Jump to content

User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/37

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


Hmmmmm....

[edit]

Well I watched it once read the tread it said he blanked him, thought no he definatly didn't, so I watched specifically that bit and it was clear that he doesn't just usual doctor missing the important bit, anyways writing it's called watching it etc is not berating you, so get off your high horse and use your brain, instead of saying no origneal research when it was clear no blanking took place. Anyhows who cares, I've had a go at rewriting that bit.KnowIG 07:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If and when I understand what you've written, I may reply if I need to. Rodhullandemu 15:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL, rearrange these words into a well known phrase or saying! I have tried to descipher it too and cannot make anything logical from the collection of random words. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I teach junior high school; allow me. "Well, I had that discussion on my watchlist. In the discussion thread, it said he blanked him, but in fact, he definitely didn't. Therefore, I specifically watched that section. It was clear that he didn't blank the section under dispute; like a stereotypical doctor, you've missed the most important thing. You're wrong to say I was berating, when all I did was pay attention! If you think hard, and stop assuming that you're correct, you'll see that you're wrong to say 'no original research,' and I'm right- no blanking took place. Well, I suppose it doesn't matter in the long run, and I've tried to rewrite that section myself." (Bear in mind that I've written my translation without looking up what the hell he or she is talking about, so I may have misunderstood some section because of general incoherence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now that I've looked at the actual discussion, I see that I've made an error about this person's use of 'watch' and 'blank.' Apparently, the dispute is about something that happened in a film, so when he says 'I watched it," he means he watched the film- not that he watched the discussion. I think "he blanked him" also refers to a disputed event in the film. -74.215.40.186 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above was me; not sure how I got logged out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear if you watch the episode that The Doctor is too preoccupied with other things to realise initially that he is talking to Rory, but does so eventually. So it's not a case of "blanking" anyway, it's a case of delayed understanding. Rodhullandemu 19:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arg- it was an episode of Doctor Who? Well, I need to not look any closer, then, since I haven't seen it yet! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look

[edit]

Sock puppeting again grow upKnowIG 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning, and you need to understand what a sockpuppet is. Rodhullandemu 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he has trouble with accepting constructive advice from two admins, both of whom have better things to do with their time, perhaps his days here are numbered. I'll gladly arrange a vacation for him, if it becomes necessary. Rodhullandemu 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly advise against that, but I believe you already know where the Administrators' Noticeboard is. Go on. Just do it. You Know You Want To. Rodhullandemu 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I think he really does want a break now... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Killer

[edit]

You seem all worked up over me changing the date format on the article. It's MM/DD/YYYY on the infobox, yet DD/MM/YYYY within the article? WP:DATE specifically states that American articles should have MM/DD/YYYY; now if the Zodiac killings took place in Manchester or Leeds, by all means, keep it that way, but my editing was in no way disruptive. If I were disruptive, I would edit Virginia Woolf and claim that she gave birth to a chimpanzee. 72.193.122.5 (talk) 20:38, June the 21st, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way, but the guidelines say that once a national style of date or spelling is embedded in an article, it should not be changed without very good reason. That I take to mean a suggestion on the Talk page as you have done, and possible discussion and agreement by other editors. Unilateral edits tend not to be popular around here, and as an Admin it's my job to make sure policies and guidelines are followed. If nobody objects to your edits within a reasonable time, then you can be sure that nobody cares that much. But we don't know that yet. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 20:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to look back into the article's history, and from 2006 to May 2010, it appears that MM/DD/YYYY was used. 72.193.122.5 (talk) 11:58, June the 23rd, 2010 (PDT)
Thanks for taking the time for that. My apologies; please feel free to revert to the original version. Rodhullandemu 19:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.

[edit]

Damned little cowards hiding behind proxies who sling their garbage...anyway, thank you very much for covering my back. I greatly appreciate it. Regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're too fast!

[edit]

Argh! You beat me to this. Keep up the good work. :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 342° 37' 45" NET 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partymarty84 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Inbetweeners

[edit]

Seriously, stop removing my edits on the Inbetweeners page. If you want people to assist in adding news to Wikipedia, leave it alone.

