User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/39

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

hey[edit]

i cleaned up the santana discography. you can watch it. if u see any little mistakes, please report it. thx.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Ross[edit]

You have reverted an edit that was counter ballancing a blatent (almost slanerous) missrepresentation that was be being attributed to a well know scientist. Why was this removed? Have you read the article being referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a source for his alleged admission that he hadn't read the book in question. One is needed for an assertion like that. If the referenced source specifically states that fine, replace it and I'll check it out. Rodhullandemu 22:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some quotes from PZ Myers’ article: Lead paragraph: “A reader sent me some email asking if I knew anything about this book by Hugh Ross, Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars. No, I don't.” Concluding paragraph: “I don't think I need to waste any money or time on his ridiculous book.” All I said in the Hugh Ross article was that PZ Myers admits to not reading the book in his article, and I moved the reference to the article after my entry as a reference. Saying that the my comment was removed to support "Good Faith" is an inconsistent use of this policy. The unballanced statement referencing PZ Myers in the Hugh Ross article was the statement that should be removed to support "Good Faith" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you seem to be misunderstanding our guideline on Assuming Good Faith. In this instance, it means that I did not regard your edits as vandalism, merely (as I saw it) unsourced. However, I accept your explanation. Rodhullandemu 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rodhullandemu is there a Wiki policy that evaluates statements such as the one under discussion and removes them due to slander? Could that policy be applied to the PZ Myers quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair and accurate reporting of what has been said by someone is always permitted (IME) as long as it is a matter of public interest, and if we use such a quote to demonstrate the weakness of an argument, and properly source it, then we should be fine. Doing this sort of thing is dangerously close to interpreting the sources, however, and applying our own values. In this case, I'm not so familiar with the subject matter as to have an opinion either way but you can always raise it on the article's Talk page and invite other editors to comment- bearing in mind that it is the sort of topic that attracts polarised views and it might be a long, hard struggle. You could start there and then follow other forms of dispute resolution if it gets out of hand. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 17:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

hi, do u kown a page where the authors and date of the photo are written. sry for my poor english.thx. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no general page for this, you'd have to check the website hosting the image. Some images can be found on sites such as Flickr. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 14:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Image pictured Otis Redding. I couldn't find him on flickr so i uploaded it myself. I couldn't find the photograph and the date. I dont know if it's with copyright, but on the main site there photos from him, so i think it hasn't any copyrights. What do you think :/.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that you've got this from some other website (and this is almost certainly a copyrighted image) and uploaded it to Flickr as "All rights reserved"- this means that even when you upload it to Commons, it can't be used on any Wikipedia, and it will be deleted in due course. You would be better off searching Google Images for an image with a free license. Rodhullandemu 15:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
k i try it :/ -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
one more question: how can i copy pics from flickr, i dont get it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The file needs to be on Flickr with a licence compatible with Wlkipedia; for most purposes, "Some rights reserved" might be adequate for use here. You then need to download to your PC then upload it to Commons, citing the Flickr page as its source. An Admin on Commons will then check its licensing. Rodhullandemu 16:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt answer my question but i solved the problem. thx anyway. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 - JDPhD[edit]

Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Arbcom sanction, I will leave one last warning as a reminder since his last was some months ago. Thanks for the heads up. Rodhullandemu 21:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, per above, he already had a "last" warning. Are you saying if he does this behavior pattern, again, on the same topic, in a couple months, he will receive yet another "last" warning? -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I will block, with a full explanation. Rodhullandemu 21:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, understood. Please log the action, at WP:ARBSCI, afterwards. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked one week, topic-banned three months, & logged. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Honorific Nicknames in Popular Music"[edit]

I'm sorry, but since when does an article declare that Taylor Swift is a Queen of Country Music? Last time I checked, there's many other female artists out there that have done much more than her, sold much more than her, and succeeded in much more than she ever has and ever will.

Plus, she's classified more as a Pop artist than anything else. She labels her music Country. I'm sorry, but you suspending my edit to take her off of such a classy and highly-ranked list is completely wrong.

Since apparently the only thing that declares Taylor Swift as a Queen of Country Music is a measly little article from online, I guess that means I can post that Carrie Underwood is much more of a Queen than she will ever be. She's Country, and not a Pop artist like Swift is. If that's how the people at Wikipedia like to declare someone as a high rank in music, then the pendulum swings both ways, and I can post Carrie Underwood's name in that same article.

Undrwood9098 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)undrwood9098[reply]

You are making the classic mistake on this article of substituting your own opinion for labels provided by reliable sources, such as music journalists. Furthermore, you remove a properly (although in my opinion, not greatly) sourced label with one that is even more poorly-sourced. I'll make it plain for you: your own opinions, as do mine, count for precisely zero here- if an honorific title has been assigned by a reliable source we may cite it. It's then up to the readers of Wikipedia, not its writers, to determine how much credence they attach to that title. All we do here is provide the information, in a neutral manner. Wd to not impose our own prejudices here. Is that clear? Rodhullandemu 23:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely. So are you saying that any artist who is ranked as a Queen of Country Music can be put on the list, as long as the article provided is reliable and supported by professional reviews and choices? Undrwood9098 (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)undrwood9098[reply]
Yes. Is that a problem? The bottom line here is that we do not impose our personal opinions; we merely report what the reliable sources state. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite or a blog. Rodhullandemu 00:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Louise Thomas[edit]

