User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/32

Gladys Knight

In regards Gladys Knight, the notion that she was overshadowed by Diana Ross or Aretha Franklin is subjective and untrue. Long known as The Empress of Soul, The Society of Singers made it official by declaring her as such when presenting Gladys with the 16th Annual Ella Award. The sources I added predate yours and are to the point of substantiating her title. And if you will not leave it, I would like to start a discussion so that the matter may go to a vote.Comprendo (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Any analysis of chart statistics and record sales might be used to show the "overshadowing" which, although subjective, is reliably sourced, unlike your sources. The convention in that article is to provide a quotation citing the honorific title. Per this guideline and WP:BURDEN, it is up to you to justify your edits, which I suggest you do on the Talk page, so that other editors may have a say. And we don't have a "vote", we discuss in order to reach consensus. You seem to be trying to give Gladys Knight undue weight here, and I also advise you to review these guidelines and the protocols for that page before making your proposals there. Rodhullandemu 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are simply wrong. If you are at all familiar with the Gladys Knight's history with respect to being called The Empress of Soul, you would know that it goes back as far as the sixties. But at the height of their popularity, in the seventies, a Japanese writer reaffirmed Gladys' title as The Empress of Soul. From 73-75, Gladys Knight was not overshadowed by anyone. In 2007, September 10, the Society of Singers, Gladys' peers, officially reaffirmed her title and designated her as such when bestowing the 16th Annual Ella Award upon her. A google search of Empress of Soul immediately brings forth that insulting and subjective summary of an article. It's not even a reliable source for her title as Empress of Soul. The sourcew you keep removing is an eyewitness account of the Society of Singer'a event, during which Gladys received the Ella Award and had her title officially bestowed upon her. For this reason, I intend to use it as a citation.Comprendo (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not me you have to persuade; other editors have also disagreed with you, and I repeat my invitation to discuss your proposed edits on the article Talk page, otherwise you are likely to be reverted yet again. Rodhullandemu 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

your are the man!!

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

....Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but I haven't been here for 4 years, so I'm not sure I'm entitled to it. Rodhullandemu 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

omg sorry i did the wrong one...-->sorry my friend my math was not good and they just changed the times !!

This editor is a
Veteran Editor IV
and is entitled to display
this
Gold Editor Star.

here.......Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Waterloo road

Hey my name is keith Jones and i work for the BBC.

I Have been told to inform fans of the cancellation of series 5 of the show on the show's Wikipedia page and the official website. Unfortunately the shows website domain has gone down ad e are unable to edit the website but we are able to edit the show's wikipedia page.

We would like to kindly ask you to stop changing the information in which we put on this page as we have tried numerous times but you just simply keep changing it back.

We hope that we can have your cooperation.

Many thanks

Keith Jones and the Production Team @ the BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBC2010 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not what Wikipedia is meant for; all information is required to be reliably sourced, and if your website is down, sorry, there's nothing we can do about that. Please feel free to add it when it has been updated. In any event, the webaddress you gave is a redirect to this page. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir James Shaw, 1st Baronet GAN

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... Rodhullandemu 01:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

inability to understand the problem

you're right I don't understand

Battle_of_Lincoln_(1141) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.39.79 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

inability to understand the problem

you're right "I don't understand"

in the Battle_of_Lincoln_(1141) page, the link to "Friends of the Castle" is so much spam!!, you know, wake up.

but I cann't even have a link,

in the "Tourism and pictures" area of Lincoln,_Lincolnshire, with out everyone shitting on me!

I have Images from all over Lincolnshire and I've had links on wiki pages before, whats change.

I know, you've got same little Hitler that thinks he's God.

I'm sorry but would that not piss you off too.

YOU want to put a stop to this, you're move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.39.79 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

set the dogs on me!

All Tyw7 needed to do was get me to realize that he was taking to me, let me know "not this page", but this ones ok,

And I would have been fine with that.

But to lock my acount, and then set the dogs on me!

