User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/16

lol what

How am I suppose to provide sourcing that Girls Aloud's album Out of Control leaked? It's general knowledge you just do a google search, look at any music blog, or any filesharing program and you'll find the album. And the only reason I posted that it leaked it because leaks can kill album sales, especially for hyped flop albums like Out of Control. -24.92.46.22 (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we rely on reliable third-party sources here; Google ain't good enough. Neither is a link to a pirate or torrent site (big no-no as far as copyright is concerned). Neither is a blog (could be anybody). If it's mentioned on GA's own site or in a reputable newspaper, or in a news programme, fine. Problem is that we cannot be seen to condone copyright violations, and it needs to be covered responsibly, and sorry, but that doesn't include personal knowledge. I'm sure someone will pick it up, but it's scarcely unusual for new albums to be pirated these days. --Rodhullandemu 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to the Genesis genre box

You changed it saying that anything but rock music is a style. [1] Is there some new guidelines in place that I am not aware of? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 11:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Genre" is as general as it should get, but is still vague, subjective and usually unsourced. You'll be aware of recent discussions on the topic at WP:ALBUM. Accordingly, it helps if this field is kept to minimal descriptions to avoid edit-warring. However, I don't see any problem with progressive rock, since that is how they are usually considered, and it is a large enough subsent of rock music to be beyond argument (I hope). --Rodhullandemu 13:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not good i sense

Seen this?, another sock by this IP range. Seems it wasn't a one off. Odd. — Realist² 15:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Weird, I did explain all this to him yesterday, but he hasn't taken the hint. All we can do is keep blocking and reverting, since we can't semi-all those articles just for one vandal. --Rodhullandemu 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an easy thing to spot anyway. — Realist² 15:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jamalar didn't stay away. — Realist² 13:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

Any chance you can lock-down the Neil Turbin page. It is under persistent attack from someone close to the subject(maybe the person himself) and is becoming a COI issue on top of an NPOV issue and and WP:VAN issue. Thanks! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done for a week, discussion should continue n article talk page. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 17:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. While I have your attention. Another editor and I were having a conversation about music related articles and the word "Beatles" came up. I immediately thought of you :D. If you want to read through the gibber-gabber you will get the gist of the convo. The topic started out with genre trolls. But turned towards non-notable album tracks having their own articles. Would love to hear you thoughts. The conversation is here. Again, thanks for the lock on the Turbin page. Something definitely fishy there when reems of California IPs are trying to make a music God out of a guy who barely had 5 minutes of fame and now permanently resides in a long forgotten corner of the "where are they now?" file. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just had a quick gander; normal notability guidelines apply, reliable third-party sources, etc, but in the case of Beatles songs, they've pretty much all been covered by reliable sources; in the case of obscure B-Sides, the coverage might well be OK in an article about the single, but I agree that going round redirecting would be a hornet's nest. But I think the album tracks are covered well enough to sustain their own articles. ...except that you're now going to give me a list of ones that aren't. OK. Take each one on its merits. <!> --Rodhullandemu 21:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no specific targets (it wasn't me who broached the Beatles subject :D ) The push through on many Wiki fronts (look at perpetual AfD loser TenPoundHammer's edits) is that... unless it was a charting single... it ain't notable. I don't disagree or agree 100% in either direction. I can see some album tracks that have some notable tidbit (sourced) that makes it encyclopedic. But, like Bretonbanquet says, some just ooze editor speculation on things like lyric meanings and such.... which I believe it the exact opposite of encylopedic. Bretonbanquet is a major AC/DC fan. But he is still adhering as best as he can with WP:MUSIC notability rules and is trying to clean up some of the superfluous song pages and incorporate what valid content there was back into the main album articles. There are several artist specific projects that could do the same thing. I think. Bretonbanquet says he doesn't have the stones to take on a "close to the heart" subject in the lofty realms of The Beatles. My stones are absolutely huge and might and I would take on any controversial subject. :-D But my respect for some of the editors who babysit those pages forces me to divert the incredible power of my "re-direct stones" towards reverting vandals and copy-editing (and other useless Wiki-ness :D ) Have a nice day and thanks for your input on the topic. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

re:More silliness

Hello, I have answered there, best regards, --birdy _{(:> )=|} 00:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe too extreme...?

Ummm... I was looking at somebody's talk page and I saw that you gave the little sucker a block, but as immature as he was on that link, don't you think it's somewhat extreme to crack down on actions outside of Wikipedia? Now what was the IP... 3.... 38... 68, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.133.223 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No. This project is under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation, and abuse, particularly libellous abuse of such a vile nature, is not tolerated anywhere. Two of our major policies are of civility and no personal attacks, and gross breaches such as racism, anti-semitism, or in this case, allegations of pedophilia are quite rightly regarded by all Admins as extremely poisonous and blockable on sight. If that user had an account, they would now be blocked indefinitely on ALL Wikimedia projects, and I don't rule it out for that IP address or anyone continuing that sort of behaviour anywhere. --Rodhullandemu 19:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And it was Special:Contributions/68.199.133.47, an IP address from the same small block as yourself in Hicksville, New York, population about 41,000; now how long do you think it would take local law enforcement, assisted by your ISP, to find out exactly who was using that address at the relevant times? Not long, in my experience. I'm assuming that you, or someone else, might find this: [2] or this: [3] acceptable. I don't. --Rodhullandemu 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Oops, sorry about the mistaken prod! Rovaniemi-5 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob, that's why I did it as a WP:AGF revert. --Rodhullandemu 19:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

um...

well it certainly gave the impression that he claimed they were his own words. He should have at least SAID that it was a Queen song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ cool D (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This was essentially an obituary, and in the circumstances, lack of attribution is to be understood. Technically, it's a breach of copyright to have them there, but I don't feel inclined to press the point, although being an Admin means that I should. Whereas we've lost Jeff, it could well be myself next, and I hope the same leeway would be given to anybody who thought it fit to remember me in that way. I would be proud that my colleagues thought it more important to remember me in a manner that suited them rather than petty squabbles over ultimately irrelevant issues. Life is short. Isn't it? --Rodhullandemu 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Port Chester

How do you have people on your notable resident list for Port Chester that don't live or is active in the community?? Yet you put up this battle about if the community organizer Ed Eways should be mentioned on there??? Were he is active and is currently a resisent. What kind of policy is that. dirk AP

Nobody has yet shown that he meets our notability policy. If they do, he can go in. Until then, not. --Rodhullandemu 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Edward Eways will seek public office in 2010..So we hear, I am sure you will not be able to keep him out of your notable list.