Hi Rodhullandemu, I have a question regarding the photo that you resized at Tina Louise Thomas. This was the "Servant" album cover. I do understand most of the copyright issues and that perhaps the 500kb I uploaded may have been too much, though I have seen similar on Wikipedia. However, in this case, the resize of the photo that was done makes the eyes look distorted. Is there a way that a better resize could be done without leaving the one up that is now visible on the page? Thanks. Sdwelch1031 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried resizing this again, but I think the original scan wasn't at sufficiently high resolution to enable proper scaling, and it still looks poor. Apart from rescanning or perhaps finding a better version at albumart.com, this may be an artefact of the image itself. The file size here is less important than the image dimensions and 300 x 300px seems to be the de facto standard for album covers. Rodhullandemu 02:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying. Agreed on what you say. I just went to the flickr site noted in the file history and downloaded the largest size, used PS3 to resize to 300x281 and it came out quite a bit better. (I looked at the current file photo against the one I just resized and the eyes do not have that, whatever kinda, weird look to them.) Don't wanna cause you additional work. What are the options here? Can I email you what I did? Sdwelch1031 (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or could I upload the new one and you delete the earlier two photos if 300 is standard for these. Sdwelch1031 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked, it isn't on albumart.org so you might as well upload it & I'll check it out later. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 02:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Just uploaded and does look better. Imagine the earlier two photos should just be deleted and the previous version box could be deleted as well. Appreciate your assistance. Sdwelch1031 (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit[edit]

Hello,

Please be kind and have a look at the article Tom_Jones_(singer) created by user:68.7.71.31, aome other users deb and . This article is about TOM Jones and includes informations on him such as the discography. I have added the discography-tune list and I have included tunes at his main page because not everbody needs to read further details "many-clicks-away" on him. What edition each album had been released, what bonus tracks had, what length each tune had on different albums are a deeper coverage article. This information along with: compposer, year of releases, versions, one could include in a more "depth" coverage article up to each song. If you don't mind please do format my article if you like. The article had not been vandalised but I want it to include a cleaner short-list of tunes in his discography section, too. Don't want to be mean but don't revert.Bogdan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.53.29 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:DISCOGS for what should be in an artist's discography; in the case of an artist whose career spans several decades, the detail should be in the separate discography article, where it is treated in detail, and sourced. There is no reason to duplicate the same information in Tom Jones main article. Rodhullandemu 22:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I will read, but information as the track listing for each album is not available anywhere. What solution is there if the Discography article does not have the tracks listings? Wouldn't be more eficient to put the track-listings in the main page and ADDITIONAL information for each track be put in the article you mention, or in articles for each song? The bad thing is that the TABLE syntax used in discography article is hard to implement by keyboard and I don't know any program to do it for me. Are you kind to allow the tracks in the main page, or will you do it for me with a program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.55.22 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ALBUMS is the project dealing with music albums, but we wouldn't normally add track listings outside the individual articles for each album since that would make "overview"-type articles too large and a lot slower to load. If there are no such album articles, they surely could be created for Tom Jones as a notable performer. Meanwhile, table syntax for discogs isn't that complicated, you perhaps just need a little practice in the sandbox, and I know of no tool to make them for you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 15:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sorry[edit]

Hello, thank you for your advice. I really enjoy being a part of Wikipedia and I like to add to it whenever I can and I know that if I am blocked then that will be difficult to do. I apologize for violating the photograph upload policies and if the spirt moves me to upload another image then I will come to you, since you are an expert, and I will get the proper help. I hope you will accept my apology and repeal the block threat.

Citrus-related nonsense?[edit]

That's the best warning ever. the_undertow talk 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Liverpool saying goes, "you can't crack me, I'm a grapefruit". Good to see you around. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect The Beatles in Mono[edit]

We have an IP hopping edit warrior who's edit warring over a bit of uncited trivia. Radiopathy •talk• 01:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
97.120.118.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Seems to have stopped but I'll keep an eye on it. Rodhullandemu 15:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot rights[edit]

Per the XLinkBot's FAQ User:XLinkBot/FAQ the bot flag is not set to ensure its actions show up in Recent Changes. Won't setting it to Autopatrolled keep its edit from appearing? Gerardw (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's edits still appear in Watchlists and should be monitored from there, without the need for manual approval of its edits. It seems silly to require that, but if it's a problem, please let me know. Rodhullandemu 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the design of the bot --by not having the bot flag set -- was to ensure its actions show up in RC. It reverts good faith edits by new users. The least we can do is help ensure its actions get reviewed quickly. Gerardw (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Was confused about what the autopatrolled right did, didn't read the section carefully enough. Gerardw (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

  1. Confirmed is redundant. It is already autoconfirmed.
  2. Reviewer is silly. It won't be using the review flag and is autoreviewed by virtue of autoconfirmed.
  3. Autopatrolled is unnecessary. It doesn't create new articles and I doubt anyone is patrolling user talk pages.

That being said, the answer to the question asked by the OP: is No: it will still appear in recent changes. –xenotalk 17:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough, but it does seem to clash with Pending Revisions, so I'll remove the flags. Rodhullandemu 17:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB - approval protocol at other projects (sw)[edit]

Hi, I am AWB-approved at en and Administrator at sw (Swahili Wikipedia). I would like to know if there is someone at AWB who can answer a few questions we have about AWB approval (at sw). 1=As extant sw administrator, I received AWB en approval and was able to begin AWB editing at sw without any sw approval process. Is this because of my administrator status at sw, or do we lack an approval mechanism? 2=An sw user now is seeking AWB approval at en or de, I do suppose that he/she will successfully attain it, but my question is, do we at sw have the means to approve a future AWB user or will he/she be automatically enabled to use AWB at sw (due to some lack of an approval process)? 1+2=In other words, do we need to change anything here at sw in regards to approving AWB use, or do we already have the means to do so?; or do we lack the means to do so? 3=If there's someone else at AWB who is knowledgeable about these issues, I would be glad to talk to them instead, I chose this talk page from approval list 'Requests for registration' at the check page (Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage). On the other hand, if you can help us with some information, I would sure appreciate it. Thanks. Mr Accountable (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users with the Admin bit are automatically approved for AWB here, and I assume this applies on other wikis. As for your other questions. I could not honestly offer an authoritative answer but User:Reedy wrote AWB and is its technical guru, so I would advise asking him. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 15:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mr Accountable (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre killer[edit]

173.206.124.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) sufficient warnings.Radiopathy •talk• 01:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to get some sleep sometime, but the IP has stopped after a last warning. Rodhullandemu 23:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Review[edit]

Hey.