I'm sorry, but would that not piss you off, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.21.153 (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You lost me when you typed "Hitler" above. Rodhullandemu 21:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oprah's Page

Thanks for pointing my error out. I meant to move, not remove. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sticks and stones may break my bones/ But talk don't bother me

I am trying to put together an article on Titus Turner (1950/1960s R&B singer/songwriter). Well, apart from Allmusic, have I drawn a blank or what. He wrote "Sticks and Stones" (as above), "Tell Me Why", "Leave My Kitten Alone" et al. I can find more info on my back garden shed; and I don't have one ! As per your offer a month or so ago, can you help ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Grief! I've never heard of him, but I'll take a trawl around. Rodhullandemu 21:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Article now up at Titus Turner; if that helps. Don't bust a gut over this one. User:Ghmyrtle and me have lost half our waking hours, several bags of marbles, a couple of wives etc., already. I can manage without the wife, but I'll never replace that prize crystal with the green sparkling spiral in the middle. "You can't get the wood you know".

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's impressive; I did look him up through my various discography encyclopedias, but they are more geared towards rock than soul & RB. Well done! Rodhullandemu 23:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK?

I suspect we've lost this editor, at least under this account, and the edits prior to blocking weren't harmful. Hopefully Daisy Queen has started a new account and is contributing positively, but this delay is not a great user experience. I doubt there's anything we can do now. Rodhullandemu 02:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I read too fast and thought the user's name was Dairy Queen. Is it a permitted exception to start a new account if the old account was constructive but blocked? My situation is a little different because I forgot my password and finally found it so I just marked the old account as retired, which probably nobody noticed since it only edited a few times and that was over a year ago. But back to the ANI topic, is account creation allowed or are we very strict on following the rules? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard this as sockpuppetry because it's quite possible that this editor has forgotten the password of the original account, and there is no intent to deceive. I think a little common sense should be applied. Rodhullandemu 16:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A sensible answer. I know of one wise administrator and maybe I know a second one now. Occasionally, I need advice so I ask, almost in a "ask a genie" fashion....Wise man, I come with a question. No need to worry about being bothered as I rub the genie bottle only rarely. Sometimes, posting a question on ANI is the wrong way to go about it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that if you ask at ANI, you'll get nine replies offering eleven opinions, and a load of fluff. But thanks for the vote of confidence. Rodhullandemu 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough already

Could you take a look at User:81.96.174.85 edits on Nik Kershaw. I think he/she has had enough opportunity to comply. Thanks, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a week's holiday should get the message across. Rodhullandemu 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

GeoStar

Hats off to you, Rodhullandemu. You've done a first class job in knocking the UK geocoordinates down to zero. A really sterling effort. Thanks for persevering to the end and shouldering most of the load. It's been a long slog; I'm tempted to ask, what do we do now? But I guess there's work enough in other countries or other fields. It's been a real pleasure watching the numbers tumble. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. I took a look at Category:Unclassified articles missing geocoordinate data, and it's fairly large (22 pages). We need a friendly bot, I think, to categorise those that fall within the UK & related, but I do need a break. Rodhullandemu 23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there is some UK stuff in there, but I recall going through it many months ago and pulling out recognisable UK entries. And I suspect if The Anome has time to revisit the list of suggested categories to trawl, he'll find others. But you do deserve to get to do something entirely different. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise you'd already looked at it, but I think we can rely on AnomeBot to throw up new ones. This category now needs only passing maintenance, but I'm not keen on tackling non-UK articles just yet, simply because some of the Ireland ones have been quite disproportionate in effort. However, I've found quite a number of {{merge-school}} tags, many over two years old, and plan to tackle them next but there is no real consensus about notability of schools, so I will have to raise it at WP:SCHOOL first. Subject to approval, that is my next maintenance project, simply because it's something different to do. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trawling the unclassified articles again, so consider your parade rained on ;). The Isle of Man ones should be easy to dispose of, but there's a pesky prospective Berkshire railway and - at least on multimap - an obscured by clouds stadium in the British Virgin Islands. Schools. I see what you mean. I thought the deal was settled: merge primaries unless they're obviously notable and, err, I forget whether secondaries are settled. And agreed: UK geocoding is dead easy in comparison with anywhere else, what with OS maps and geolocatable postcodes. Northern Ireland was a slog. Everywhere else will just have to get along nicely without us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh - and I liked your poetical troll. There should be one beneath every talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexanda Burke

Good revert - I was just about to do same - I checked out the picture first - copyvio... http://view.picapp.com/default.aspx?iid=6663193&term=\alexandra%20burke - now tagged on Commons.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If these uploaders knew about TinEye, I doubt they'd be so confident about claiming "own work". Rodhullandemu 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Burke

Hello Rod, any thoughts on this? It is getting very heated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at it, and it seems to be under control. I have no view either way. Rodhullandemu 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Basil Rathbone

Hi, I notice you semi-protected Marlon Brando a couple of days ago. Would you mind taking a look at Basil Rathbone please? Looks like the same thing there. Thank you. regards, Rossrs (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Same guy; I've semi-d for a month. Rodhullandemu 13:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate that. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Process for vandal?