Then I suggest you source it properly. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rod

[edit]

Thanks for reverting that obviously abrasive vandalism from my talk page. I don't know what that IP said but thank you. They don't understand that I won't stop, regardless of their childish antics :)  – Tommy [message] 23:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was vile and cowardly, hiding behind an open proxy. RBI'd. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Gentle Hand to Guide Her

[edit]

I ran across your reversion of User:X--BAH's out of place edits to Meryl Streep. I'm sure you probably monitor a large number of articles and are short on time. I did, however, look at her (assuming it's a her) edits and I'm not sure I would label them vandalism. A quick check indicates there is a Meryl Streep Day [2] consistent with her edit.[3] Streep was also in "Secret Service" with John Lithgow on Broadway, a performance of which was taped for PBS[4]consistent with her edit here[5]. Obviously very green and no Wikipedia staff ever approved her edits, but she does seem to want to contribute something useful. I'm not exceptionally patient myself in dealing with other editors, but then I'm not an administrator either. Eudemis (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that bothered about content disputes on articles in which I have no interest; but the rules should be followed. I see other editors have weighed in on this, so I'll leave it to them. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzy Osbourne

[edit]

I totally mangled your protection of this article by mistake. I wouldn't have taken any action had I known you were involved. Please tak a look and make any repair you deem necessary. Sorry for causing you the extra work. See ya 'round Tiderolls 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadows

[edit]

Do you watch The Shadows article at all? It has been growing like Topsy in recent months and is becoming a beheamoth of an entry - frankly it is now an unutterable mess and I wouldn't even know where to start with cleaning it up. Any ideas? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I took a look at this. It looks like the same editor that added similar masses on minor detail to Cliff Richard. I won't object if you cull it, without mercy. Rodhullandemu 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a good slash and burn in July but for the coming ten days I am in Wales caring for an infirm 94 year old aunt and sneakily piggybacking on a neighbour's unsecured flaky wi-fi router ... and my connection is intermittent to say the least. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for bringing some sanity back to The Shadows article!!! Boatman (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you again...

[edit]

...but the Tracey Beaker debacle is a thorn in my side. After you blocked Anna2123456789 and her IP sock 62.31.196.31 on June 7th, the account User:RandomGirl1 was created on June 16th and immediately began editing Tracey Beaker articles. My first concern is that RandomGirl requested an 'unblock' of the protected redirect on Amy-Leigh Hickman. Anna's sock IP also requested an 'unblock' of the article on the talk page prior to being blocked herself. In addition, the new account RandonGirl1 is hosting copies of the redirected articles on her user page - the same articles Anna continually recreated post AfD close. Is this quacking enough? --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quack. I've indefblocked this new account. Rodhullandemu 19:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you once again. If our paths ever cross the first pint's on me. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

Merging of articles

[edit]

I put a notice on the talk pages of both List of blues-rock musicians and List of blues-rock performers, suggesting these should be merged, about three weeks ago. No one has responded so far, and I am tempted to go ahead and effect this (assuming I can figure out how to do it). However, is there another protocol hoop to leap through, before I cause unilateral armageddon ? Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any reason why not. Just do it!. Rodhullandemu 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

For the account creation block on JoeShmoe5151. Updating the list of new sockpuppets in his SPI has been delaying me from getting dinner. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go eat. It's a luxury I can't currently afford. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. This is making me consider applying for adminship. And thanks for everything else you've done. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say go for it. The balance between your contribs shows that you are an effective vandal-fighter and although some might criticise you for not actually creating content, as we have moved on, that is arguably less important than keeping existing content on track, which is what you appear to do. I would happily support or even nominate, if you are willing to commit to being showered with obloquy from time to time; however, your edit summaries show civility, and that is a good thing. Let me know, please. Rodhullandemu 00:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

[edit]

I had originally registered to use AWB under Moon-sunrise. As you can see, I have since changed my user name. So can you please replacing Moon-sunrise with YumeChaser on the check page? 夢 追人 08:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Springfield

[edit]