Could you please review my DYK from 15 August: here. Mine is Bed Intruder Song.

If it's already been reviewed when you see this message then forget it. :)

Thanks,

--TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 03:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did take a quick look at it, but I'm not currently that involved in DYKs. I'm sure someone else will take a look at it. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

I noticed an edit/spelling war going on in the Battlestar (reimagining) page. It looks like an issue of WP: TIES vs. WP: RETAIN.

KentuckyFriedRamen (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have stopped for now, but I've watchlisted the page in case it flares up again. Rodhullandemu 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That bothersome school IP is at it again.[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:199.195.109.21 SBHarris 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've stopped, as school IPs usually do; my take is that blocking is only justified if vandalism is sustained, which I don't see it being right now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Celebrities with Criminal Records[edit]

I just saw your reversion of the addition of this new category to Michael Jackson and it got me thinking. This category (which has been added by its creator to several articles) is a potential nightmare. First of all, definitional -what is a celebrity? Second and more important, depending on the crime criminal records can be expunged after passage of the relevant period of time, so someone who has a criminal record now, may not have one in 5 years time. This is a BLP problem because finding sources may be impossible - most people outside law enforcement don't have free access to criminal records databases. I guess one could pay for a background check, but is anyone really going to do that? Your thoughts? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did strike me as subjective as to "celebrity" and per WP:BLPCAT, a bit of a nightmare, especially if Michael Jackson (who was never convicted of any offences) is being added to it. As for sourcing, a conviction should be reliably sourced in the article to justify adding such categories, and I see a similar list was PRODded in March on the ground "WP:BLP nightmare, will never be a complete list" and this would seem to be a way of getting round that. I'll nominate for deletion. Rodhullandemu 15:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, gets my !vote. – ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds[edit]

116.80.251.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This person keeps changing the writing credit in the lead, effectively removing cited content. They have been asked twice already to stop. Radiopathy •talk• 15:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have stopped for now but I've watchlisted & will block for 3RR if it continues. Rodhullandemu 15:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonceloverlove[edit]

Hi there Rodhullandemu, I noticed you blocked some sockpuppets of Beyonceloverlove (talk · contribs). I've just returned from a wikibreak, so I'm somewhat out of the loop. Anywho, I came across Jake&beyonce (talk · contribs) and I suspect that this is yet another sock. Could you look into it? — ξxplicit 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His editing behaviour so far doesn't match the previous socks; I'm somewhat used to the socker, but I'm not yet convinced that this is the same editor. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. This new account shared the name Jake with the blocked sock Jakeatlass (talk · contribs), which led to my suspicion. Thanks, and sorry for the bother. — ξxplicit 22:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this isn't the socker; just that so far, there's little to link the two, and no grounds for an SPI or a Checkuser request. Rodhullandemu 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Official csa logo.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Official csa logo.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hugahoody (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops[edit]

Hello Rodhullandemu. I hope you know that I had meant to get the entire bit of trolling off of your page instead of just the signature. I made an error that even most newbies wouldn't have. Many apologies. I know that, at times, being an admin must seem like one of the top ten, er five, er one most thankless tasks online so I want to say that I appreciate your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for your appreciation. Rodhullandemu 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for objective participation in discussion[edit]

As a trusted editor on WP, you're invited to look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cagney, Jr. and comment. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page[edit]

HI there

I'm email to ask about a page you deleted. Freshly Squeezed Music. I can add the content if need be. Please reinstate so I can edit.

Thanks

Copydawg (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Banana production in Iceland[edit]

The article Banana production in Iceland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Once you remove the sources linked to a QI forum, this article simply states that Iceland grows a small number of bananas for scientific research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Branson's atheism 'controversial'?[edit]

I don't know what's controversial about it given that it has the extract right there on his profile complete with reference:

"In 1998, Branson released his autobiography, titled Losing My Virginity, an international bestseller.[citation needed] In it, he wrote of feeling defenseless in a balloon: "I do not believe in God, but as I sat there in the damaged capsule, hopelessly vulnerable to the slightest shift in weather or mechanical fault, I could not believe my eyes."[7]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrowiki (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that, but copying the reference to the infobox would make it quite plain; We tend to be careful about citing such things. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Old Sign Church pic[edit]

I did not articulate well my reason for the deletion. It was as you say merit based. I don't think it is informative. Let me know what you think.Carmarg4 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no view either way, but if you think it adds nothing to the article, fine. Rodhullandemu 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Turner[edit]

Hi Rod, whenever you get the chance, can you click on this link and take a look at the recent vandalism being done here by some editor, please. They won't stop vandalising either. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More incompetent experimentation than pure vandalism I think, but I've left a warning. Rodhullandemu 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP genre probs.[edit]

98.92.185.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Was warned prior to today, made two edits after final warning. Appears to have stopped. I don't know what you want to do with this. Radiopathy •talk• 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours block to get the act together, with an explanation. If that doesn't work, the next block will be somewhat longer. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not blocked! Check his contribs. Radiopathy •talk• 14:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, he is now! Rodhullandemu 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons Deletion Assistant (Beta Testing)[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I've removed the log in link. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I'll give it another go. Rodhullandemu 22:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swine Flu[edit]

I think it's pathetic that you are denying the people the full story. You are only allowing them to receive one side of the story - the story stemming from the creators of this pandemic passed on to the mainstream media. I don't know if you know what you're doing or not, but I feel you need to think about what kind of world you want your children to live in. Do you want them living as a slave, deprived of information? Or do you want them living in a free world where freedom of speech is still in effect?

