again, you've been very very helpful. Xtian1313 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for unblocking me. HM211980 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)HM211980[reply]

Larry The Lion

[edit]

Wonder who this user is a sock of - Larry The Lion. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 22:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo DiCaprio

[edit]

Hi - glad to see you're still here. Thanks for reverting the Biography sub-title. The editor also split out the filmography of the article without so much as an edit summary. I went to leave a note on his talk page and discovered he has been doing quite a bit of splitting lately, most of which seems to brought protest, to which he didn't respond. There was no consensus to split out the filmography and the article was only 38kb long when he did it. I thought I might bring that to your attention. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the split, but I will take a look at his edits. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There's a trail to follow on his talk page. I've reverted the filmography split and made the page he created a redirect back to the main article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Far too disruptive, and he's been warned before. I've left him a final warning. The redirect was an implausible mis-spelling, so I've deleted it. --Rodhullandemu 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

message

[edit]

how do I send you a private message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Didismithjones (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see to the left of the main window: "email this user". Can't promise you'll get the response you expect, however. --Rodhullandemu 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cilla Black

[edit]

Anyone who knows even a tiny, tiny ammount about Ms Black knows that she is a fervent, indeed radid, supporter of the British Conservative Party. She appeared at rallies for the party in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005. She is personal friends with John Major. At the time of Thatcher's resignation, Ms Black hi-jacked a TV tribute for Coronation Street to put her anger at the news into the public domain and the press widely - WIDELY - reported her confrontation with an audience in 1989 who didn't support her views. Alas, it is not always possible to support with references when the stories predate the Internet. And seeing as many, many things on Wikipedia and indeed the Ms Black page are not referenced, I am not sure why you are picking on this one comment. But you are and you are clearly determined that your way will be the only way and you will keep deleting and undoing any comments that you don't like until I'm beaten into submission. So I give up. But it is wrong to say a 1993 article is in support of a 1992 election, when she says "I AM voting for John Major". Not I DID, but I AM. But have it your own way. Wiki bullies always win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.36.78 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with me, it's just that we have an irrational tendency to require reliable sources to be cited for assertions made in biographies; it stops us being sued for libel. The 1993 article quotes her statement in previous April 1992 that she was then supporting John Major, and nothing at all beyond that. Sorry if you don't like that, but nobody is forcing you to edit here. Rodhullandemu 18:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody is forcing you to edit either. But you are choosing to do so and as such are picking and choosing selectively what you wish to edit and what you wish to ignore. The threat at the top of your talk page speaks volumes in itself. Intimidation is never attractive. A broadcast TV show, seen by several million viewers on the UK's main commercial channel should be reference enough and indeed, on thousands of wiki pages, seems to be so. But not for you in this particular instance. As I say, you will win, because as soon as you feel your power base slipping, you'll exercise your right to ban me from editing. Something those who've risen through the wiki ranks love to do. Your page threat boasts of it in fact. Or you'll lock the page so it remains the way you want it. So be it. I really don't care. I have a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.36.78 (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try spending a few minutes of it reading our major policies, particularly WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. Your cited source did not support what went into the article, and that's the end of it. Any editor should have done the same as I; but when you say "I don't care", that is a major part of the problem. Not enough people do care that Wikipedia should be defensibly reliable. Some learn how to care: some don't. --Rodhullandemu 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The really great thing about Wikipedia, is that no-life editors who literally spend hours and hours in front of their computers, monitoring the tiniest edit to the most inconsequential page, really do believe they are doing some sort of public service and it's just an unpaid obsession they can't shake. They take it so seriously that if you cross them or don't give into their bullying, they either lock their precious page, or go the whole hog and ban you to stop you adding anything of interest or value that they personally didn't either know in the first place - thus challenging their supremacy as the definitive subject expert - or don't particularly like, regardless of it's accuracy. But, the joke is, that you can just sign in under another computer or IP address and carry on editing as much as you like. This then necessitates the all powerful editor such as RodHullandEmu spending even MORE time slumped in front of his monitor - if that were possible - trying to track down everything you changed. After my wife and I had a great meal, friends over and really great sex tonight, we then spent a happy hour or so making about 300 changes or more to various wiki pages from various different ISP addresses, in spite of being banned! While RodHullandEmu spent the day sitting in his underwear, in front of his monitor, feverously typing away, monitoring the behavior and edits of his precious pages. It's sad, but that's his life. To all those of you who manage to read this before he deletes and places further pointless bans, I'm sure you can all relate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very amusing. I like a good laugh first thing in the morning. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 11:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you clearly DON'T have better things to do. And as you describe your obsession with Cilla Black and wikipedia in general as a "job" (see above), that makes you even sadder than I thought you were. I have certainly learnt that you have no sense of humour, are completely irrational, obsessive, have no life, apply one rule to those you dislike and yet turn blind eyes to the same edits from people you do and above all, are just very, very sad. Ban all you like. As you know, your pathetic bans are easy to ignore. I shall continue to edit under one of my alias's or other IP addresses at will. But keep up the obsession. By the way, it's sunny outside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.36.78 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