Could you please look into the recent edits here? There's an editor removing a CN template, and the one time they provided a summary it didn't seem sufficient. They've thus far ignored a request to use the Talk page as well. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think she's correct. WP:MOSBIO states that place of birth doesn't go in the lead section. As for the sources, I see some items that aren't sourced, so perhaps a {{blprefimprove}} template would be better. Rodhullandemu 20:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. She should perhaps have referenced that policy. I'll look into adding that template. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Sepultura

[edit]

Some guy it's putting in the genre of the wiki, Nu Metal, protect the article or do something please, Thanks.--Rolando69 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have stopped now, but if I'm not around, you could ask at WP:RFPP. Rodhullandemu 15:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

[edit]

Hi, would you be able to help me with this page I am creating, I am having trouble with the mark up language and layout. Thanks a lot.

--Thehelpinghandforwiki (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Social populism, it looks OK to me. Rodhullandemu 15:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Tarantino

[edit]

Damn you're fast! No sooner had I whacked rollback than you;d already got the banhammer out! Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I'm first, sometimes not. Swings & roundabouts but his previous edits alerted me. Rodhullandemu 21:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London/Liverpool

[edit]

You edited out my link to a University of London student page from the University of Liverpool wiki page. There is a clear link. Students at University College Liverpool were awarded London degrees. There are therefore 18 years worth of Liverpool students in the London lists and in my opinion this means the link is of legitimate interest to anyone interested in the history of Liverpool University. I can understand your confusion, mind. The London page doesn't mention Liverpool at the moment. It will. I have amended it (I work for Senate House Library) but I have no control as to when the amended version will go live. It should do in the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard temple (talk • contribs) 22:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it had no reference to UC Liverpool made it kind of fatal, in my view. However, I'm not sure what purpose the link would fulfill; a bare list of students, or link to one, would seems to transgress WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and any notable students should already be included in a list or category. WP:NOTDIRECTORY would also seem to be an issue here. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to differ on this one then. I'll do further research on the link between the two universities and then I intend to add this information to the main text in the Liverpool article. The link isn't indiscriminate information: it includes names of students at Liverpool in the first two decades of its existence. So it is very relevant. The students at a university are its history as much as more famous alumni. It isn't a bare list either: it includes a great deal more information than that. All the best, RT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard temple (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I await with bated breath; Wikipedia is not a research source in itself and neither is it intended to be. I don't believe we do this for any other university, not even Oxford or Cambridge, so I remain to be convinced that this link will satisfy policy. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underlining

[edit]

Hi Rodhullandemu,
You look like the person to help with my query. When I studied law, we were told that statutes and case law should be underlined. Having read some articles i have noticed that this isn't done. Is this because there isn't a way of underlining on Wikipedia or is it because it is something peculiar to English law?
I'm just asking out of interest, I don't have any ulterior motive.--Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way of underlining, just use the <u>underline</u> markup, which gives underline. I would have expected to find the answer to your question in WP:MOSLAW, but that is quite short and doesn't mention underlining case names. I guess it's just the way we've always done things here but I don't think I've ever seen an underlined case name. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 14:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be that the style is to put cases in italics rather than underline them. Oh well thanks for showing me how to underline. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rooney

[edit]

Is not going to get anything but unconfirmed vandalism, better imo to 24 hr it to semi. Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something like that, but more like 3 days to let things cool down. Will do now. Rodhullandemu 16:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the attention Rod, sure beats having to edit conflict reverting. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Due to the history I've given it a week. Rodhullandemu 16:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MUCHERS22 hasn't learned

[edit]

You banned MUCHERS22 from editing for a week after he violated the three reversion rule in editing Nuclear program of Iran. The ban just ended and he/she went back and made the same edit. I don't know how you deal with someone who refuses to follow the rules even after being punished. NPguy (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by FisherQueen for a month- exactly what I would have done. Rodhullandemu 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)re[reply]

I apologize.

[edit]

I'm sorry about using the image(s) on my userpage that I didn't have the rights to. I apologize about the inconvenience and I'll educate myself more on Wikipedia's content policy so I know what I'm allowed to do or not do. Thank you.

--Blackout0189 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your statement

[edit]

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Michael_Jackson#Victory_Tour_glove_sells_for_.24190K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.79.109 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone doesn't like you any more...