I would request that you put my edit back on the page. I don't see why you would have such a problem with the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerT4C (talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I take action in an admin capacity, I take no position on the merits of the content of the edits themselves, merely on the conduct of the editors, and their compliance, or otherwise, with our policies and guidelines. I'm not interested in the truth, but you now have a chance to discuss this issue with other editors on the Talk page of this article, and I urge you to take that chance. You have a week, or until consensus is reached, should that happen earlier. Rodhullandemu 01:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

81.110.220.68[edit]

FYI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron -- PBS (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that these people, in one direction or another, are legion and like wasps at a picnic. Unless and until they can be pinned to cork as entomological samples, they should be reverted as "unsourced/undiscussed change" and forgotten. Some people have not read WP:UKNATIONALS, which sadly is merely a suggestion rather than a guideline or a policy. Ho hum. Rodhullandemu 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to honorific nicknames...[edit]

Would this addition be acceptable to the article's list? Dan56 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:New Vision 9 The Future.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:New Vision 9 The Future.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Russo[edit]

i just thought suckas need to know who the best writer is you feel me? dont be a player hater like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.169.59 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our policy on neutrality. Rodhullandemu 20:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alrite brother. keep it real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.169.59 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muse[edit]

The information I put up about the Sex Pistols and Muse are true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junior200 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please cite a source for it, or lose it. Rodhullandemu 22:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definite article, and the capitalization thereof[edit]

I reverted User:Rothorpe's edit that rendered all midsentence mentions of The Adverts as the Adverts (plus one of "the Damned") (diff). Rothorpe has in turn reverted my edit (diff), quoting Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Capital letters#Use of "The" mid-sentence. Reading that, it seems to justify my edit - 1) as an "idiomatic exception" i.e. a proper name, and 2) by "following the sources" which commonly refer to The Adverts. You know I love a peaceful life - could you pop in and set us straight on Talk:The Adverts? Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

change influenced by to the Five perfect Masters : her is the reference or citation :[edit]

^ Infinite Intelligence, Meher Baba, Sheriar Press, 2005, p. 117 i dont know how to refer it (No2vndlsm (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Please see my response on the article's Talk page, and keep discussion there, please. Rodhullandemu 19:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Infinite Intelligence, Meher Baba, Sheriar Press, 2005, p. 117 Ppwrong (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[edit]

pls change influences to 5 perfect masters

no Declined See above. Rodhullandemu 19:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Hepburn[edit]

I see that the edit I was trying to make almost a year ago has been made by someone else now, quoting the same source as I previously did RE: her fathers Irish background. Are you going to remove that now or have you finally accepted it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugg1900 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't sourced then; it is now. That's all I can ask for, rather than "widely-known"- it isn't necessarily so. Rodhullandemu 14:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a source, and you said: ":This source seems far to vague to be definite, and the author says so himself. The linkage seems too remote to sustain the addition of a category." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugg1900 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are blunt instruments, requiring precise sourcing to justify inclusion therein. I stand by my original comments, and am somewhat amazed that you fail to realise the weakness of your source, and that ten months down the line, that it even matters to you. Although you may well have been travelling throughout Antarctica for that time, if it had really mattered to you, I think you might not have waited so long before making so much of a point of a minor issue. Meanwhile, I have better and more constructive things to do here, and perhaps you should find similar pursuits; there are so many backlogs to be dealt with. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the reason I brought it up is because the source is in the article, even though you took issue with it when I added it. Perhaps you should not be so pedantic with valid sources. Thank You. Dugg1900 (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meher Baba Article[edit]

Thanks for page protection. May I request that you keep an eye on this page. Recent edits and edit-warring have a familiar flavor...we've seen similar before...and in previous incarnations this editor (if it IS the same editor) has been persistent, and ready to jump in after the gate re-opens. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have it watchlisted. Rodhullandemu 14:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Radcliffe and Silly Exchange[edit]

My apologies for asking for your opinion, particularly for what ultimately amounts to no more than a nit, but maybe if you comment, I can let it go. Here's the story. The original sentences in the Radcliffe article read: "Radcliffe first expressed a desire to act at the age of five.[11] In December 1999, he made his acting debut in the BBC's televised two-part adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel David Copperfield, portraying the title character as a young boy." Editor Sir Stanley changed the second sentence to read: "In December 1999, aged 10, he realised his ambition and made his acting debut in ..." I modified that change to read: "In December 1999, at the age of 10, he realised his ambition and made his acting debut in ..." I actually meant to also change "10" to "ten" but neglected to do so. My rationale for changing it was to parallel the preceding sentence's phrase "at the age of five." Editor Radiopathy reverted my change, apparently offended that I had eliminated the word "aged", which is more commonly used in British English than in American English. I modified the change again, this time using the word "ten" as I had originally intended, pointing out in my edit summary that I was trying to be consistent with the previous sentence, and that the previous sentence's source, BBC News, used the phrase "at the age of", attempting to convince Radiopathy that I wasn't doing this to Americanize (Americanise??) the article. Didn't work and he reverted again, this time without explanation. I don't want to revert it again. There are well over 200 watchers of the Radcliffe article, and if someone else feels strongly one way or the other, they could step in. I doubt raising it on Radcliffe's Talk page will get much feedback, either, given how small a point it is. After looking at Radiopathy's Talk page and the incredible number of arguments he appears to get into with other editors (it's where I found you), I decided posting something there would not be helpful.