[edit]

Could you stamp on this idiot's toes please. He is making a right nuisance of himself today http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.14.242.112 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Now has 31 hours to go and do something constructive. --Rodhullandemu 18:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beef jerky66

[edit]

Hey. I have strong suspicions that this user (contribs) is also Born of Champions (contribs), and has also edited from various IPs (88.110.40.223 and 89.168.198.65 - both Tiscali). Wonder if this user needs informing that the use of multiple accounts (unless made explicitly clear) is not allowed, or perhaps a checkuser to see if they are using any other accounts? ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 23:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts are OK unless used for dodgy purposes, as in WP:SOCK. I'll take a thorough look tomorrow, when I'm not being accused of being an MI5 stooge (elsewhere!). Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK. Well, I've not seen anything particularly dodgy in my brief overview of their contributions. And deary me, you do get some interesting accusations thrown your way, don't you? ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

En bloc sale of private property in Singapore

[edit]

I am a newbie to Wikipedia. I am trying to include images of the Business Times report with the statistical charts from Singapore's Urban Redevelopment Authority and Jones Lang LaSalle Research. Woefully, my attempt is not successful. I would be grateful if you could contact me at <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com> and I could forward the file attachments to you for posting on this Wikipedia page.

Likewise for my attempts to include a hyperlink to the website of the Singapore Attorney General's Chamber that sets out the entire Land Titles (Strata) Act - viz, the source for this en bloc phenomenon in Singapore that affects private property rights. (SINPariah (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

En bloc sale of private property in Singapore

[edit]

Hi!

To facilitate your review/verification of my Wiki page, here's another link to the Strata Titles Board (STB) Circular issued in 2004 to clarify the 1999 Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA):

[1] Strata Titles Boards Circular No 1/2004

Whether a clarifying STB Circular has the effect of a "statute" is an open question. However, the en bloc industry along the entire value chain (viz, starting from the property marketing agent, to en bloc sale committee, to en bloc lawyer who operates under "no sale, no fee" structure, to the developer-buyer, to the STB, to the courts) takes it as law.

BTW, I run this blog using my pseudonym of "The Pariah" at:
[www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com] and a condensed version of my analysis of this piece of oppressive law is set out in this blog entry (but I suppose Wikipedia etiquette would NOT allow me to embed links to my own blog - Correct??)

Do e-mail me at <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com> if you need further info. Much obliged,
(SINPariah (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So far, your sources are inadequate to establish notability as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned; a circular, as far as I'm aware, has in any legal jurisdiction the force of advice rather than law, so that in itself is insufficient. Your blog likewise, as it is self-published and contains only your own opinions. Unless you can find some other source, such as a reputable newspaper, commenting on this, and preferably more than one, there is really nothing to establish why we should have an article on it. Sorry, but thanks for asking me. --Rodhullandemu 16:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Might it be worth semi protecting this article again, at least temporarily. I know we have a lot of active editors monitoring it, but Bookkeeper is planning an FLC soon. It wouldn't look good. Just a thought :/. — R2 19:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was beginning to come to that conclusion, although most edits seem to be "good-faith" attempts to promote fans' favourite artists. However, it's still disruptive and I'll give it a week and see how it goes. --Rodhullandemu 19:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, lists like that always problems unfortunately. I'm getting back into the editing spirit now. :) — R2 19:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

[edit]

That is all. 88.110.13.116 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath semi-protected

[edit]

Hello there. First off I want to thank you for helping to maintain the Black Sabbath site to help it achieve good article status. I was looking at comments on articles that didn't pass muster and the Heath Ledger page was denied because it was semi-protected (see Talk:Heath Ledger/Archive 11#Failed GA) stating criterion 5 (actually they said criteria 5, but I won't criticize) from Wikipedia:Good article criteria "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Obviously, you semi-protected it to stop the edit war. Do you think it should be unprotected? You have more experience than me so if you think it is better to leave semi-protected I'll leave it. J04n(talk page) 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock and a hard place; if it's unprotected, we'll risk this "rock vs heavy metal" nonsense again and it may fail for instability. I suppose all we can do is give it a try, but I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhullandemu 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

[edit]

Ok, at first, I do realize, for Santogold, I didn't have a source. It still was true. And I put it up again, and guess what? I had a source. You took it down again. Your a nerd.