Regarding John Lennon,

If composer was covered by singer-songwriter, then wouldn't musician also be covered? Andy pyro 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter is a somewhat specific and well-understood term, and musician would certainly be a subset (or superset) of that, however, there are musicians who are not singer-songwriters, and that description would be covered by his rhythm guitar work within The Beatles. My inclination generally is not to have too many overlapping descriptions in the infobox, because that is meant as a brief overview rather than an exposition of every talent possessed by the subject. --Rodhullandemu 16:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Adolph Hitler

The source does list Nazism as Hitler's religion and it cites to other reliable sources on this point. Hitler himself stated "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany" As to National Socialism, itself, being a religion, I would refer you to Goebbels, who believed, and his propoganda basically stated, that "one needed no religion other than National Socialism". I would also refer you to the concept of political religion and to the book Totalitarianism and Political Religions particularly pp. 107-109. Nazism, like communism, was and was intended to be a comprehensive Weltanshauung, claiming a truth value ultimately incompatible with other views including traditional religion.Mamalujo (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You changed my stuff!

Hi. Sorry about repeating myself, but as I have to turn in for the night, can you add a bit abough the NTAs this year for me Thanks.

Assuming you mean Doctor Who, others are already working on it. As usual, I guess I'll get a free run at sorting it out about 2 a.m. --Rodhullandemu 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks a lot. I only had good faith

Of course. I take that as read. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Best vocal

Dont´you think that Pavarotti will be the best? Regards, --Bawisto (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but what I think is irrelevant; it's what a reliable source says that matters, and we can quote it if they've said it, but not introduce our personal opinions in the article. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 17:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you for your edifying answer! --Bawisto (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

my talk page

Hi. Please could you not delete messages on my user page: [4]. I know the person who left that message is a vandal and now has a temporary block, but we can't deal with vandals if we can't communicate with them. Thanks --Bucephalus (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My experience tells me that irrational and surreal vandals such as this one do not react to communication, and his nonsensical unblock request is patent evidence of that. Vandals are not blocked until they've had more than adequate notice, so I see little purpose in reasoning with them. --Rodhullandemu 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with you here. We should give plenty of notice to people before blocking them. See: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Many vandals have just worked out what wikipedia is and that they can edit it. Even vandals like this one deserve some lenience (though I don't dispute the block). I think that lenience can extend to replying to their messages when they are semi-reasonable. --Bucephalus (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And you think his unblock request (visible in the talk page history) actually addressed the reasons for his edits, or his block? I may be jaded, but four shots across the bows are usually enough to indicate that something is wrong with a user's edits. I assume a basic level of understanding among those editors who appear on the face of it to be able to use the English language, particularly to vandalise, and more pointedly, to do so in abusive terms. Had his unblock request been of the nature of "What did I do wrong?" I might have been inclined to explain and invite a further unblock request; but it wasn't. It was a completely orthogonal request and, in my experience and judgement, barely short of provocative. That said, he can still come back when his block expires. --Rodhullandemu 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not dispuing the block and I don't think they should be unblocked before the block expires. That is what blocks are for. That doesn't mean that a vandal shouldn't be able to send the users who are reverting their edits messages before they are blocked. Just because someone is a vandal and can't be civil doesn't mean I can't be civil with them. --Bucephalus (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Maybe you have enough spare time for that, but I don't, sorry. I have little time left to live and I prefer to spend it constructively. However, did you think the message he sent you and which I reverted was in any way helpful? If not, why waste the time? --Rodhullandemu 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point. That message was not helpful. I'd still rather you hadn't reverted it. Anyway, it's not that important. Let's agree to disagree. Happy constructive editing --Bucephalus (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; I only saw the diff and not the message at the top of your talk page. I wouldn't have done so otherwise. Enjoy your Christmas; I'll be lucky if I last that long. Regards. --Rodhullandemu 23:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AWB

I wanted to thank you for approving me to use AWB. I've already downloaded it and am trying to find my way around. Thanks! – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I need your help with The Jackson 5

A few days ago Jermaine Jackson alleged that The Jackson 5 would reunite in 2009 along with Michael and even Janet Jackson. Due to these high profile claims by Jermaine and because they were bullshit, Michael Jackson had to send a message to billboard that his brother was talking shit as usual read here. Jermaine has made these suggestions before, they never materialize, and given the lie about Michael Jackson being involved it's quite clear that this isn't going to go ahead. Unfortunately fans are adding it, despite the near 0% chance that it will actually go through (and certainly not with MJ). When it comes to the Jackson's I've always believed that it's best to wait until something has occurred before reporting it. What do we do from here? Can you help me look after the content that does on this article? — Realist² 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but my impression is that the claim & denial could go it, but nothing else, as long as they are reliably sourced. A short semi-prot may be in order if it gets out of hand. --Rodhullandemu 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, otherwise we will have to leave the text up until December 31st, 2009 before we are allowed to remove it. Either the media took Jermaine out of context or he is talking the usual BS and I don't see the need to give this issue any weight unless something does ever occur, which it won't, Jermaine has made these claims so many times, more chance of the original Beatles reuniting. — Realist² 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Hi, my recent request for rollback rights was declined, based on my edits at Adolf Hitler. Could you please tell me whether you considered my edits there "edit warring"? I was trying to broker a compromise, but how did you feel about my edits specifically? Please let me know here. Also, could you please let your fellow admin User:Philosopher know whether or not you believe that I was edit warring. Thank you for your time, regardless of what you decide to do.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it; the "edit-warring" was a general term for what was going on rather than directing blame at anyone in particular. --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Warrior

I have given this guy quite enough warnings for altering genres without citations. A block is due if this occurs again don't you think? I was thinking, we need a section on the music Wikiproject, "Admins who are prepared to deal with Genre Warriors". I'm quite sure most admins don't give a damn about it. Would be nice to find a place where we can contact admins who will deal with it. — Realist² 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic; I'll be around for a couple of weeks yet. Meanwhile, blocked three months. --Rodhullandemu 23:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ;-/ — Realist² 23:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jon Blake (broadcaster)