If I were smarter, I'd let the whole thing go as it's simply not worth getting upset about. Plus, it's not a policy violation, but just a subjective opinion about wording. However, I'm not that smart. :-) Again, I apologize for the request here and the length of the explanation. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I find it difficult to get excited over minor wording. I don't necessarily believe that "at the age of" or "aged" are Americanisms, but on balance they may simplify it for the reader who cannot work out dates! This sort of thing should be on the Talk page, but beware of WP:LAME. Rodhullandemu 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Radiopathy is saying - and my quick Google search seems to bear it out - that "aged" is a Britishism, meaning he thought I changed "aged" because I'm American. In any event, I think you're right about WP:LAME, and I'm going to drop it, particularly because Sir Stanley doesn't seem to care, and it was his original wording. As an aside, apparently Radiopathy watches your Talk page because he took umbrage at my comments and posted a message on my Talk page (which I intend to ignore for the sake of avoiding a battle). Anyway, explaining myself thoroughly here seems to have made me feel better, so think of yourself as a therapist. Thanks for your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dubstep[edit]

hey, i'm a member over at dubstepforum, so i've had a word about repeated addition of the forum link to the article. hopefully that should calm things down. although i do get a distinct sense of deja vu about all this. --Kaini (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I don't think it's an appropriate link for us. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal/sock[edit]

I think these are the same person:
92.224.227.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Queenrocks77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This edit, from last September, is very similar to the two that the IP did today. Radiopathy •talk• 01:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Freddie Mercury page??[edit]

Hi. I have noted the plethora of reverts on Mercury article (14 in 7 days of which 12 were removals of IP user edits). I also noted that in terms of traffic Mercury's page is 533 on Wikipedia. Given how busy this page is (Queen page also) and nonsense IP edits, i would propose that the Mercury article (and recently unlocked Queen) are locked, and open to contributions by registered, more genuine/reliable users.JodieCox200 (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the five perfect masters[edit]

4- 5 people are not happy with the restrictions.

please change the influenced by tag to 5 perfect masters tag

THANK YOU

here is the citation:

^ Infinite Intelligence, Meher Baba, Sheriar Press, 2005, p. 117 —Preceding unsigned comment added by No2vndlsm (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined Please see the specification of the {{infobox philosopher}} template; it refers to "influenced by", and not "5 perfect masters". This is not going to be added to the template since it is not of general application to philosophers. Such a reference would also be contrary to our neutrality policy. Rodhullandemu 15:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Robert van der Velden[edit]

We seem to have a blocked user requesting unblock at User talk:Robert van der Velden. He indicates that he appealed the block to the Arbcom, with no response. Since you engaged with this user in February, could you have a look? This was the beginning of the year; it's possible that arbcom missed the e-mail, with the changeover and all - or, it's possible there was a response that I wouldn't be aware of. Either way, your insight is welcome. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've received nothing from ArbCom abut this editor, but I have replied at his Talk page. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I declined the unblock request earlier this hour. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed. Good call. Rodhullandemu 15:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Thanks for the quick look. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection issues[edit]

Hi Rod, I recently requested the protection of:

both of which you agreed to protect and the article histories show protect settings were put in place but they don't appear to have worked. On both articles users had managed to edit and re-open the articles. I am less concerned about "Only Girl (In the World)" as it is starting to pick up indepedent coverage but the first article is definately in need of protection. Could you please look into this? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reprotected Insatiable (Nadine Coyle song) because it is not yet a notable single. The redirect to the album is, for the time being, appropriate. As for Only Girl (In the World), another admin has protected that for the time being, and I think that this should quieten things down for the time being. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shirley Phelps-Roper for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Shirley Phelps-Roper, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Phelps-Roper until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Wolfview (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear[edit]

Saying nothing would have been saying nothing. Telling me that you're saying nothing and then throwing in a little jab at the end is exactly the kind of thing that I feel compelled to respond to. But I took it off of X!'s page, since that seemed to be a primary point of contention. This is my admin account, obviously. I just signed on to resign my bit on meta. You can check the contribs - I wasn't socking or anythign with the IP, in case you were curious. This account has been inactive for months. Wikipedia just makes me sad these days. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zackly so, but being a wasp at the picnic doesn't help. Why do you think I am spending most of my efforts over at Commons recently? "No hassle", and "no dickheads" is the short answer. Rodhullandemu 23:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's relatively early here, and I've run out of alcohol; hard work tends to mute its intended effects, so I will now take an hour out to go down to my local Tesco and come back with a cheap bottle of wine. Those who can live without that do not understand the luxury, but at least it cancels most of tomorrow. I'll be back. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being completely honest when I say that all I wanted to do was have a friendly and open discussion about the rationale provided. I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I still don't understand why I got so completely blown off without even a how-do-ya-do. Just another reason to stay away from Wikipedia, I guess. What exactly do you do on commons? -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back and refuelled. Please feel free to block me if I do my job over-zealously. But for the time being this is backlogged to March 2008. I've cleared 2007, but I seem to be the only one doing this. There is more to do, and, as I understand it, only about 260 active Admins there. I have been luck to have achieved the autopatrolled & move flags, but please feel free to pitch in. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna Rose Mauriello[edit]