How should Jo3ct (talk · contribs) be handled? His one edit so far is vandalism, and pretty explicit. The usual level 1 warning seems hopelessly inadequate in this case, but I don't know what the policy is. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Per his talk page, blocked as a vandal-only account. Let's just say he failed the audition. Rodhullandemu 17:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Audrina Patridge

Hello! Are you the admin to the Audrina Patridge page? If so, maybe you can help me out. I realize getting it unlocked will probably not happen due to excessive vandalism. I'm a big fan of hers and would like to be able to add a few things here and there. Right now, I just want to remove the LA Candy film rumor. She said in an interview with AskMen.com that she will not be in appearing in the movie. Any pointers or help will be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Brencast (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not solely responsible, but I will add this for you. In future, you can ask for edits to be made on the Talk page by using {{Editsemiprotected}} and citing your sources. Rodhullandemu 21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The blacklisted site

If possible, could you determine which user it was whom blocked the site from Wikipedia? Perhaps if they and I discuss the issue, it may yet be resolved without Jimbo having to put his own assessment of the matter. Seriously, though, the Satanic ritual abuse page is at least somewhat biased. All edits of cases with some degree of evidence are quickly removed by a small group of users whom watch the page. However, rest assured that I will not further upset these users with this issue by contributing myself. Please, though, who blocked this site, and when? Thank you, Aangman14 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It would take you or I too much work to determine who applied this blacklisting, but it would have been any one of about 1200 admins, who would probably no longer remember the incidents leading to that. If you want to go through the page I linked, you'd probably find out eventually. However, I don't think that matters, since the site can be linked for appropriate users. As for Jimbo, although he is conscientious, he is also very busy and would hopefully defer to the advice I have given. And as I've already said, I haven't read the website, so I'm not qualified to venture an opinion on its validity. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 00:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he will remember, perhaps he shall not. Surely, with one of your own skill and experience, you could find this user for me? Perhaps if I go to other users for help, they could determine whom it was? I really am not so skilled in Wikipedia's more complex areas. Please, I'm serious, I really don't want to make trouble. Today, I swear, was the first time I even heard of this site. It is just that I personally cannot stop the feeling that any information supporting Satanic rituals is indeed being suppressed. These people who spam...you are a smart man, my friend. I of course cannot be certain, but is it so impossible that at least some of them have used the links to such websites inappropriately actually wanted it to be blocked, and thus did so as an excuse? POV in itself has to take place in some form on Wikipedia, whether we are aware of it or not. The question is now, what is really the biased area here? This site, or those whom wanted it to be blocked? Thank you, Aangman14 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whereas I could find this user, I am a volunteer here and I don't think it would be a constructive use of my time, as I have many other things to do, so I must regretfully decline. I've seen very little evidence of abuse of websites to discredit them in my 2.5+ years here, and I think that must be rare, since such a campaign would have to be more subtle than most, and spamming is by nature unsubtle. If such a campaign had succeeded, that would only have been because of its subtlety and our policy of assuming good faith; however, admins are appointed on their general understanding of how this encyclopedia works, and only experienced admins tend to blacklist websites, which seems to suggest that when they do so, it's for good reason. Rodhullandemu 00:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, my friend, but...are there not sysops whom have abused their powers, rogue administrators, you would call them? I do not mean to accuse anyone, but that even administrators can conceivably make mistakes, as much trust as you and I are expected to place in them. You yourself, I know, is a truly devoted and excellent sysop, but can you speak for the 1200 others here? Are you sure they have never made an action according to their own POV? Do not think I am devoting my time here unblocking the site so that I myself can abuse it immediately after it has been taken off the list. I really think that it was unjustly blocked. Of course, the most likely result of this is that my request is declined, and that the website will be continued to be blocked here for many years, but one at least has to make some effort to counter bias on Wikipedia. Please, my friend, I really do not mean to irritate you; I will go to others and ask them to help me on this. Thank you, Aangman14 (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at WT:Spam#ritualabuse.us. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Baby Tate

