Jump to content

User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/22

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

Legal article notability

[edit]

Rod, I'd appreciate it if you could tell others this too, because I end up repeating myself a lot: if it's been reported, it's notable. The fact that there's not a Bailii transcript doesn't mean much, because that only began in 2001 and they're working backwards for old cases. They've done contract first. Also, I humbly suggest that if I'm putting it up, the case is notable. Wikidea 09:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your last point first, would that it were so; unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Of the many caselaw articles we have, only one is a WP:GA, which indicates the difficulty we have here. Whilst I would argue that House of Lords cases are inherently notable, because by definition, they involve a "point of law of general public importance", Court of Appeal cases not necessarily so. Many cases are reported, but few satisfy our notability guidelines. I suggest you take a look at the GA review of R v Bailey to see what we're up against here. --Rodhullandemu 12:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, I'm not sure what I have to reply. If you've got any specific questions, please ask - or you need help defending an article, then just tell me. It's a simple matter of flicking through a book - but yes, if it's reported, it's notable. If the guidelines don't reflect that, they're wrong. I would, however, if you're creating criminal cases, use the nicer infobox that appears on Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd and others. Wikidea 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis revert

[edit]

Although I doubt those were good faith edits by the user, I loved your response back to the I.P. :) Have a good one! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh! Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 22:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden wholesale deletions at Heather Mills

[edit]

Could you cast an eye over the activities of this new editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EAS1441 who has suddenly started wholesale deletions of referenced material, without any summary explanation. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 16:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted all and left a deletion warning. Seems to have stopped for now. Rodhullandemu 16:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very curious. There's definitely more than a whiff of revisionism about the recent edits. It's always possible to read more into these things than is the case, however I can't help but find several links between the edits and this article. http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/article.html?Angry_Heather_vows_to_clean_up_damaging_web&in_article_id=619391&in_page_id=7 David T Tokyo (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging this up; it's always difficult to tell whether we are dealing with a sustained attempt to whitewash an article or a good-faith editor, but I have it watchlisted. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 11:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

Any chance you can help with this?. Unrelated, what is your opinion on using Digital Spy as a source? — R2 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done one of these, so I don't want to mess it up. Probably better to list it at WP:SPLICE, they're used to doing this sort of thing. As for digitalspy, I wouldn't trust the forums or polls, because they are unreliable and self-selecting respectively. As for their editorials, it comes down to whether they have a reputation for checking facts, and I don't know about that. Rodhullandemu 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSS feed

[edit]

Is there a way to have a RSS feed for my watchlist? Please respond at my talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user talk:Jimbo Wales

[edit]

Larry Sanger added a section that was deleted by Jimbo. However in the section, Sanger tells people not to delete it. I am not sure what to do so could you please look at it. Thanks Griffinofwales (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear Jimbo doesn't want it there, and it's his page, so there's no problem reverting it.Rodhullandemu 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reverting edits

[edit]

J.Delanoy has said that we should leave it alone (He is an admin, and several respected users [maybe admins] agree with him). Please help (and I have to log off soon). Respond at my talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

Email sent. Best. — R2 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not received yet, can you resend pls? Rodhullandemu 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resent just now, let me know if you don't get it. Cheers. — R2 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just got it, thanks, and looking at it right now. Rodhullandemu 01:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I must have sent it incorrectly the first time, it didn't show up in my history, so sorry about that. — R2 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and the editor has been shown the door. Rodhullandemu 02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Probably the best way to deal with it, without starting drama. — R2 02:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greatz00

[edit]

Saw the block, and agree with it, but wanted to comment that I don't think "vandalism-only" is accurate. He's an odd editor ... I've seen him go through and do large amounts of cleanup on articles, and then proceed to dump unsourced crap into the next set he edits. Indef is fine, unblock if he shows any sign of grasping the concept of a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a more appropriate block template. Rodhullandemu 02:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Profile: Lauren Crace

[edit]

Thank you for overlooking Lauren Crace's profile and an appropriate profile picture will be uploaded soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadjet001 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's completely free of copyright; we do have ways of checking this, and you might want to look at our image policy just to be sure. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for this information on what pictures may be used. A personal picture is to be used, Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadjet001 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tools I need for greater justice, to right a wrong that threatens to unhinge the very principles of wikipedia itself!

[edit]

This is concerning your apparent concerns over my character, and what wrongs I might have wrought if given the tools in which I seek. Please read over the current discussion, and reply there. Your word alone will seal my fate. Dream Focus 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

many fold/manifold

[edit]

The first means it serves many purposes, the latter is that it is obvious. I do not know which is relevant to the piece, if either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"manifest", shurely? But neither do I. Rodhullandemu 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Two Pints...