I can't site the source since it's a private database for students, faculty, and staff at Middlebury College. It's well known on campus that Julianna Rose Mauriello is a student here. She's also listed in the directory <redacted> How do I site that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjhstuph (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private or not, I can see it from the link you provided. However, given the level of vandalism (of the worst kind) that her article has attracted, per policy on biographies, we should not publicise an email address for her. We have a responsibility to protect privacy of individuals here, and if a less contentious source exists, we should use that instead. Rodhullandemu 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks spam[edit]

Hello Rodhullandemu, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WiltsCollLogo.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WiltsCollLogo.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File is in use, and always has been. Rodhullandemu 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that an editor has made a recent inaccurate amendment to the 'school and educational facilities info box' that now no longer reports the images to be in use - in effect apparently orphaning them ... consequently thousands of school logos show as not being in use (when they actually still are) and Skier Dude is nominating them all for deletion. I have sent him a message and asked him to stop but the problem is potentially massive and I don't know where to go to discuss it or report it. Any suggestions? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 18:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh grief! Assuming he's stopped, I think we will have to find a friendly bot operator to undo all the nominations. Any idea how many files are involved? Rodhullandemu 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gawd knows ... he made around a thousand image edits between midnight and 8am and then stopped ... I guess he is in bed, working or doing his shopping. Let's see what he says when he finally gets back online. The problem seems to pivot round the change of the image field in the infobox to a replacement logo field. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What we could do is find out when he started, then check the categories such as Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files as of 12 September 2010 and revert all the school and college ones. However, if he'ds doing 1000 edits a day, not even I manage that! Rodhullandemu 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to Rodhullandemu for his long years of excellent admin contributions to the encylopedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you keep comming up on my watchlist protecting the People's princess article, and I know you do loads of good work elsewhere. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't expecting that! It's good to get these out of the blue, and I appreciate the gesture. Rodhullandemu 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dear rodhu, i was talking about changing influenced by to 5 perfect masters, this is the only issue i have,its in ur hands[edit]

I dont know how to use this complicated message system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.113.58 (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that this will happen. The template {{infobox philosopher}} has a field for "influences" but not "five perfect masters", as this term is not of general application to philosophers. Rodhullandemu 18:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:Amir.Hossein.7055[edit]

Hello dear Rodhullandemu i saw you have blocked this user per block evasion but in my talk page in farsi Wikipedia told that he never had a sockpupet, would please show me his main account ? or under which other username he evade current block ? Thanks in advance --Mardetanha talk 04:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details here. You'll note that the sockpuppetry is supported by Checkuser investigation. Rodhullandemu 15:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mardetanha talk 15:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Longevity traditions[edit]

This should be deleted, as it is a hodgepodge of original research by a Christian apologist, who picks and chooses material in an effort to claim that Biblical ages are scientifically correct (when there's no evidence that humans ever lived to "950" years old).Ryoung122 09:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that claim being made so strongly, but feel free to send it to WP:CFD for discussion, and I may well pitch in there. Rodhullandemu 15:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible problem[edit]

Hello again. I wanted to alert you to an editor who might - or might not - be making some problematic edits. If you have a moment please take a look at these Special:Contributions/Superastig. The main thing that the editor seems to be doing is removing recording labels from various musicians articles and infoboxes. There is never an edit summary to explain this and most of the articles have had these in them for some time. I know that you and I both have the George Harrison article on our watchlist and this editor removed several labels from his page but a few edits came after and I didn't have a chance to see this edit. Also odd is this [2] with its Wow Meganon stuff. I am sorry to ask you to take any time in this matter but I am headed out the door and won't have much time to be online for the rest of the day. If you are too busy please do not sorry about it and thanks for your time in any case. MarnetteD | Talk 15:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the removal of record labels. Rodhullandemu 15:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Looks like removing labels is one of this persons favorite edits. Other things can be a bit odd but nothing meets the level of vandalism. I know there isn't much more that can be done so I appreciate your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 02:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dear sir, first of all I am unable to undertstand the editing system,second is (there is something called as influenced by in the meher baba encycopedia -( is this not biased and vandalism)???[edit]

it shoes influenced by and then show option displays the five perfect masters.

What I am asking u to do is , please dont change the five perfect masters names, but please make sure words like influenced by are not used.

Just like u i am trying to protect the article on meher baba with unbiased info and vandalism

i expect now u understand my simple issue

best wishes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.113.58 (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cure[edit]

I replied on your comment. Superastig (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Beatles discography[edit]

Hi, Rod! Might we get your vote on this matter concerning the song "Something", please? Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's stubborn, boy[edit]

UhOhFeeling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding a dodgy Blender article to Emerson, Lake & Palmer that was removed by consensus over a year ago. He's back now and edit warring. Radiopathy •talk• 23:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit-warring. Rodhullandemu 23:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The George Harrison sock is back[edit]

Getsgeny2332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Radiopathy •talk• 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Pistols edit warrior[edit]

66.73.250.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding content about John Lydon's musical taste, which I also know to be true, but is using a fansite as a source and edit warring over it. Radiopathy •talk• 21:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sorry[edit]

Please don't block me or anything to that effect. My mistakes were simple and the violations I see that I've commited were unintentional. Starting today I will only put my two cents in through information not photographs. Please accept my apology.