Another second opinion please. Do you think that Baby Tate - [1] passes the Wiki notability criteria ? Another sideman, but he did record an album, and was closely affiliated with notables such as Blind Boy, Pink, and Peg Leg. Mind you, I presently have as new articles or on the back burner, the following - Washboard Willie, Shakey Jake, Boogie Woogie Red, Blues Boss, Guitar Slim, Ramblin' Thomas, Grey Ghost and even Smoky Babe, so who needs a Baby Tate ?!? You can't make them up, can you !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd say if he's regarded by Allmusic as worthy of an article, he's probably notable, and that depends on sources. We are talking about somewhat specialist areas here, and the more sources the better. You're taking me back to my late 1960s enthusiasm for the Delta blues, when my friends and I reached the opinion that to be successful, you needed a disability, a fruit and a US President, as in Blind Lemon Jefferson. So we invented "Asthmatic Apricot Nixon", but he didn't really record anything much. Rodhullandemu 01:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't stand a chance. Castrated Cantaloupe Clinton won three Grammys for "Baa Baa Black Sheep" (featuring Syphilitic Strawberry shit - there's never been a President with an 'S'). LOL.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• You know, at the end of a difficult day that started out really well, and then went rapidly downhill for a while, that has restored my faith in human nature, and I may well be able to get some sleep tonight on that basis. Many thanks. The sooner I move back to Yorkshire, the better. Rodhullandemu 02:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Deceased

You had better not be 'deceased', or I will personally come round and revive you. Come on, old bean, there are plenty of us out here - need a hand ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit counter at WT:AWB/CP

Thanks for adding me to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage‎‎. From my own experience where I nearly applied before realising that talk edits do not count towards the automatic threshold, and noticing the number of editors who do apply without having 500 main space edits, I wonder if it would be helpful to you and potential applicants if there were a prominent link to the edit counter at the top of Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests for registration, with emphasis given to the fact that the count applies only to article edits (i.e. main space), not total edits. Unless, of course, you are using the current guidance as a sneaky test of our ability to follow more subtle instructions. At present, I suspect that many borderline applications are from people who have simply misunderstood the threshold and who would be quite happy to wait until there is no doubt that they have exceeded it. I know you are diligent in assessing these cases, but it may be that they never intended to put you to the trouble! — Richardguk (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A link to the edit counter would be useful, except that it would be dependent on Username. The {{AWBUser}} template does produce a customised link, which can be followed using the Preview button. However, I am pretty reasonable in assessing applications that fall short of the 500-edit mark, and I usually look at block log, recent contribs and sometimes Talk page to ensure there are likely to be no problems. I've had no false positives applying these criteria. Hope that helps. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 18:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, just thought it might save some effort, particularly for you! Great work though. — Richardguk (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Year of the Tiger

Hi Rodhullandemu. I was saddened to read about the very difficult and trying experiences you've endured recently. I hope that the Year of the Tiger and the coming of spring will bring you much better tidings. Take care and thank you for your many contributions to this collaborative effort at building an encyclopedia. My thoughts and prayers are with you for a speedy recovery and a thorough healing. Best regards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much of what I do here is invisible to most. Rodhullandemu 18:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Scream (film series) Semi-protection

I'd just like to thank you for adding semi-protection to the Scream (film series) article. It has really cut back on a lot of reverts and has saved a lot of time. I would've done it myself but administrators wouldn't allow my request. Anyway, thanks again. Geeky Randy (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've seen a lot of nonsense there in the past few weeks. Rodhullandemu 20:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

d00d

d00d, i'm not vandalising, only adding commonly known facts that you failed to leave off. don't make me block *you* from editing ~.~ 24.138.188.72 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin. I can block you from editing. You can't block me from editing. Meanwhile, please try to maintain a neutral viewpoint when contributing to articles. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 21:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wave 96.4 FM