Mrmitt94 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. But we don't do WP:TRUTH here, we do reliable sources. And calling me a nerd isn't going to make you any friends. this might, however. If you don't get a hold of that, I look forward to being able to block you from editing at some point. Meanwhile, I've been here for over twelve hours today, and I've had enough stupidity already, thanks. --Rodhullandemu 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Richardson

[edit]

The edit history shows there was a reason for my edit. Someone changed the description from English to British without given a reason to do so.

92.13.221.78 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In that case "per [[WP:RETAIN]]" would be an adequate summary, or if you prefer, "no reason for edit". --Rodhullandemu 14:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned

[edit]

Comments like this and this concern me. I understand that some vandals can be aggravating, but try to remember that "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" (in reference to the first comment). You might also benefit from reading this essay (with respect to the second comment). If things are getting stressful, you may want to take a break, relax and be cool. DanielDeibler (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I have read and fully understood every policy and every essay we have here, incomplete and inconsistent though they collectively be. I'm currently watching a documentary on Captain James Cook, a genius who lost it; it's one of the problems of genius that others find them hard to understand, and that ends in frustration, if not destruction. However, if a dog wanders into my house and craps on my carpet, I will deal with that appropriately; if repeated, I will secure my house, and I cannot believe that you imagine that the editor's input was in any way motivated by good faith. I'd love to take a break, if you know anyone who will pay for it, but I don't know any such person. Thanks for your concern, but I stand by my record as an Admin, and constructive editor here, which is open to view by all, even the Wikipedia Review, Encyclopedia Dramatica and the press. Meanwhile, complaints should be directed to the usual locations. "To sleep, to die; perchance to dream". Good evening. --Rodhullandemu 01:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DanielDeibler (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC) - I have not looked at his edits and have no reason to do so. You've reverted them and I trust that they were deserving of that. Regardless of the severity of his vandalism, it is inappropriate to leave insulting comments on talk pages. Calling him an "unoriginal twat" is inappropriate and was itself vandalism, specifically userspace vandalism. Let me put it this way to clarify what I'm saying to you:[reply]

Warnings

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:82.2.217.135. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --DanielDeibler (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, but with 39,000 edits, 13 WP:DYKs, 5 WP:GAs and 1700 blocks of vandals to my name, it's not only very late, but also grossly inappropriate. With 3600 edits, you should know WP:DTTR by now, but thanks for your input. It will be remembered. --Rodhullandemu 12:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out; I was unaware of it, having better things to do. I have given this editor some advice which hopefully, he will heed. --Rodhullandemu 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some advice

[edit]

Hey. I'm having a problem with a user who is (from what I can tell) sockpuppetting and vandalising Bond (band) and Escala (group). I'm probably near (if not over) 3RR, and this user keeps switching accounts (although I know immediately from their editing patterns that it is them). I'm not sure whether I should submit an Incidents report or go straight to the sockpuppet report.

I believe the base user is GeorgeRosenbaum, and they have now created at least four accounts today to try and push their POV into the article. How would you advise I proceed with this? ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a {{uw-coi}} on the last account, but I would open a WP:SPI. If it persists, I'll semi-protect the article. --Rodhullandemu 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've reverted the last edits to both because they were removing sourced content, replacing it with unsourced content- this is vandalism, and doesn't get you in trouble for 3RR. I've also watchlisted the pages. --Rodhullandemu 19:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your help and advice. I've filled an SPI report so we'll see what becomes of that. I didn't file for CheckUser, although I might have to in the end to find the base IP so we can stop them creating more accounts. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance required

[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but could you give Piriczki (talk · contribs) a talking to. He's continually adding false information to Beat It; writing that a gold certification is equivalant to 1 million sales when it's not. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. :) Pyrrhus16 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/21&oldid=1259738846"