Even according to the quote from Jimmy Wales that you have displayed prominently on your userpage, information that is not sourced to any references/citations in the article should be removed: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. Cirt (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but you have to balance that (old) quote against "Do no harm", which should be the guiding principle. If I live beyond this weekend, I'll put up an essay I;ve been working on, but right now, I'm so, so tired. You're so lucky, lucky, lucky to be young. --Rodhullandemu 01:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you no longer agree with this above quote, perhaps you should remove it from the top of your userpage. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I so very nearly care. --Rodhullandemu 01:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay. If that was sarcasm, it is very difficult to understand over simply text-based communication. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to convey any emotion when one is staring death in the face. --Rodhullandemu 12:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I am very sorry to hear that. You have my best wishes. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

John Prescott

I could not see what you removed anywhere already in the article so can you please tell me where to find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAKEMP (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Should have been there, I think someone already removed it, but I've just found a reference for it and will replace it. --Rodhullandemu 19:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Just its pretty high profile so relativly important —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAKEMP (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Ask for More

I nominated the above article for AfD, and the article creator, Reqluce, has taken it rather personally. He has made some rather bad faith allegations against me on the AfD and has made fun of my spelling and reading several times. In an attempt to save the article he is using a number of terrible sources which I've had to remove, it's all got a little heated. This AfD has been rather frustrating since, believe it or not, an admin voted keep and added a fan site as part of their rational for notability *shrug*. Anyway, the creator has a long history of incivilty and I'm finding the tone and bold lettering rather over baring. — Realist² 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on it. Congrats on the 28K, BTW. --Rodhullandemu 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You too, there are like 20 edits between us, not that I count, honest. :0 — Realist² 22:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you close Ask for More please, cheers. — Realist² 17:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 17:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, what a nightmare that was. I'll make sure any article I nominate were not created by Reqluce in the future. I just observed his colorful use of language in edit summaries, quite a divisive individual. — Realist² 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamalar has a new registered account. Checkuser or easy block? — Realist² 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks suspicious. A couple of shots across the bows should show, but I'm not convinced yet. --Rodhullandemu 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced now. — Realist² 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, your WP obsession got you noticed.

On Wikipedia Review:

An admin with an obvious addiction problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.202.13 (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don't actually care what they think. As long as Wikipedia is better for me being here, it's nobody's business why or for how long I'm here, and in fact if they look through my edits using a microscope rather than a telescope, they'll find I do rather more than just revert vandalism. Which part of "retired" do they not understand? When they've achieved what I have, they can carp. Until then, they should shut up. --Rodhullandemu 01:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, looking at your contribs you're not as mad for it as my adoptee, User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 and the consensus of the thread was that many editors are far more obsessed than you.:) Sticky Parkin 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vincent Elbaz

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vincent Elbaz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Elbaz. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

88.109.170.7

Guess who? ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, anon-blocked for a month. --Rodhullandemu 18:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers :). ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Leave it alone!

God can you just stop it. You and bloody Realist seem like the saddest online bullies Ive ever come across. I know Realist is all " omg its jamalar" but Im not doing anything wrong..Im just trying to correct things. And some things on here are not properly sourced. Its all getting pathetic. Jamalar is a shared username btw. So this is not jamalar-jamalar Givingyouthesickness (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Stick with reliable sources, don't lie in your edit summaries, don't edit-war, and all will be fine. Tell me, how do you know Jamalar is a shared account if you're not Jamalar? Hmmm? --Rodhullandemu 20:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop playing games and block this troll. She isn't hiding she's Jamalar. — Realist² 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

...and gone. How would someone who is not Jamalar know that it's a shared account? WP:MEAT at least. --Rodhullandemu 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So much for "this will be my last edit honest". And my watchlist only grows as Jamalar looks for more articles to push her agenda. — Realist² 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User name issue

Sorry, wasn't aware it was being discussed elsewhere. I see you bumped into Jamalar today as well. — Realist² 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No prob, you wouldn't have known, and Jamalar has been bumped again. --Rodhullandemu 22:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All good :-) I'm going to tuck into writing another article soon. I usually do one at a time and wait for the GA review to pass before moving on to the next, but I've been waiting three weeks for this review. — Realist² 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Luxury! I can't concentrate on articles at present as I need a break. --Rodhullandemu 22:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A break? Don't say such things! If I could guarantee that my watchlist would be ok I would probably take a few days off, lol, but that will never happen. — Realist² 22:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why has no one blocked me yet?

I can't believe this message stayed on J's talk page for 5 minutes and I haven't been blocked. You people are losing touch. Americanlinguist (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't block people, even provocative people, outside of policy and certainly not at their own request. There are plenty of other options open to you. --Rodhullandemu 22:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No it would be certainly within policy - see WP:BAN Americanlinguist (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you were a ban-evading sockpuppet, that would make a difference, but so far, I have no reason to suppose that you are, beyond your own admission, and there's no reason for me to believe you. 2/10. "Must try harder". --Rodhullandemu 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow the links Americanlinguist (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got better things to do, thanks. Turn yourself in to WP:SSP if you like. I'm not playing silly games. --Rodhullandemu 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

“ You would think with Rodhullandemu working around the clock patrolling Wikipedia for signs of new articles on obscure academic subjects that the culprit would have been locked up safely in jail by now. ”

You've obviously misunderstood what I do; as an academic, I've retired apart from some pot-boiler evening lectures at my local college. My Contribs demonstrate what I do, and I am not in the slightest bit interested in your politics, except to the extent that I agree that quality control is lacking in specialist articles. However, disruption to make a point on whatever scale seems to me to be pointlessly childish, here or elsewhere. Insight into the very basic model of Wikipedia should show its weaknesses, but optimistic though it may be, it seems to work in general, even to the extent of journalists (albeit lazy ones) using it as a source. However, Wikipedia is not intended to be a source in itself- that's why original research is not permitted- but a distillation of other sources; and that's something that I think you have failed to realise. So you got banned by people who didn't get it. Tough. So did Jesus Christ. Bask in your martyrdom. --Rodhullandemu 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Most ban evading sockpuppets want to avoid detection, and act disruptively while doing so. Here's a user who contributed good and useful work with this sockpuppet, and now wants to be blocked, with the goal of furthering their long term disruption BY being blocked. I see no reason to accomodate them. You've acted wisely, Rodhullandemu, by not blocking them. Best. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If only we could convince all banned users that the best way to destroy Wikipedia is to spend a year quietly making constructive edits. Sigh. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Indeed. This guy seems to think that I'm some sort of patsy because I spend a lot of time blocking vandals; but I'm not so green as I'm painted, as they say. Let's hope we've pissed on his fire for the time being; I believe he's currently in Belgium. How appropriate. --Rodhullandemu 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Here. Please be civil. Though it did make me laugh out loud as you rolled it back as a good faith edit. ;-)

Getting frustrated by things was one of the reasons I took a 2 year wikibreak.