Can you explain your warning here? User:Jonny7003 has been adding unauthoritsed links to copyrighted material to that article, and adding inappropriate sources. I have been removing said unauthorised links and inappropriate sources. Is there a problem here? Last time I checked, we don't have to discuss over the obvious, and there's no rule against removing obviously bogus warnings from one's talk page. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In what way, precisely, are links to external websites a breach of copyright? It's not as if he's just copying and pasting material from them, and without such links, this encyclopedia would probably cease to exist. I've written hundreds of articles, all of which rely upon external citations, and so have thousands of other authors and academics. The only sure way of not breaching copyright in the way you suggest would be to rely solely on original research, that that, for an encyclopedia, is a non-starter from the word "go". Even Isaac Newton claimed to have been "standing on the shoulders of giants", and that is the watchword we have here. We don't publish original thought, and rely on those who have gone before. I suggest you read any Featured Article to understand why this is so. Rodhullandemu 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I have two of whatever you're taking please? The user was adding links (removed by both myself and User:Welshleprechaun) to download the station's jingle package on Mediafire. I highly doubt that they were authorised, and I highly doubt any FA has similar links to unauthorised downloads of copyright material. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see that, but then I am very busy here. I saw links to external websites; no necessary problem with that. We don't link to copyright violations here, but if a website makes links available, and they comply with our policy, there isn't a problem. Rodhullandemu 02:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Check this diff, and see the links added at the end. And, more importantly, leave me alone in future. I'm not prepared to have to defend myself against an admin that's too busy to check their facts before throwing threats of blocks around. I still find it difficult to believe you were actually thinking of blocking me for committing such blatant vandalism as merging duplicate references, and removing sources that didn't actually support the statement they were cited for. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The user above is removing perfectly reasonable sources that are reliable and proof of the information on The Wave 96.4 FM article. As you said above, Wikipedia would cease to exist if sources are constantly being removed and information being erased. I do not see how this user can do this - to me it is vandalism. I have left out the external link of Mediafire, now understanding that it is not valid on Wikipedia. However, the rest of the source material is sufficient and should not be removed. Please help. Jonny7003 (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been brought up at the Administrators noticeboard. Kind regards Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

TM

I am terribly sorry. I will go back and attempt to add my comments correctly. Sorry Tuckerj1976 (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, I see you have corrected my error. Thank you very much Tuckerj1976 (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool lead image

As I can see, you were interested in the debate about what should be used as a lead image in the article about Liverpool. I have left a new message here, any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you help?

This Anon IP, continues to remove references and referenced information, simply because the links have expired(newspapers)[2][3][4]. I restored the references and referenced information only to be told to discuss this before reverting. Can you keep an eye on this Anon IP? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left advice on how these should be handled. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cunt = male anus

It's used a lot in some of the kinkier gay circles for the submissive's opening. I'll try to find a source. Zazaban (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of this, but even so, I don't think it's important enough to merit a mention in the lead section, per WP:UNDUE, even if sourced. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher

Sorry. I protected the article during a 4chan attack, apparently without realizing it already was, then unprotected it when the thread there died. So it was a mistake on my part. -- Pakaran 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's OK; I missed the 4chan attack and didn't know it was happening. Rodhullandemu 01:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please review WP:Involved admin (hmmm, redlink. still, per your comments there, you know what I'm talking about), and either undo your reblock with no talk page access, or consider temporarily turning in your tools until you can use them fairly and dispassionately. I'm sorry your real life week sucked, but please don't take that out on other people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The link is WP:UNINVOLVED, fyi. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:35, 18 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the indefinite block of Proofreader, but I would second Floquenbeam's request. Based on the comments there I did not see a pressing reason to lock out Proofreader77's access to their own talk page, and in any case you really should not have been the one to do it given your prior involvement. This isn't "it's time to turn in your tools" level of concern or anything close to it, but I think it would be best to change the block to allow Proofreader77 to edit their talk page. If the block sticks (as it likely will) and the talk page becomes a place for Proofreader to spout about one thing or another then we can lock out access, but another admin should take care of it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• It needed doing, in my opinion, since the guy should either request unblocking or stop using his Talk page as if it were MySpace. I think that decision was better taken by someone with a judicial attitude so as to be able to correctly assess and explain the situation; however, since you express concern over this, I will allow Talk page access, in the hope that what was hoped to achieve comes to pass. Rodhullandemu 15:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lightfoot

The "story" cited as proof of his death has already been pulled from Soo Today, Google News shows three stories, all going back to one rather dubious source. The rest of the Canadian media is avoiding this. Wikipedia looks ridiculous when it says people are dead when they are, in fact, alive. It's extremely corrosive to Wikipedia's credibility.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why I think a short protection is necessary, to let the dust settle, otherwise it'll all go tits up for a while. Rodhullandemu 20:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the "heads up" work! I'm on an email list for folk music in Canada. Members there have spoken to Lightfoot today. The rumour will be quashed; he is to do a press release some time today, we are told. Bielle (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to look more carefully at sources before you declare someone dead. That's a big mistake for an admin. Simply checking Google news and seeing that only one Canadian media outlet had touched the story should have been a big red flag for you. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but I know nothing about the Canadian media, or Canadia. At least as soon as I realised there was a problem, I did something about it. How many can say as much? Rodhullandemu 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A five-minute phenom, but watch for it to be listed in the next media feature on Wikipedia f***-ups. It's so important to be absolutely sure. When Lightfoot (or some British or American) icon goes to glory, the Google News list should explode with stories. This is Wikipedia, not Reuters or the Associated Press. We're not racing the wire services to be first.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Um...