It would help if I knew what you were talking about, but I am not malicious and am here to help; good editors are hard to come by here. Rodhullandemu 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... but not valued. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so, and well-put. The architecture of Florence, or even Manchester, may well draw admiration, but somebody has to clear out the drains and clean the windows. "They also serve, who only stand and wait." Milton, of course, was already blind when he wrote that, so perhaps it's ironic that his best work preceded that, but his influence was more regarded since. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Look, the reason I blank the page is simply to keep things from piling up and taking up a lot of space. I'm not doing it to be avoiding or anything like that truly. I just don't see the need for all the clutter besides I read everything that appears there before I blank the page. If you prefer I keep everything I'll be glad to do so just please don't block me.

It would be better for you if you got to grips with understanding copyright policy about images here; the Wikimedia Foundation takes legal issues like this, and libel, seriously, because we should not have to spend our limited financial resources defending legal cases. I'll repeat; you need to understand what images can, and cannot be used here. If in doubt, ask in advance. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have somewhat of an understanding now and if I should need anything I'll ask you or someone else. It is obvious that I am meant to add information not images.

Nothing wrong with adding images, but they have to be copyright-free or otherwise justifiable. Rodhullandemu 00:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...besides I read everything that appears there before I blank the page." And apparently ignore what was written, as you've been re-adding Category:Irish Roman Catholic to people not in any way notable for their Catholicism despite the edit summary removing them clearly stating why, and a post to your talk page. This is a collaborative project, Mr Rumage, not a one-man show. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I am not the only person editing information here on Wikipedia. I only added some categories back because in the biographical information above there were things listed thatt related to their religions. I only added the Catholic category to people who were mentioned as being Catholic. I am not ignoring what was written, you just think I am. I am trying to accomadate your rules and regulations to the best of my ability but sometimes things don't work out that way and it is not intentional. I just want to express my innocence to the fullest extent to verify that what I say is true.

for your education[edit]

houtkoppe is an Afrikaans racist term for blacks and colourds. So next time, you can assume vandalism. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guessed it wasn't complimentary, but WP:AGF, you know. Rodhullandemu 22:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem[edit]

Hey, had a look at my outbox and I sent an email to en.permissions on 5/26/07. I don't really know what I'm doing with permissions though so probably messed up following it up. There was 3 images (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MrBungle99.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trevor_Dunn.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:91SantaClaraMike.jpg) which I got permission to use from that website owner under GNU Free Documentation License. Any help you could give re getting it finalized/getting a ticket would helpful. If you can point me in the right direction... Cheers, Mr Bungle | talk 22:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your Talk page. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, resent it and will follow it up. Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 22:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all sorted, thanks again for reminding me about that. Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 02:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac[edit]

Why did you revert the article back to the incorrect version done by this guy? I had fixed everything and then you went and reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.33.217 (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an edit summary would have helped; this article is a honeypot for nitwits, but I'll take a second look at it. Rodhullandemu 01:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Beyoncé Knowles[edit]

Hi Rod! Can you click on this, please. User:Oback is vandalising this! Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look; I don't think it's vandalism, more inexperience, and this editor needs pointing in the right direction. Rodhullandemu 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You block me and not the other user for the three revert rule? How hypocritical. I can see why you no longer have a legal job. Not applying the rules equally and fairly does great harm to Wikipedia's credibility. I am rather surprised that this kind of behavior passes as OK on Wikipedia. It explains why so many editors have left. Please read the rules of Wikipedia. This is a great project but shortsighted admins like you only cast a dark cloud over the entire matter.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA and then try again. You've had your block reviewed twice already, and declined. A look at WP:STICK might also be useful to you. Rodhullandemu 16:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I apologize for the "PA." It is easy to overlook the sensitivities of another user, my apologies. But you are sidestepping the actual issue here. Why was the three revert "rule" not applied equally. Let me remind you, I was the one adding sourced information and I was the one trying to discuss. The other user continuously deleted sourced information without responding to my attempts at discussion.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was thrashed out over a year ago, and went to mediation, without much progress. However, the consensus on the talk page was clear that your edits were unacceptable on the basis that for issues like that, Blender was not a reliable source. Whereas consensus is not set in stone, it persists until renegotiated, and I see no effort on your part to try to do that. You've already been advised at WP:AN of that. However, you persisted in edit-warring to your preferred version of the article, and so were blocked by me. Thereafter, your two requests for unblocking were declined by uninvolved admins. I think it would be better all round if you put this down to experience and moved on. I regard this as an end of the matter, and FWIW, I no longer practise law because I moved on to different fields, and am now retired altogether. Rodhullandemu 17:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand "moving on" to different fields. No big deal. I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. I apologize for insinuating that you were a bad lawyer because it appeared to me that you were not following policy. In america, rule 404 of the FRE (Federal rules of evidence) bars evidence which only attempts to show a defendants proclivities. I believe this is a good rule and I apologize for painting you in such a light. But please look at my edits. I was the one who tried to discuss this with the other user. The other user did not respond. The consensus of which you speak was tenuous at best. These type of sourced edits are common on many other pages. Is the three revert rule not really a "rule" then? Are we allowed to break it if we have a "reason."--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's at it again already. Radiopathy •talk• 18:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your Talk page and BTW, it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRR, and I've had enough of your tendentious nonsense. Rodhullandemu 22:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the AN again. Two editors agree that the other user should have been blocked. Also I did attempt to discuss this. I put in a request for mediation a while back in that was absolutely no help. A user who agreed with me brought up several important points which were never addressed. I also tried to discuss this on user radiopathy's talk page. All that user did was revert without discussing. Also, it has been noted by several editors that the "consensus" of which you speak was very tenuous. I would recommend you research more thoroughly in the future in order to avoid misstating the facts and avoid breaking policy.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009 is when you went to mediation; it got nowhere. That left the status quo intact, and that consensus, although arguably not overwhelming (I wouldn't describe it as "tenuous"), was against you. Accordingly, it's up to you to make a better case. However, you come back as if nothing had happened and continue to force your POV into the article. How many times have I advised you to discuss this again? I've lost count, but I'm certainly not going to waste any more time on this, because it's already stale, and I have work to do elsewhere. What you might do is take your proposed edit to this forum and seek advice from the experts there. Rodhullandemu 22:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan[edit]