[edit]

See http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3aVillage+pump+%28proposals%29&diff=370667822&oldid=370667715 - naturally I reverted it. Give them the bird (sorry, couldn't resist...)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. Can't tell if this is an open proxy, but it smells like one. Rodhullandemu 21:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What?

[edit]

What could possibly be more entertaining, pleasurable, important or stimulating than a good hard spank on a Monday afternoon while sitting in front of the computer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.47.225 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking you as a disruptive troll? I think so. You're a waste of space. Rodhullandemu 23:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Wast of Space", now that is a little unfriendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.47.225 (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read my lips: "waste of space", and you haven't given me a reason to be friendly. You have given me a reason to block you, however. Rodhullandemu 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

[edit]

User:JDPhD - again

[edit]

Rodhullandemu, you last warned JDPhD (talk · contribs) regarding ArbCom sanctions, here [6]. Please see edits from 29 June by JDPhD at the page Aleister Crowley. Note that this is indeed within the topic of Scientology and thus within the purview of WP:COFS sanctions (all related articles on probation) or WP:ARBSCI remedies (regarding WP:SPA accounts, topic bans, etc.) Aleister Crowley was a known associate of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. The edits by JDPhD are 20:48, 29 June 2010, and then when this was undone by an administrator, User:John, JDPhD added it back, again, less than an hour later 21:13, 29 June 2010. It seems blatant enough, for a topic ban per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban, which could then be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see ArbCom mentioning Aleister Crowley in its decision; I see "Scientology-related". My experience is that when ArbCom wishes to cast an umbrella that widely, it will add the magic words, "broadly construed" to its rulings. That doesn't help us in this case, and my impression is that JDPHD's edit, although not very neutrally-worded, has very little to do with Scientology. Perhaps an enquiry on the ArbCom case as to whether they intended to include such peripheral articles might help, but I wouldn't have imagined that they would consider Aleister Crowley to be related, since it wasn't a venue of dispute in that case. Late here, but perhaps I'll take a fresh look at it tomorrow later today. Rodhullandemu 23:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah, it is directly related to the topic, you can read a bit about Crowley actually directly in the article on L. Ron Hubbard. More info in a book on Scientology, specifically, "Crowley became a mentor for Hubbard, a relationship that would last until Crowley's death in 1947.". Etc. etc. Nevertheless, do you not think those edits by JDPhD (talk · contribs), are not constructive in nature? -- Cirt (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I accept the link, and I agree that JDPHD's edits do not appear to be neutral in tone. However, it's one thing to attack Crowley in non-neutral language, although to be honest he was scarcely self-deprecating in his own lifetime, and another to assume that such edits are intended to reflect poorly on Scientology, let alone transgress the ArbCom sanctions. Unless there is some evidence of a concerted campaign by JDPHD to undermine Scientology from multiple directions, I think we have to regard his edits on their face value. But as I said, I will take a look at this tomorrow. Your could always throw a volley across his bows on his Talk page, and point out the link between Crowley and Hubbard. Rodhullandemu 00:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, it seems the motivation of JDPhD (talk · contribs) is more in-line and supportive of the Scientology organization - but that is irrelevant and the issue that needs to be dealt with is the inappropriateness of the edits after multiple warnings, regardless of what particular POV they are coming from. I was thinking that perhaps WP:AE might now be the best venue to deal with this. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, since it will bring more opinions into the arena. Rodhullandemu 00:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (This refers to WP:ANI#KnowIG, for the avoidance of doubt.) ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in rewriting the content on Robert Leon Davis. After a complaint that there wasn't any other links to the content, I updated 6 new links. Deathdivedog (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rohedin back as User:Sammy the Seeker