Should I feel lucky I wasn't blocked? (Big grin!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my screen rolls when updating, and it's possible to hit the wrong "rollback" button. On the other hand, if I can think of a reason why you should be blocked... Rodhullandemu 20:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Er... You would be the first? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User page

Application delete my user page. --Emka1 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You do not appear to have a user page. Rodhullandemu 15:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal at George Harrison

Timothy92834 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps inserting factually incorrect content, and providing refs that contradict the content he's added. Templated him three times, posted a note to his talk page, reported him at WP:AIV (they said it's not vandalism!). Radiopathy •talk• 02:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with. Rodhullandemu 16:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Enquiry

Shall we go to Church next week? 86.152.88.131 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You may go, but you'll be on your own, as I have better things to do. Rodhullandemu 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dara Ó Briain

An editor has made accusations that you have engaged in disruptive behaviour, and, despite my requests, has refused to back up those claims or retract them fully. Please see Talk:Dara Ó Briain and [5] (old version as they have removed my reply with a personal attack in the edit summary). Sorry about that, Verbal chat 16:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to get that involved. My style is to direct editors to policies and guidelines to explain why I reverted their edits; I also left detailed edit summaries for each revert, which I did one at a time. I can see how Gigs might think that unhelpful, but then perhaps that's his style. It did take some effort to get Psystat to go to the talk page, but once there, he didn't seem to grasp our policies, and it seems clear from his correspondence with the BBC that he has some personal interest in this. But if you want to take this elsewhere, that's fine by me. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel you acted properly at all times, including taking the issue to 3PO to get outside help. Gigs' responses do not lead me to believe that further action would benefit the project, as he seems unwilling to acknowledge any mistake having dug now in (cf. the edit summary on his talk). Hopefully he will cool down and be more careful in future. All the best, and keep up the good work, Verbal chat 16:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Rodhullandemu 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ghostwritten

I was the ghostwriter. That's what my contract said. Ghostwriter. That's what I did. This was not an "in collaboration with" this was a ghostwriting job. Your version is inaccurate and wrong. Ronnie couldn't write a shopping list. This is not vandalism, this is accuracy. The book was ghostwritten by Jeffrey Robinson!/ JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.228.122 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now lost count of the number of times you have been referred to our policy on reliable sources. It's fairly easy to follow since it isn't the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Please have another go while I try to finish my rapidly-chilling dinner. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 20:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Changing the truth to some made up "collaboration" is not only wrong, it is insulting. My contract said "ghostwriter." The work I did was ghostwriting. See my remarks about his book on my website. If you are not prepared to publish the tyruth, please tell me who I can appeal this to. Thank you/ JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Box20861 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Try this noticeboard, but you will be expected to have a reliable source to cite. Rodhullandemu 20:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks and ...

Rodhullandemu, thanks for the intervention on the Ronnie Wood article. just for your information i wanted to point out the related issues on the Jeffrey Robinson page that i outlined here; the IP also removed thoroughly warranted clean-up banners ([6] after reverting attempts to improve the article. obviously the last couple of edit summaries make the COI issues indisputable as well. thanks for whatever you deem appropriate ... Sssoul (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ed Byrne.jpg

Hi, I understand the problem. I obviously chose that licensing tag by accident. It has been placed there by mistake and I do not have a licensing tag for this image at all. Unless you can assist me with possible licensing I am unable to apply one.