i feel that her appearance at the VMA's should be added, just after where she served her prison/rehab sentence and just before where she might be going back due to her failed drug test, it is quite a notable appearance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.58.160 (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:BOLD and add it, as long as you cite a source. If other editors disagree, I'm sure they'll let you know. Rodhullandemu 18:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


honestly I would only the page is locked and I am not an official member and therefore i dont have access to editing the page, i only help the wikipedia community by posting on discussion pages and editing unlocked pages, i know this must be a pain for you but here is the source if you wish to add it to the article: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/Lindsay+Lohan+Makes+Surprise+Appearance/3514777/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.58.160 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I apologize before hand if this isnt the place to ask or if you are not interested. I recently expanded and updated the BulletBoys article, mainly because whoever had been editing it before, appeared to be selective in what went into the article: Revision history Don't think I explained my reasons very well on the page? Im still fairly new to wikipedia editing and can't always make my point clear. It would be help if another editor, such as yourself, could help because for all I know, I could be making mistakes myself. At the moment the page is only edited by myself and Noyb737 HrZ (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct as far as I see in insisting on reliable sources, and I have left some advice and a COI warning on Noyb737's talk page. I've watchlisted the article and will step in if this gets out of hand. Meanwhile, edit summaries are not the best way of thrashing this sort of thing out. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 14:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duley noted. Thank you for your help. HrZ (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Implore You[edit]

Sir, I do get it I am just trying to label them correctly. I can see that I must not be getting something so it is obvious that I should stick with adding information as opposed to images. I think that I will do that I don't want any trouble nor do I want the headache. I did not mean to violate any policy, once again my intentions were good yet misunderstood. I don't want to be blocked as I have alot of things I can add to Wikipedia and I think it's in my benefit to stick with adding the information which is what I will start doing as of today September 20, 2010. I must go now and finish this.

Please read this and this before you go much further. I know you mean well, but at present, your uploads may cause problems. Rodhullandemu 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your links, and thanks for sharing them, but I think it is better if I say goodbye to image uploads.

You can always ask another editor in advance, but I'm not sure many would have the time to get involved. You could look at Wikipedia:Adoption to see if anyone's interested. Otherwise, you can learn our image policies, or stop uploading images. And please don't call me "sir", all editors are equal here, although some are more equal than others. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.

If I can butt in here - I am puzzled that you were able to do a perfectly good and valid 'non-free use rationale' at File:Bed of Roses Poster.jpg but you failed to do the same on the other images. What happened? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 01:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link? And WP:DTTR. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Battle of Britain (film)[edit]

Have a look at this editor's activities today [[3]] 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have had appropriate advice, and stopped. Rodhullandemu 15:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm caught in an autoblock[edit]

I got caught in User:Freakingfireballz autoblock when I tried to edit from school (the IP address that got autoblocked, and that I got autoblocked from, was one of my school district's IP addresses, so I'm guessing a fellow student was vandalizing as Freakingfireballz). I posted an autoblock unblock request, but just dropping you a note to let you know. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I usually leave the autoblock on so that vandals can't edit as IPs for a while, however, you should be granted autoblock exemption as a trusted user. Rodhullandemu 19:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmk, many thanks. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 19:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection[edit]

Seeing as you beat me to a rollback just now, I will presume you are online. You are also administrator, so I was wondering if you could protect todays Featured Article?

See [4] for Sherlock Holmes Baffled. I fear this vandalism may continue all night.

Update: There is even more than I originally posted. Check out the pages history.
Limideen 20:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Don't worry, dealt with.
Limideen 20:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When will you people learn?[edit]

My name isn't Jesus Christ in a Bucket, It's Hell in a Bucket! Cheers your comment made me laugh and I had to misconstrue it sorry!. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. "Helena Handcart" would be just as good a user name, but my version at least has the advantage of satirising the religious nutters. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unblock of marknutley[edit]

Hi. Good call on the unblock, but I'm here to protest on principle that you appear to have ignored the tremendous accusation of bad faith above your message by the user which I've now responded to. Regards. --Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, but please stop deleting my comments. It doesn't help with continuity of communication. Rodhullandemu 00:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you with utmost confidence that the removals are not intentional. As I have explained elsewhere before, I do run into this problem now and then when contributing from my smartphone. I'll go fix it. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed, many apologies for the trouble. Cheers, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley[edit]

Hi, Rodhullandemu. Just a note to say I think that was the right thing to do. I don't know anything about either editor beyond a brief exchange with User:Marknutley on an unrelated topic, but: 1) I don't think there was any personal attack, and 2) I felt rather badly that the user was blocked for a remark directed to me. The block threshold here seems to me very low and I feel at something of a loss to explain the whole thing. There's evidently some bad blood between these editors, but the one with the alleged apoideal insertion doesn't even appear to have objected. All very odd. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Remember me i'm meow989 you blocked me out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meow898 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do and guess what; I've done it again. If you want to be unblocked, log in to your original account, grovel appropriately and promise to grow up and not do it again. Meanwhile, blocked you are and blocked you will stay. Rodhullandemu 22:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/39&oldid=1090431802"