--GraemeL ^(talk) 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I was addressing the WP:V policy there, was I not, rather than the editor? --Rodhullandemu 23:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. It wasn't intended to be a warning anyway, just a reminder to try and keep cool.

Sorry, I messed up your page formatting by adding a new section instead of clicking the link at the top of the page. You seem to have gotten it fixed though. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it was my botched {{cquote}} that broke it. BTW, have you counted how many times Rush (band) has been added to that section in the last six months? Their own article says they weren't prog until 1977, or is it just Canadians looking for something to feel proud of? --Rodhullandemu 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. Poor Canadians. There has always been a lot unverified nonsense getting added to the article. That's why it's on my watchlist. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for eavesdropping but this Canuck bashing is uncalled for. :D Not that I am supporting adding Rush or anything (their proggyness started in 1975 BTW) Editors adding Rush into that article, if it's the section I am thinking of, are more "map-impaired" then they are "prog rock impaired". Which would certainly not be Canucks as we are an population obsessed with weather conditions, population differences, guns and maps. (along with beer, coffee and hockey) :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 00:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're still taking everything I say literally, you don't know me that well. I love all of our colonials, even the ex-ones such as the Yanks. Strange that Neil Young and Joni Mitchell got out as soon as they could, while Leonard Cohen stayed on. Isn't it? --Rodhullandemu 00:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

HA! Neil and Joni never gave up their citizenship... they just wanted to get away from the snow :-D. I think they could also smell the stench of a flailing/faltering Liberal Trudeau government and got out while the gettin' was good. :-D ( we've never quite recovered from the damage done by ol' baldy ) :-D. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I say I have never found Canadian politics electrifying- except when Trudeau's wife posed nude, or did I dream that? If Trudeau was liberal (except that term, in the US, seems to = "communist"), then I missed that too. Perhaps I'll read his article, but I suspect I won't find much in common with John Stuart Mill. --Rodhullandemu 00:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Hi again. Still not blocked. Obviously I am a sockpuppet evading a ban. I think you assume I was banned for original research. Not true. I have contributed under another account since 2003 - I have always understood and abided by the original research rules, and all of my many articles (e.g. Medieval philosophy or History of logic) are still there pretty much intact. I was banned by Jimbo for remarks made offsite. The point I am trying to make is to force a block even though my only contribution is good article content. In the present case Scalar implicature which filled in a gap in the (generally poor) coverage of linguistics. Sadly you failed to take the bait (as have a number of other adminst). Best Americanlinguist (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this should do the trick. Americanlinguist (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, now your only contribution is good article content (thank you, didn't know there was a word for this, it's a useful concept) and this annoying block-me game. Looks like you won't be blocked for the former but if you keep the latter up long enough you'll probably eventually get blocked for that. Haukur (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

He's on Wikipedia Review, boasting that he's trying to get blocked and reverted for making good content (thus bringing Wikipedia down... somehow). This plan falls at the first hurdle when no admin is willing to block, of course. Although, as you say Haukur, he could get blocked for other things, and one wonders how this would damage his odd plan. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I see no reason to block. We've only his word that he's a block-evading sock, and as a linguist, he should understand the paradox of Epimenides. Meanwhile his recent article is OK, but no better than that. --Rodhullandemu 13:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You just deleted one of my silly imature page edits, it is ammusing, you said soemthing about you stopping the toll charge on selby bridge. i really really aernt bothered, frankly i have little time for "selbyville".

But looking to see you are a retired Lawyer did interest me as its my Path of choice other than that off music and rockstardom. Cool shades on the pic off you and your wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TobiiJinXXX (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but you did make it plain you don't like Barlby. I'm probably one of the few editors here whose efforts have resulted in a private Act of Parliament, but it was a long hard struggle about twenty years ago. Stick with the law; rock stardom pays well, but it's extremely competitive and easy to be forgotten, hence risky. If you're going to stick around, feel free to ask me any questions about editing here. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 20:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear sir

would ok if i asked about your proffesion?

No problem but probably better done by email; if you set up an email in your preferences tab, I can get back to you, but it's not proper to discuss it here, as talk pages are generally for talking about Wikipedia rather than for giving careers advice. --Rodhullandemu 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:JDPhD

You have previously warned this user on his talk page for inappropriate behavior, so I thought I would defer to you on this. See Special:Contributions/JDPhD - he appears to be spamming links to copyvio on YouTube in the external links sections of articles. Merits a stern warning, and if the behavior continues, a block. I'd also appreciate it if you could ask him to undo his edits. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see you had already warned this user about copyright issues, twice, back in July 2008 - [5], [6]. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

and given a final warning. --Rodhullandemu 15:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Help me please :-)

Hi, using this policy I wrote the plot to the music video of Stranger in Moscow. Could you review my description using this as a guide and help give it any needed clean up, tone etc. It's quite a symbolic video so I might have got a few parts wrong. Yours wiser than me. :0 — Realist² 15:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

May be able to take a look at it later, but I have some RL work to do for a while. --Rodhullandemu 15:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, cheers. It's just the music video section.— Realist² 15:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up. — Realist² 16:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

blocked 31 hours. --Rodhullandemu 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That was quick, you spotted her at the same time as me. ;-) — Realist² 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks - not being sarcastic :)

hey there, sorry for dis obayingthe rules. i'm new to this thanks for pointing me in the right direction. it's just i LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOVVVVEEEE GEORGE SAMPSON AND I KNOW ALOT OF THINGS ABOUT HIM. in further articles i edit - including george sampson's i will be more conciderate.

thanks again leanne x  :) p.s i wasnt being sarcastic x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dance is 4 life (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. just that anything you write here must be checkable. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Incoming

Email en route. Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

replied. --Rodhullandemu 05:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

YAAAV (Yet another annoying anonymous vandal)

Hi "Rod", I hope all is well with you and yours.
I'm afraid another annoying anonymous idiot is making a nuisance of themselves.
It appears to me that User talk:203.16.208.241 has done little other than vandalise; they've already been blocked twice; recent history:

• 12:59, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Mike Pezzullo ‎ (→Personal) (top)
• 12:58, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Mike Pezzullo ‎ (→Personal)
• 12:58, 7 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Mike Pezzullo ‎ (→Personal)
• 13:29, 6 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Scabies ‎ (→Etiology)
• 13:27, 6 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Scabies ‎ (→Etiology)
• 08:23, 3 November 2008 (hist) (diff) Colin Thiele ‎
• 13:22, 23 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Timeline of German history ‎ (→1600–1800)

Please have a look. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. This looks like a dynamic IP and since the last block different articles are being vandalised; they look like schoolkid edits but I can't pin it down to a school in particular. I'll leave a final warning so that whoever uses it next is fully aware, but all we should do is report them to WP:AIV is they come back. Since it's in Oz, I'm likely to be asleep when they're awake (insomnia permitting) so may miss it myself. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but if they go back to the same articles, it'll be easier to block. --Rodhullandemu 14:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WTF

Category:Asian British expatriates in the United States, is this for real? — Realist² 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I think it's in a template somewhere as it's not showing up in the page edit. Leave it with me. --Rodhullandemu 14:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

I recently made a post here regarding Womanizer (song), looks like admins are on their coffee break and it really does need protecting. — Realist² 16:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've given it a week for now, but a note on the talk page would not be a bad idea. --Rodhullandemu 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Rod. We are looking into creating a bot to remove WP:BADCHARTS. — Realist² 16:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamalar still messing with genres

Here. What she like? — Realist² 18:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at mine. — Realist² 21:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking, we've been mixing this socks, labeling some as socks of Jamalar and some of User:Blah1993blah. Shouldn't we have conformity and mark them all under Blah? — Realist² 21:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should really all be the first-created account to have all the sock info in one place. --Rodhullandemu 21:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, they should all be under blah, Jamalar tags should really be removed. — Realist² 21:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review redux

I have taken this from Lars page, as it has a wide readership and I don't feel the need to allow his critics further leverage in his pursuing his own agenda for posting there by adding in my own reasons - and I have a couple more comments in respect to your earlier reply.

There are some clever, educated people on WR who are unable to comply with the Wikipedia ethos - that you have to back your claims and content editing by being able to refer readers/critics to a good source. Some of the former WP editors now on WR had problems with somebody (who they may have thought to be their intellectual or authority inferior) requesting that they back up their claims. They (the WR complainants) were/are too arrogant to understand that it was they who needed to change; even today there are claims that WP needs to become a meritocracy based on external qualifications - they forget that Nupedia failed - and are disdainful that the masses are capable of working together to create an authoritative reference tool. However, it would be wrong to consider these people incapable of seeing what is truly wrong in the Wiki-verse, these are smart people after all. Once you get past their biases there are some truths being told (or at least some well argued theories presented).

The other problem is that there really are some poor (abusive even) admins on WP, some biased arbiters, and the very great possibility that Jimbo is pretty poor as a content editor and as an administrator; but you can get into a lot of grief for expressing those opinions too frequently. You can get into a situation where an entire chorus will descend upon you demanding you provide evidence for your (treasonable) comments - all the while deriding your own activities without so much as a smidgeon of diffs that they are demanding of you. You may even be invited to remove yourself from the place you are complaining of, when what you thought you were doing was pointing out some actions which - in your opinion - would result in a better encyclopedia, and which you actually care about. WR provides that venue (although commenting there is enough reason for some personalities to argue that you shouldn't also be allowed to contribute to WP - which is why many who do edit WR do under a different name than on WP). It is useful to have ones suspicions about the motives of certain people, and the apparent disinclination of the existing structures in acting even handedly in some cases, shared - even if it does not necessarily mean it is true. Owing to the setup on WP, the investments in effort and time already made, and the collegiate ethos of editing and therefore administrating the site it has previously proven almost impossible for there to be an admission that there could be a problem, let alone that there is one. Previously, there have been cases of people trying to bring information to the attention of the authorities having their accounts banned by said authorities - even now, there is one such banned even though it has been proven beyond dispute that they were correct in what they said; but it is maintained that it was the manner in which they tried to disclose the information that lead to the sanction...

WP needs smart people to help run the place, and it has to be admitted that WP is also not keen to have those smart people discuss those aspects of WP that are not optimum. Smart people who wish to advance the WP project need other venues in which to explore what may be wrong, why it may be wrong and what might be done about it. Some use Wikipedia Review, in view of any who care to watch, where some other smart people have some very strong ideas about what is wrong with WP - somewhere along the way some truths might be found (but what to do with them is another line of enquiry). LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (not that I am saying I am smart, I go there for the humour...)

Interesting that treasonable is only one letter away from reasonable, but I've replied via email. --Rodhullandemu 19:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Amusing (just one letter away from "musing") that I hadn't previously read a particular topic on WR... and I haven't opened my mail since reading your response and me writing this... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I find that trying to separate the message from the messenger helps, but I am in no position to advise (let alone dictate) on how to manage ones irritation response - I have certain buttons that light up upon the gentlest brushing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:AllmusicGuide

Hey, this guy is still editing and even has a few warnings now. Looks like he's going to use the account for as long as possible. Just thought I would update you on that, I forgot about him. — Realist² 18:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I gave him advice and now this username is soft-blocked. He can start again with a new account. --Rodhullandemu 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK v2.0

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

User:Verbal

Verbal (talk · contribs) keeps reverting edits by now three other users at the article Dianetics, [7], [8], [9], adding inappropriate categories to this article and not participating in discussion on the article's talk page. As all Scientology articles are on probation by the Arbitration Committee, perhaps you could warn him about this or take further action as a third-party admin? Thank you again for your time, Cirt (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He's quite clearly not stupid, however I have set out the current position for him. If he fails to respond appropriately, please let me know. --Rodhullandemu 23:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanksomuch. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was considering reverting it myself.