--Wikiisaac (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to go for a Fair-use tag, but since Ed Byrne is still alive, an image free of copyright should be obtainable, per WP:NFCC#1. It's best never to use images from some website, because these will almost never be usable here. Rodhullandemu 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for BBC Sound Archive

On February 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article BBC Sound Archive, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Marie Slocombe

On February 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marie Slocombe, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Younus article

Thanks for protecting above mentioned article but might be you have forgot to restore refimprove tag, which was part of the article prior to protecting and also remove the catagory of RAGS from the article. Thanks--Falconkhe (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Younus AlGohar

Hi, thanks for your helpful comments on the article talk page. I just wanted to bring to your attention that I actually put up an RFC tag for the article on Feb 7, 2010, asking if the article sounded too pro or against the subject, and if so what should be done about it. One user from RFC responded saying it sounded too supportive of the subject, however that was it. Although I like the idea of RFC, not many people have responded to the article and we've been pretty much stuck in regards to decision-making. Some of the editors have become increasingly hostile and accusatory towards other editors, specifically User: Falconkhe- they seem to be very against having an article on AlGohar on Wikipedia, calling him a terrorist and liar, among other things, without providing the references necessary to support the claims. After they were told that they needed to be cooperative in order for their side to be heard and possibly incorporated in the article, the editor responded by becoming even more uncooperative, eventually accusing users such as myself of scamming the British government, being a "lier", and actually being part of the organization which AlGohar is founder of. It seems like a very personal issue to this user, and attempts to discuss things civilly with them has always ended without proper decisions made (i.e Talk: Messiah Foundation International). They have pretty much been warring on every page related to AlGohar, and I admit I have become quite involved in it myself. Though I have nothing personally against them, their behavior is really quite a headache to deal with. I'm hoping the post to Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts will be responded to soon so that whatever issues the editor seems to have with the other editors working on Younus AlGohar will be closer to being resolved. Or perhaps it is too late for this, and its necessary to just jump to arbitration? Or do you think we should continue to wait for more response from RFC? Thanks for helping us deal with this, I appreciate your efforts :). Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comments Omi, which were too accusatory. Well I have always mentioned facts and the fact is that you want to promot Younus and his organization and using wikipedia for this purpose. First of all his actual name is Muhammad Younus and not younus algoher. The second thing, which made you (Omi) emotional when I ask for reliable sources but always come up with self publish webs references, which are not accepted on wikipedia. I am asking for authentic and reliable information for readers of wikipedia. Did I do something wrong, its you who wants Edit War not me. You seems very rigid to promote your cause but wikipedia is not suitable place for you to do a thing like this.--Falconkhe (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINKING

What the hell do you mean the next one is "blockable". When was the last time I was guilty of your opinionated overlinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to review this guideline, and you have been previously been advised of it. To sum up "Common terms do not need to be linked". You shouldn't assume that our readers are idiots, although it's sometimes difficult to resist the proposition that some of our editors are idiots, particularly those who are deaf to advice. You'll note that I haven't linked any of the terms on my comments, because it would seem to be obvious that you understand why not. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

you want a source, here's a source

I don't have a clue how to add a source, but if want to add this, here it is. In reference to the British Bankers Association's comment about me see: [7] and: http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=143&a=345&view=programme “... the closing session hosted by Jeffrey Robinson, the worlds leading financial crime author.”

Repeated in the introduction to Robinson's keynote address, BBA's Annual Financial Crime Conference, December 8, 2003.</ref>

What other sources do you want? Box20861 (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

reference try again

The references didn't show in the past post. Here they are again: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:OyYBtQxayfIJ:www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp%3Fd%3D143%26a%3D345%26view%3Dprogramme+%22Jeffrey+Robinson%22+BBA+Financial+Crime+December+2003&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

and: http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=143&a=345&view=programme

“... the closing session hosted by Jeffrey Robinson, the worlds leading financial crime author.”

Repeated in the introduction to Robinson's keynote address, BBA's Annual Financial Crime Conference, December 8, 2003.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Box20861 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't recall asking for this source, but this: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=143&a=345&view=programme |title=BBA – British Bankers' Association - BBA's Annual Financial Crime Conference |publisher=www.bba.org.uk |accessdate=2010-02-28 }}</ref> pasted into the article should suffice. In general, this guideline gives advice on how to cite sources, and in particular, we should not use results from search engines as sources because they can quickly become outdated. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 16:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tractor01.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Tractor01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tractor02.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Tractor02.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

• Reference desk: Wikipedia Reference Desk quality analyzed

• News and notes: Usability, 15M articles, Vandalism research award, and more

• In the news: Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Severe Weather