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sammy the Seeker and User_talk:GSK#Please_listen. Yworo (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on WP:ANI, Thanks. Rodhullandemu 01:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Hello again. I have noticed recently that admins are able to remove particularly offensive edits and/or edit summaries. This one [7] is pretty vile. If I am wrong and you can't - or don't want to remove it - no problem. Also, I looked for a warning that might cover an edit summary like this and I couldn't decide if there was one that fir the bill. "Attack" didn't seem quite right. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 17:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was pretty offensive, but I don't think revision hiding is meant to cover that sort of thing. It would, however, colour my attitude to this editor should a need to block arise. Very much different, of course, if we'd been dealing with a BLP. Rodhullandemu 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. It was something that I had only recently started seeing on my watchlist so I don't know what the rules are regarding its use. It seems to get used a bunch on the AN and AN/I pages. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi one more time. Based on the multiple edits (a couple of them exactly the same just placed in different sections) to the talk page by 92.13.104.26 since you protected the Audrey Hepburn article I went back and checked this item User_talk:MarnetteD#Edits_from_Banned_User_HC_and_IPs given to me some time ago. You will note that this editors IP falls into the first range listed. Cancer deaths has always been one of Harvey Caters raison d'etre's as well as love affairs. While I do not want to go so far as to insist that this is HC (though it is starting to feel like it to me) I do want you to have as much info as possible as we proceed. Do you think that the recent edits strewn across the talk page should be moved to one place? MarnetteD | Talk 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His last edit more or less gave the game away, it's typical of HC to concentrate on dead film star's sex lives, but I hesitated because his IP shows up as Carphone Warehouse not AOL. I now find that CPW bought AOL UK in 2006, so it's clearly him., and I'll block, but keep the protection on for now because he'll just switch IPs. Rodhullandemu 19:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that I wasn't the only one starting to hear the quacking. FYI he was also editing from 92.11.37.82 earlier today. This one may not need blocking since no edits have occurred for several hours. Should we remove all of the other edits from the last two days on the talk page under the banning policy banner that is also on my talk page? Thanks again for your attention in this. MarnetteD | Talk 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should keep that thread so we can refer other editors to it if the need arises; other editors have also contributed, and we shouldn't remove their comments. HTH. Rodhullandemu 20:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me as far as the new thread is concerned. But, I was thinking of ones like this [8], this [9] and this [10] that were all plunked into other threads on the page (some of which are from months ago.) It is just like HC to try and make us read his stuff over and over again. I know that this is taking up time that you would rather spend doing other things. Hopefully normal service will return soon :-) MarnetteD | Talk 20:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, the older stuff is just trolling and won't be missed. Rodhullandemu 20:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:IPhone 4.jpg

[edit]

The original file was created by User:Aido2002; the somewhat odd details are explained in the information template (but not the rationale). I have no idea where the second version came from. I agree with your statement on User talk:Lordalpha1 that it should be uploaded to Commons if it is PD, which I doubt, and in any case should certainly be a separate file. After posting this I will revert to the downsized version (which i do not oppose), copy the author information to the FUR, and remove the no source template, because I feel that the source is unambiguously stated. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Rodhullandemu 23:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

789123man

[edit]

He claims he is is still blocked. IP/auotblock? Verbal chat 16:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I've reblocked for one minute with autoblock off, so that should clear it. Rodhullandemu 16:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP trouble

[edit]

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

Making unconstructive edits, esp. at Death of John Lennon. Reverts despite being told how his edits aren't helpful. Could you keep an eye out? Radiopathy •talk• 17:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willco, but right now it looks like an issue of educating the editor. Rodhullandemu 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please check this one for the duck test

[edit]

Hello again. I don't know if you still have this page Talk:Jeremy Brett on your watchlist. Requests to mention his possible bisexuality have popped up again. Based on this edit history Special:Contributions/Dozybeaky and the fact that it is HC's favorite subject IMO something fishy is up - even with the explanation added today. Colonel Warden on the other hand seems legit although there is little editing on actor pages before this (actually I can't find any yet but I may not have gone back far enough.) The bothersome thing is they only want to talk about it - they don't want to present any sourced evidence of it. I would like your opinion and will defer to it. As ever thanks for your time in checking this out. MarnetteD | Talk 17:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already looked at Special:Contributions/Dozybeaky's contribs and am not sure it is HC; he's been around for a while and HC's accounts usually follow a particular naming pattern. Colonel Warden is OK, from what I've seen, but of course we must have reliable sources for something like that. I am keeping an eye on it. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again thanks for your attention and time. Cheers back at ya. MarnetteD | Talk 18:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I to be sorry

[edit]