The Nimon were literally only in four episodes ever, so... HalfShadow 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Let's stick with the long-lived ones otherwise every minor monster will end up in there. --Rodhullandemu 00:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just AGF. You know how it is. The worst that would happen is someone else would revert it for just that reason. HalfShadow 00:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not criticising the editor who added it, but, er, WP:N, you know. --Rodhullandemu 00:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Rod, I have left you two modest presents, namely Regent master and Walter of Bruges as a sort of compensation and apology for the behaviour of User:Americanlinguist. Human beings are difficult to explain, aren't they. Why should someone who had been contributing to the project for more than five years not be satisfied with working away in secret, their contributions unrecognised, merely satisfied with knowing that they were helping. Anyway. All the best. The Land Surveyor (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Both interesting articles, although if Walter of Bruges' influence has persisted in any way to more modern times, perhaps that should be mentioned. As for your other comments, we are all volunteers here and I assume that most of us do it to make available as wide a range of human knowledge as possible, whether it be myriad Pokemon characters, the life and works of Homer Simpson or the finer points of quantum chromodynamics; I see few editors who are only here to gain kudos- if they are, they're in the wrong place. Regards. --Rodhullandemu 12:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Walter of Bruges' influence is difficult to determine, as there is so little information about him in the English literature. As for your other comments, you are quite right. There should be no kudos, and no thanks, no recognition whatsoever. Furthermore, volunteers should expect to be treated rudely and in an offhand way. They should expect to be blocked or banned in an arbitrary manner without explanation, and that any request for fair treatment be brushed aside. As Lar said, Wikipedia is not in any sense a system of justice or fairness, and it is quite unreasonable for contributors to expect that. The project comes first. The Land Surveyor (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. There seems to be an internal system of appreciation for good contributions and anyone expecting more than that will be disappointed. However, there are also behavioural considerations; there are many great editors whose values have appeared to be orthogonal to those of the project, and, usually after very lengthy consideration, they have been deemed by the community to be more disruptive to the project than they are worth, the rationale being that, "if they can't write those articles, somebody else will". Whether that is so is moot, of course. There are others whose behaviour has been deemed to be so "obvious and gross" (to borrow a phrase from divorce law) that they deserve no consideration whatsoever; in my experience, such behaviour has included racism, anti-semitism, homophobia and "outing" of editors who would otherwise wish not to be identified. I feel that editors should be free to pursue their interests here without fear of persecution. --Rodhullandemu 12:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you wouldn't 'go that far'. What exactly did Americanlinguist do in his previous incarnation, to get a ban then? Was it racism, anti-semitism, homophobia and "outing" of editors who would otherwise wish not to be identified? The Land Surveyor (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And did the 'community' determine that, or was it Arbcom? This is an interesting discussion The Land Surveyor (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was only giving examples and I have no idea exactly why Jimbo Wales banned User:The Land Surveyor, and it doesn't really matter to me, because I cannot override Jimbo; any request to be unbanned should be directed to him. Meanwhile, 'fascinating' though this conversation was, it seems to have become somewhat jejune and is interrupting my other work. Perhaps if you email me I will have time about next Wednesday afternoon to address your remarks in detail. I'll get back to you. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 13:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indeed, any remarks to the contrary should be treated as trolling, and it was quite right of Ryan to block Americanlinguist like that. There should have been an outright ban in my view for questioning the basis of the project in that way. The Land Surveyor (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Socks

A sock of the permanently banned BBHS. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And another The Real Libs-speak politely 13:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Gone. --Rodhullandemu 13:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Range block? The Real Libs-speak politely 13:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That would need a WP:RFCU to get the underlying IPs, and that would take time- meanwhile, it's clearly a dynamic IP since all his accounts are hardblocked. I might do the CU once it's quietened down a bit, but we would have to watch out for collateral damage. --Rodhullandemu 13:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you add User:Longminorcow, thanks. MegX (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, spent quite a while earlier watching for these, and blocked them when they appeared; since he has a dynamic IP, I'm not sure a CU would be of much use as yet unless it continues and we need to look at a rangeblock. However, I have kept a list of all the socks in case that arises. --Rodhullandemu 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Trouble The Real Libs-speak politely 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't deal with that since I've blocked him, but as long as all the socks are tagged, the admin who decides it should have all the relevant info. All we can do is hope for the best. --Rodhullandemu 16:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment on the behaviour following the indef block? The Real Libs-speak politely 16:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go. I have to go out now for a short while, and will try to catch it before someone comes along. --Rodhullandemu 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)--Rodhullandemu 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistant disruptive editor

User:Simone Jackson has been acting disruptively on the list of best selling albums for several months now. While some of his edits are good, the disruptive edits out way the good ones considerably. Examples include adding no sources, adding fan sites, blanking claims he doesn't believe. Since he is a Michael Jackson editor I haven't pushed for a block/action since now (we need all the MJ editors we can find these days :-/), but I'm being tested now. — Realist² 15:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Has had enough warnings and I've blocked for 31 hours to allow her to read some policies. --Rodhullandemu 15:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A shame, but necessary, clearly ignored multiple warnings, giving no explanation for his actions. Thanx. — Realist² 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre warrior

We have a warrior on the lose, I repeat, we have a warrior on the lose. I'm reverting in bulk. This one might need checking. — Realist² 17:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Infact, having reverted these edit's many of them are the same as Jamalars. — Realist² 17:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think they're both reading the same crap sources; this account has been around since August and has already been blocked once before. But it doesn't look much like Jamalar to me. However, I see you've left her a warning, and these can be escalated if there's a repeat of this behaviour. Not enough evidence to block just yet, sorry. --Rodhullandemu 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree, best play this one save. — Realist² 17:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamalar was genre fiddling yesterday and today. — Realist² 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48h. --Rodhullandemu 16:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamalar, and he reverted the Wes-bomb! Wow, doesn't he know it's mad to mess with our Wesley. — Realist² 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 55h. Is building up a feasible range-block, however. --Rodhullandemu 19:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Quite a collection of socks now. — Realist² 20:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

So are you saying other people actually read the sandbox? I was testing a interwiki link to see if it worked here [10] and now your condemming me for it. 71.196.85.253 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The sandbox is for testing. It's perfectly possible to do that without being overtly racist, and WP:BLP applies anywhere on Wikipedia. Goodbye to you. --Rodhullandemu 16:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to block me as it will not work 71.196.85.226 (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. We still don't want your sort here. --Rodhullandemu 16:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Profile

Hello

You deleted a profile on 12 July 2008 for the British porn star Omar Williams.

Im not entirely sure how wikipedia works but under the guidance as to who is a notable person I don't think the profile should have been deleted.

Omar produced and starred in a series of films that are shown on the fantasy channel and he has also won several awards including the ETO award for best DVD in 2006.