[edit]

I've made no controversial changes, just fixed what was broken. U-Mos (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inoysterbay

[edit]
  • Hi, could you take a look at the above's contributions when you have a minute, they all relate to an audio tape produced about a walk in an area of New York Oyster Bay History Walk. Whether or not the walk is notable which in itself I have concerns about, many of the articles do not seem to be suitable/notable to me. I have prodded two to see what others thought but the author quickly removed the tags. I even reported his user name as it seems promotional to me but that was rejected. Having a name 'In Oyster Bay' and then creating articles that publicise an audio tape about Oyster Bay seems iffy to me. Thanks.--Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at some of this. I think the Walk itself is notable since it appears to have multiple reliable sources. Overall, the verbatim reproduction of the content of these tapes would seem to be a breach of copyright and/or unsourced original research, so they should be deleted. Doing that would leave a stub section which would only be promotional in nature, so I'd suggest those should be replaced with text along the lines of "X is featured on the Oyster Bay Walk" and let that link do the work. As for "Typhoid Mary in Oyster Bay" and similar, sourcing of these is poor at best, and I doubt they're notable enough to have separate articles; we don't do this for any combination of person and place as far as I know. I'd propose moving them to other articles; whether that would be, say Typhoid Mary or Oyster Bay, is moot. I would have suggested dropping a {{uw-coi}} on the editor's page, but I see he's already had one, and I think it's plain he's plugging these tapes. If he's removed the PROD tags, a deletion proposal is the next step for articles having no real notability. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 19:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have taken the article Fleet's Hall to AfD. I think some of the articles are worth keeping, some need merging as they are content forks and a few need deleting. I think it best to proceed slowly with this series as we don't want to turn off an enthusiastic contributor, so my thinking is to work through the series, one article at a time. What do you think?

P.S. I'm going to leave this message on Paste's & Moonriddengirl's talk pages too. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LFC Plagiarism

[edit]

I have also reverted the main LFC article per your reversion on the "history of" article. What source was this plagiarising? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It had a heading "Leeds University Study", but instead of using a narrative style to discuss this, it was just the addition of a huge block of unsourced text. I assumed that this was copy-pasted from that study, without any other attribution. Difficult to track down without a link, I know, but it's the editor's responsibility to source it properly. Rodhullandemu 21:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got my wires crossed there. Waterspaces copy pasted the start of the history article into the main and I thought that was the plagiarism (which of course it wasn't). I've removed the excess info from the LFC main now. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note: fancy joining the discussion? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not that into soccer so I doubt I'd be able to bring anything to the party, but if you need an admin, get back to me. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's not really too footy specific anyway, more arguing with an editor that pasting daughter articles into the summarised main is not a good idea! We'll see how things work out. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I attempted a rewrite, and I thought I'd summarised the author's points quite well. However, he's just had another go at me on my talk page. I'd even apologised on his talk page for my earlier mistake thinking he'd breached copyright. I'm stepping away from it now. --GedUK  14:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Water Space

[edit]

Of course. I didn't think I was goading him.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't stopped, so I've blocked him for 31h anyway. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 16:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jagger

[edit]

thanks for the note r.e. youtube and CR. Are you sure its a CR violation? Did you watch the clip? you see jagger is aware of the rumours and in the answer he is speaking the words himself - those are direct quotes i used. - Marlinnspike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlinnspike (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a tv interview, the copyright will be owned by the tv company and it should not be on YouTube. His words may well be true, it's just that we cannot use that clip as a source. Rodhullandemu 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre issues

[edit]

Hello, I'm always seeing your name on my watchlist and am glad that I finally have an opportunity to address you. There is a discussion on the "Paranoid" talk page that could use your input (in other words someone else who will agree with me). Someone insists that because the song sounds like a punk song it should be classified as proto-punk, obviously he is citing no sources to support his opinion. J04n(talk page) 00:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look there and pitch in if I need to. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batt O'Keeffe - semi-protection request

[edit]

Hi Rodhullandemu, I see you have semi-protected Bertie Ahern. I was wondering if you could do the same for another Irish politician, the current Minister for Education and Science, Batt O'Keeffe. It is currently being heavily vandalised. Thanks, Snappy (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I've given it three months. Rodhullandemu 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Castles (band)

[edit]

Hey, over at the above article, an editor has added a huge section on a "controversy". Not only is it WP:UNDUE, but the sources are...shit. I've already removed it twice and issued the editor a warning regarding sourcing of material. I don't want to get into 3RR but the material, in it's current state, has to go. Any ideas? — R2 17:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it on to the talk page for discussion since there are also some WP:BLP issues. Rodhullandemu 18:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I have no idea why I watchlist articles that have no interest to me. I must have watchlisted it from the Jamalar episodes we had. — R2 18:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Castles