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

block of User:DQScott95 on hold

I've been having a fair amount of success taking a give 'em enough rope approach to unblocking, and was thinking of unblocking this one, but I'm consulting you as blocking admin before doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All we have to judge by so far is immature schoolkid vandalism. I would worry that we'd get more of the same. However, there are three options here: (a) unblock and hope for the best, however, he'd still have those silly edits in his history, which if he were ever to become a productive editor would count against him; (b) To see if he's committed to editing, give a {{Second chance}} and see what he does with it, or (c) leave this account blocked and let him start afresh with a new account; however, he would risk being blocked for block evasion, but that would be up to him to walk away from his previous history and choose a username that has no reference to his current one. Or we could just leave him blocked, full stop. I'll copy this to the Talk page and leave it up to you. Rodhullandemu 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So far I'm finding that the majority of users I've unblocked like this simply go away. They've "won" their battle to be unblocked, but they know they are being watched and won't get away with further vandalism. Of course the hope is that they would realize what a waste of time vandalizing is and become productive editors instead, but either way both the vandalism and the litany of unblock requests are probably at an end. I'll keep an eye on this one, rest assured if they return to vandalizing they will find themselves reblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

recent revert on wack pack

Can you explain why you considered this to be vandalism? Nefariousski (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP, and the article is clearly tagged as requiring sources. Rodhullandemu 18:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I get that. but BLP violations are just that, not vandalism. I reverted your reverts and added sources. I'm not questioning why you reverted but why you justified it as reverting vandalism. Nefariousski (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably intended to push the normal Twinkle Rollback but missed. Perhaps should have been an AGF revert instead. Rodhullandemu 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No problems, not trying to call you out or anything, just curious. Thanks for the reply Nefariousski (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

this ip address 86.166.175.134 done some valdalism on a page i replaced the valdalism with the truth but this may happen agains i noticed you have revert stuff on the thread he vandalised so i am asking you for advise on how to stop this vandalism i no that acount on my ip have vadalised pages in the pas but i think vandalism is bad and i have ask for the vandal on my ip addreesss to stop just letting you know —Preceding unsigned comment added by TicktokBlockchop (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

not beliving in reference?

why dont you belive reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TicktokBlockchop (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I can't see it, and the website name suggests it might not be a reliable source for biographical information. Rodhullandemu 20:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for Fungus the Bogeyman

Sorry, something went wrong with my edit there. I was trying to figure out somethings else, and then my computer froze. I must have clicked a remove vandalism button at that time trying to get it going (and then got a blue screen of death). I have reverted myself. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_remove_child.27s_name_and_picture_from_wikipedia

Hear, hear Woogee (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Murder of James Bulger

Hi Rod, I'm off to bed. Please could you consider keeping an eye out here, as the Sunday Mirror has accused Jon Venables of child porn offences.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Grief! I'll watchlist it & take any necessary action. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Today's Observer says "An injunction was issued against the Sun newspaper on Friday night to prevent it from printing a story detailing Venables's alleged offences".[9]. If Venables goes to court over any of this, it will be Baby P all over again. It is hard to see Venables' current identity staying off the Internet or out of the foreign media indefinitely, so the Home Office may already be resigned to providing him with a fresh new identity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is presumably what The Sun wanted to publish on Friday. Surely unsuitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Article protection required for Freddie Mercury

Request for page protection. Its a necessity due to excessive vandalism on a daily basis.Gold coast surf (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Want a laugh ?

Try reading Heimathaus Twist. Most of the article made me giggle, but 'Blues Mecca in the bog' was the real clincher. Just when I thought Wikipedia only gave me grief.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's difficult not to laugh, but it seems to be a rather literal translation of the same article on de:wiki, perhaps dragged through Google Translate. Good-faith, perhaps, but you'd have hoped it could have been done by someone who had a grasp of some cultural nuances. But it has made my day here. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the bit of tidying up on my user page. I briefly looked at that user's contribs and I have no idea what I did to gain their attention. Not important, really...just strange. Again, thanks Tiderolls 06:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Diana Ross discography

Hi Rod, long ttime no see! (well, talk to, I suppose)... can you keep a look out on possible vandalism that may occur on this article if User talk:G.K.4U does not cooperate with the message I left him on his talk page about a compilation album called Dance Songs which was released by K-Tel in France in 1985 as an unofficial Diana Ross album release as she was only contracted by the record labels Motown, RCA and EMI/Angel, please? If this album were allowed in her discography, then every (which their are very many) compilation album by non-official Ross-contracted record labels would be too. Only Motown, RCA, and EMI-released albums (these being official) are to be in her discography, as they were the record companies of whom she belonged to. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on this. It'll be a goo change good chance to review our policy on discographies. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

It seems someone has picked up a rather interesting grudge against you... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Kind of goes with the job. He'll get bored with it long before I do. Rodhullandemu 17:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

References