More recently Omar was voted Hollands 2nd most extraordinary person and has appeared on several television shows including a channel 4 documentary and the Jenson Show.

Omar's DVD were in the top 5 selling adult DVDs in the US and Europe

If you require any reference material, photos etc for the wikipedia entry please email Omar at omar@omarsclub.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.132.205 (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. Wikipedia requires all articles to satisfy the test of notability, and in this particular case Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors; as I remember this article, there was not even an assertion of notability within that policy. I would like to help you, but I am too busy to email people to establish that notability, because that is the responsibility of the editor creating the article. If you can provide reliable sources for Omar's notability, as you suggest above, please feel free to re-create the article using those sources. Best wishes. --Rodhullandemu 00:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

List of most expensive music videos

IP mischief. First I had to revert him because what he added was unsourced, then I had to revert him because his source only sited in Canadian dollars. Now he has added a source that sites US dollars but it's clearly a terrible source that needs removing. He's one of those non communicative reverters and has already edit warred. I don't think there is a need for a block, just the source needs removing and he needs to get to grips with WP:RS. Thoughts. — Realist² 20:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightmare day for speed & connectivity here, and I've only just got back to this. Sourcing for this article is certainly a problem. Not only is there a problem of converting currencies (i.e. which base currency do you choose, bearing in mind this is en:wiki, that is, English language, not UK currency?); even if you choose $USD as the base currency, and there is no particularly apparent valid reason to do that, the rates may have changed between sources. If this table were largely-spaced, such that fluctuations over a couple of years wouldn't make that much difference, my impression is that it isn't, and that overall, this article suffers from WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I've seen similar attempts to extrapolate concepts like "wealth" and "value" across much longer historical periods on WP, to no great approval, and although "music videos" have only been around as such for about 20 years, there is still the problem of comparability. Sorry. --Rodhullandemu 23:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it had occurred to me that it is a "flawed" concept (I think that's how they say it?), certainly more chance of us getting that "Honorific titles of farmyard animals" to GA.:-) After bumping into the apparent OR concerns when I nominated the "list of best selling albums worldwide" for WP:FL it's easy to see how this is much worse. Still, if I AfD the music video article today it would be kept, speedy closed and I would be blocked as a troll. How ironic. The article is doomed but we won't delete it...because it's notable...apparently. Notable but impossible to define by it's nature. I suppose this is what separates us from a standard encyclopedia, we'll try anything, and sometimes it pays off. Then you get into the definition of what is a "music video"? Jacko and many reliable sources have been calling his "short films" ever since Thriller. It makes you want to Scream. — Realist² 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're spot on here. As a tertiary source, we are supposed only to report what is out there without synthesizing conclusions ourselves. There's a clear distinction, however, between collecting external information in an encyclopedic manner and which is not even attempted by other repositories of information (to put it as neutrally as possible), and creating original material that breaches WP:NOT and WP:OR. Some would call the distinction finely-balanced, but it actually gives us an advantage in that we can do things that paper-based books cannot, and even more so, we can react to changes much more quickly. A telephone directory, for example, is out of date not only when it's received on your doorstep, but actually when it's printed, and furthermore even before it's compiled. I don't take that as implying that we should attempt to be up to date; Wikinews does that for important issues, and other sites for, er, les important issues. As for what is a "music video", well you pays your money and you takes your choice; I have a 4.5 hour video about the history of the "music video", and it starts in about 1948, way before MTV started. All I know is that nothing seems so simple any more. --Rodhullandemu 00:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Can't say I've ever seen somebody request a source for a userpage! :-) Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could have put {{who}}, but, WTF. --Rodhullandemu 01:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that was funny. — Realist² 01:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's good to know that others think you're still alive. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 01:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, I noticed that link to WikiReview on your user page. I don't think your a robot. — Realist² 01:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, it seems to me that Wikipedia Review is largely populated by people who have been eternally banned from here, as well as those who are still here, including Admins, Checkusers and the occasional Arbitrator. Healthy criticism is fine, of course, but my focus is to contribute knowledge here and to resist subversion of what we have here; that is why I am on record as saying that the minor, undetected, vandals who change a date of birth or some other figure by one year are far more dangerous than the page-blankers and "poo-poo willy" kiddies. That is why we should adopt the "approved revisions" model currently being trialled on de:wp as soon as it is shown that it can work. Having said that, I have little time for those who having failed to accept, or change from within, our policies and values here, take their sour grapes to any other blog that will have them. That is cowardice, despicable and is similar to saying "Well, I believe in God and Jesus, the Gospels and the message, but there's this bit I object to, so I'll go somewhere they'll accept that"; and it seems that if your church doesn't want you, well start your own; nothing new in that. Except of course, too many churches dilutes the principle behind ALL of them. End of. --Rodhullandemu 01:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My $.02 on the "seen revisions" model on the German Wikipedia (where I am, natch, de:Benutzer:Goodmorningworld): I have mixed feelings about it. It put a damper on my enthusiasm to know that many people would not see my edits until an "empowered" editor came along. (The backlog hovers between 16 and 19 days). The first time I applied for "approval" rights I was told that my edits on en-Wikipedia would not be counted towards the "200 edits in article namespace" minimum. The second time a kind soul assumed good faith and granted me authorization even though my edit total still was less than required. Since then my contributions rate has multiplied and I have "approved" many article edits out of the backlog. Sometimes I discovered that edits had been "approved" that were wrong.