[edit]

Precisely what policy issues did the posting of the facts raise on the Crystal Castles page? Everything posted there is verifiable through each of the sources. I hope you have taken the time to review each of them individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeslayer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are notable, reliable third party publications. Myspace and blogs really don't cut it. — R2 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I've explained on the talk page, but mostly the sources are unreliable. We don't count blogs as such, the links to sound files look like breaches of copyright, and a link to the band's MySpace is a WP:SPS. On either side of this dispute, the sources are self-serving or at best secondhand. The requirement for such sourcing is not met by these, in my opinion. You may want to ask for a further opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are reputable newsblogs of the Dallas indie scene and are reporting the band management's official statement and the official statement of the venue. Just because it appears on a newsblog does not mean it is false. The sound files are radio interviews with band members. How are the sources self-serving? For you to claim that, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the websites had an agenda in the posting of the material.
In addition, there is already a blog which is used as a source in the main article prior to today's edits. I assume you will remove the offending information since "we don't count blogs as such." Spikeslayer (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing of the Dallas indie scene, which is why I suggest you seek a third opinion. I am not getting into a content dispute, merely applying our policies. As to who is to "prove" what, please see WP:BURDEN; and as for the existing blog, I might look at it if I have time, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a very strong argument round here. Rodhullandemu 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, I've commented on the talk page. Basically, we shouldn't be using "indie sources" we should be using "mainstream sources". A music bio built on indie sources would surely burn at AfD anyway. Using audio/video as a source doesn't cut it either imho, because such sources would not assert the texts notability. This is extremely important threshold when alleging the issue is some form of "controversy" or dare I say it "scandal". The sources provided thus far convince me that we are not dealing with a "controversy" at all. — R2 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So have I, and I agree. It's a fight between two bald men over a comb, in wider terms. Rodhullandemu 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently added an image to the info box of the Phil Spector article. Is it me, or does that look nothing like Phil Spector? Apparently it was taken in 2006. I don't know much about the guy, other than musical genius/psychotic gun wielding murderer. — R2 00:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, was starting to worry about myself then, no one else seemed to notice it. — R2 07:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

[edit]

Pretty obvious that 200.8.49.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is evading the block you placed on 201.209.224.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Probably a friend's house: different cable company, but both in Caracas.—Kww(talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Living people

[edit]

A new wikiproject designed to help uphold WP:BLP has formed, you might be interested. — R2 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

[edit]

My friend, I trust you have an answer prepared for anyone querying the "legal" aspect of your wording - there has been some recent issues regarding what is entailed by including that word in any communication, as I am sure you are aware. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. It's not a threat, merely a statement of fact. As far as UK law is concerned, publication outside a privileged audience negates defences of "fair comment" and "qualified privilege". Adding {{NOINDEX}} is to that editor's benefit, not that I suspect it would come to anything. You yourself advised him it would be unwise to move that material to any publicly (i.e. outside Wikipedia)-visible website. If people are going to have a go about it, well, there's no particular reason for me to be here at all. Rodhullandemu 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, statement of fact it is. I will be creating an MfD tomorrow when I have a clear head - tonight I am engaged in clouding it - unless it is removed in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I doubt it will go voluntarily, given that the author hasn't edited at all in five days. Rodhullandemu 19:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB abuse?

[edit]

I gather that you're the person who gives out and takes back rights to AWB, please review this diff to see if the AWB user is complying with the rules; and if not, to consider appropriate action. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am only one who does that, but a quick review shows that your diff may just be a glitch, since most of the AWB edits he's done seem to be OK. I'd just revert that one and ask the user to check his edits more closely. Since he's doing lots of tidy-up work, for which AWB is intended, I don't think there's a case to remove permission unless this becomes problematic. Get back to me if you have any further concerns; cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu

[edit]

User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu, a page of which you are the subject, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rodhullandemu 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gibson players

[edit]

In response to your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians where you said you posted on the talk page and got no response from the other user, I see the user posted his explanation there on 11 April, but I don't see a post from you. Maybe there is a misunderstanding, and you and he are posting in different places? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have made it clear that he posted on the 11th, with no response since. I have come to this only recently and don't want to get involved in the nuts and bolts of it, not being an expert. I only raise it in the interests of the article, and to save the editor from being pilloried unjustly for his deletions. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought you were objecting to the removal. I'll look at it again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Epitaths

[edit]

Specifically, how soon they become relevant; I had surmised as much, and you have my services for as long as you can and wish to call upon them. I have, for no urgent reason, also decided upon mine: Lived, Loved, and was Loved. What else matters? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. For me, I think "He Came. He Saw. He Conked Out" might be closer to the mark. Rodhullandemu 13:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normal service...