Thank you, no worries. Good evening to you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.88.105 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort

[edit]

Greetings Rod, just a word of thanks for downsizing File:Mongoliad splash screen.jpg, I appreciate it. Not to seem like an absolute cretin, but would you mind telling me an easy way of doing this so that I don't need volunteers clearing up after me in future? Cheers, Skomorokh 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image standards say that the longest dimension should be between 300-400 pixels; I download the image and resize it in Polyview, which is shareware, then reupload it. You could also do this in Paint, if you use Windows. Otherwise, there is plenty of image editing freeware out there. I wouldn't recommend GIMP, however, because it's huge and over-featured just for simple resizing. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 19:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll check out Polyview, should do the trick. Thanks again, Skomorokh 19:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre trolling

[edit]

24.147.184.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
They've had sufficient warning, but continue to changegenres without discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 21:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 31-hour break should get the message across, I hope. Rodhullandemu 21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Blast

[edit]

For what it's worth, the versions prior to the July 2009 edits by Sausages99 (talk · contribs) appear not to be copyright violations. (The copyright violation does explain why what I was seeing in the 2000–2003 sources wasn't matching the article. I hadn't got as far as 2009. ☺) Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:You Can't Do That On Vinyl Front.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:You Can't Do That On Vinyl Front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title "You Can't Do That On Vinyl" redirected to the article "Allister". I changed the title on the rationale; that might solve this problem. Radiopathy •talk• 05:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when I looked at the article and its history, i realised that the image had never been used in the article at all, hence the tag. Radiopathy •talk• 05:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

[edit]

Croatian grammar

[edit]

Hi,

Thought you might be interested in this. Several-month-long discussion on merging this with Serbian grammar and Serbian and Croatian grammar/Serbo-Croatian grammar (the latter probably best because Bosnian and Montenegrin redirect there too), with notices given at the languages wikiproject. However, Croatian grammar keeps getting reverted into a content fork, with the argument that it isn't a fork if you give it a different name. I made a stub of what I thought it would be that wouldn't be a fork; I don't really care, though, if it's s.t. along those lines (itself probably mergeable into Croatian language) or just a rd. as people had agreed to. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Hello. If you can spare a few minutes your opinion would be appreciated at: Wikiproject/Discographies#Do music videos and other charted songs belong. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock is back...

[edit]

Hello, Rod. Well he is back.

1. Illyrian Lizzard (talk · contribs) = 2. Sinbad Barron (talk · contribs)

1. Lizzard
2. HRB, sock of Sinbad

And sure, everything else. For more, i am here. -Tadijaspeaks 11:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure of this, on the evidence. It might be more useful to file a Sockpuppet Investigation, with a checkuser request. Rodhullandemu 19:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Hi,I am Saud ,why are you deleting my pictures?--Saudahmed66 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my pictures?--Saudahmed66 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed Saeed Ghani for deletion because it not meet our criteria for writing about companies. Another admin later came along and speedily deleted it for much the same reason. Since the article was deleted, I deleted the image because it was then not attached to any article. You may want to ask the other admin to restore the article for you if you want to bring it up to standard. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit but not really an undo...

[edit]

Excellent work, especially as it looked like unverifiable trivia to me. Great show, one of my favorites too. --John (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently split off the episode list, and am currently going through all my Python-related material to try and bring both articles up to standard. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 20:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly now...

[edit]

Speedy emu! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, although the context isn't currently clear to me. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the semi=protect on a user page. You beat me to it. Again, I might add. You must have lightning fast fingers, or toes, as it may be... H.S.
Swings and roundabouts; sometimes I get it first, sometimes I don't. I just do what I'm appointed to do. Rodhullandemu 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzy

[edit]

Just a heads up there has been tons if changes at Ozzy Osbourne I see you have a couple so you might already be all over this, here's the diffs Diff's. I'm not good enough with Ozzy to see if this editor is making "Good" changes. I can't imagine this many changes are needed to an established article. Just letting someone know who knows the article these edits need to be checked. Mlpearc powwow 00:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And not a word about any of this from this editor on the talk page. Mlpearc powwow 00:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/37&oldid=1145848638"