The German Wikipedia does say that "seen" does not mean "fact-checked and style-checked to the standard of an encyclopedia", only that an edit does not constitute obvious vandalism. This means that it is precisely the niggling little errors and micro-vandalisms that this system does not catch. I leave alone revisions (like changing pop.700 to pop.750 or 42 kW to 56 kW) where I simply do not know if they are right or wrong. But the instructions tell me to "approve" them since they do not constitute obvious vandalism, and I know that many users simply click "seen".--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

<outdent. Ouch! I hadn't realised the process was that slow; 16-19 days seems to lead to all sorts of problems, because a busy article may have hundreds of edits in that period. Trying to sort out pure vandalism from the rest may be fairly easy, but checking minors edits such as you give as examples would be far too time consuming. The alternative is to revert all unsourced edits, but my experience is that most minor edits changes to be unsourced, and even checking any existing citations is tedious. And if incorrect edits are being approved, that seems to defeat one of the objects of the exercise. I may have to reconsider this idea. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Grange Hill Album

What would you consider a suitable citation for the existence of an album? I'm reluctant to add a link to an online store selling it, but wouldn't expect to be able to find a news article. BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 01:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be a website or journal somewhere that is reliable enough to suffice. A newspaper review would be good enough, and could be cited using {{cite news}}; I'm sure you got the information from somewhere, and it depends whether it's an acceptable source here. --Rodhullandemu 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look for sources tommorow. Where I got the information from isn't citeable - I bought a copy of the CD from a shop, the only document I currently have to refer to is the booklet inside the box. Ho Hum. BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

-I also notice there is no citation for the existence of the other spin-off album. I guess they should both be in the same place in the article. Or do you consider that should be deleted too? BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would be helpful if they are cited together, but if not, there should be sources out there. --Rodhullandemu 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

this would seem to do the trick, and there is a template somewhere for citing album sleeve/CD liner notes. I'll see if I can find it. --Rodhullandemu 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

YAI (Yet Another Idiot)

User talk:Lim Ka Heck has performed 10 acts of vandalism in 4 minutes (is that a record?), and done nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lim_Ka_Heck
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Booted for 24h by Luna Santin. I'd have indeffed, myself, but only time will tell. --Rodhullandemu 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Circus (Britney Spears album)

I fear we have some copy vio's in relation to the critical reaction section. Most of it comes from crap places anyway, since the album isn't out for a while and there are no proper reviews on the infobox. The whole thing probably needs burning in fact. However fans will revert any cuts. — Realist² 21:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the quotes are overlong to be fair-use, even if cited. I'd sort out the unreliable ones, but I think there's enough real info to sustain the article for now. Let me know if it gets into an edit-war, but I'll put an editnote on the talk page. --Rodhullandemu 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image guy

User talk:Panasonic penguin has recreated an identical copy of his radar image that I successfully got deleted as disputed fair use. It needs deleting again. He is also trying to upload it to push the agenda that Radar was an official single, it was not, there are no sources to support that anywhere in the corresponding article. I can't be bothered to tag the image again because it takes 7 bloody day's to get any action. — Realist² 22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment left on Talk:Radar_(song)#Radar_CDS and I will look at a CSD for the image. --Rodhullandemu 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Done as lacking copyright info and failing WP:V. --Rodhullandemu 23:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Radar - Official Single.jpg. — Realist² 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Strangely, I don't regard eBay as a reliable source, even if the uploaded image matched the one there, which it doesn't. Coh! --Rodhullandemu 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I'm going offline soon, had a very long day, tomorrow I'm going to nominate someone for RfA, my first one, how exciting, watch me fuck up the formatting and accidentally crash Wikipedia or something. — Realist² 23:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Realist fucked up the formatting and crashed Wikipedia. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:RadarSingle.png, he's left another monologue on the talk page, not sure what you want to do at this stage. — Realist² 00:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) Left comment on talk page. More trouble than it's worth. --Rodhullandemu 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • [Shouldn't this be deleted?], the description seems unsure who it belongs to for a start. — Realist² 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Russian text on the source page seems to suggest it came originally from an authentic source, so I'm prepared to let that go for now. A better source would be useful, of course, and I'm surprised the record company's website doesn't have it. Meanwhile, there are "reconstructions" doing the rounds of fan forums for the other image, and we can't say ebay is reliable, so that one has gone. --Rodhullandemu 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You Are Not Alone - Does Wiki take a position on this?

Does Wikipedia take a legal position on how the Belgium case should affect the article? — Realist² 20:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I think we just say the case is reliably reported (assuming it is ) and I think it can be taken as read that decisions of one country's courts do not bind another's. --Rodhullandemu 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, nice and easy. I don't need to put their names in the info box or anything lol. — Realist² 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Efe

Can you send this one live for me? The instructions are too vague to understand. Cheers. — Realist² 13:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Should update everywhere next time SQLBot runs. --Rodhullandemu 13:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I was a bit nervous about messing it up for Efe. — Realist² 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead Balloon

That was quick! Bradley0110 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamalar

Please block. I have clean up to attend to. Cheers — Realist² 12:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lennon

Hi Rodhullandemu. You may know more about this matter than I do, but I'm confused by your edit here. I simplified the statement because the sources seem to conflict. And you stated that the source is unreliable, but you left both sources in the article. I'm wondering what your thinking is, which I'm sure you could not explain fully in the edit summary. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. There was a link to a forum; that was the unreliable source, which I thought I'd reverted. Please feel free to correct as you think fit. --Rodhullandemu 16:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already removed the forum link. I reverted it back to my version, which omits conflicting details about specifically where the ashes might have gone. If that doesn't look OK, feel free to let me know. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Yamato X

Hi, I noticed you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Yamato X. Please make sure to put the {{subst:at}} above the title instead of below it! Thanks, and keep up the good work! DARTH PANDA^duel 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't do many of these. Does it show? --Rodhullandemu 20:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not really sure what you mean... DARTH PANDA^duel 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

i am scared

I am so scared that I created this account.

I see what you did to "stopitrightnow". You didn't give the person a chance. Furthermore, he was answering FisherQueen and your "olive branch" was hidden. Then you page protected the page within minutes.

This is extremely poor form.

I think this could have been handled better. The scary thing is that I am so scared that you will be angry at me and block me even though I've been editing 1 year. I cannot take the risk. Do you see how your behavior is not good for Wikipedia? I hope you will find it in your heart to be kinder to others in the future.

I am not asking for anyone's unblock. I am only giving you this advice because it will help you in life. Xxyyzz70 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, thanks, but no. I asked "stopitrightnow" for a simple explanation, but didn't get one. If I had, maybe he wouldn't have been unblocked, but might have been able to retreat with some dignity. As for your advice as to what will help me in my life, I haven't done that badly, having reached the age of 55 without being murdered. If you achieve that, you will have also done reasonably well. Meanwhile, I believe that you don't fully understand what we are trying to achieve here, and your account is now blocked indefinitely. Thanks anyway. --Rodhullandemu 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving "Bot" Users to Bot

I think, that it was supposed to be like that. Bots in the bot group have the auto flag, so can edit unassisted, bots not in the bot group, were more like alternate accounts or something. Or human assisted and such....

—Reedy 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That isn't clear. I'll revert myself for now while I look into it. --Rodhullandemu 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)