[edit]

..may be resumed as soon as possible, so if you have urgent requests for my attention, another admin may be better placed to help you. Against a background of increasing disillusion about our commitment to producing free knowledge for the benefit of the whole world evidenced by the continuing and seemingly unabated stream of vandalism that, for some reason, we tolerate for far too long, and inchoate criticisms of less than 10-4 of my total input here, I am bereft.

  • I learned yesterday that we had lost User:Pete Fenelon six months ago at the tragically early age of 40; I had met him at the University of York during my time there, and he was perhaps unique in that he made computer science genuinely witty whilst being extremely knowledgeable about it himself; he was the only person I know who got Christmas cards from five curry takeaways. His knowledge was both broad and deep, which from my own experience is rare in computer scientists.
  • I also learned within the last hour that we have lost User:Teenly, a young girl whose contributions were constructive and her spirit indomitable. I didn't know her even here, but to lose such an editor seems to make me question why we do this. If anyone can tell me, I'd be glad to hear your opinions, as long as you leave your god out of it. Rodhullandemu 22:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterspaces block

[edit]

I'm not sure if he fully deserved an indefinite block but I welcome it regardless. I found it odd that he continually attacked my standard of writing as I'm pretty confident that I have an adequate level of English. Sure it's not perfect but I really couldn't understand Waterspaces' perspective. What was most frustrating was that he actually brought some interesting sources to the articles and raised some legitimate concerns. I fear you are right that he failed to grasp that this is a collaborative community project, and will continue to do so. I commend you for being bold. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indefinite here is not infinite; all he has to do is to subscribe to cooperation and our major policies; thus far, I'm not convinced that he's realised this. WP:TRUTH and WP:SOAPBOX spring to mind in his case, but he seems extraordinaly resistant to outside comments. No matter; we are not a purveyor of original thought, a point which he has signally missed. Rodhullandemu 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an IP range block may be needed [2]. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a rangeblock, it's an Assigned PA, but I have blocked for a month and advised hom to contest on his main Talk page; thanks for letting me know. Rodhullandemu 12:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They've emerged under another IP address (79.65.31.192) on Talk:Everton F.C.. Dancarney (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and blocked. Rodhullandemu 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking: Is it right to do edits like this for IPs of banned users? Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not normally if they are directed to improving the article, but the one you linked was a breach of WP:NOTFORUM, so correctly deleted. And he's not banned, only blocked. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Not banned, he's blocked? This is coming over all RFA... :) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back again - 79.65.104.128 Dancarney (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and blocked again; he'll either get bored or build up a nice rangeblock. Ho hum. Rodhullandemu 21:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I suppressed a big section of Canada Dock Branch which appeared to be a blog by user:Waterspaces Nankai -- he or she has some intriguing rail engineering ideas though. (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band on the Run

[edit]

Thanks for saying my revision was done in "good faith." A lot of editors automaticaly assume vandalism. I really didn't think a source was necessary, because I have first-hand knowledge of this. I remember the song being played on the radio, and I have a promo copy of the single with the edited version of the song (Apple P-1873). In some ways, I am as much of a primary source to this as Joseph Plumb Martin's 19th-century recollections are a primary source to the American Revolution. Nonetheless, I recognize that you and other Wikipedia readers have no way of knowing that I am 50 years-old and remember the song when it came out. Nor do you (or most modern readers, I presume) remember when this record was first release. So your call for a source is legitimate. I included a reference from Wiener. Is that okay? I could have just as easily included a reference from Cox & Linsay's price guide. (Perry Cox & Joe Lindsay, Official Price Guide to The Beatles Records and Memorabilia first edition (New York: House of Collectables, 1995), 218.) Thanks.

Best wishes, MCB in Boulder (8/21/2009)67.177.195.177 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's just that we cannot rely on first-hand knowledge because there's no way it can be verified. I'm older than 50, I do remember when the record came out, and your source looks fine to me. Rodhullandemu 18:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed on your bio that you're British. I just changed my revision to state that the shorter version of the song was played on the radio "in America" in 1974. I shouldn't have been so ethno-centric. I don't know what version of the song was played in the UK or elsewhere. Perhaps you always got the full-length version. All I know is that the first time I listened to the album with my friends (we were all in high school at the time it came out) the extra verse took us by surprise. We were so used to the edited version, which got full saturation airplay here in the States.
It's weird that, unlike "With a Little Luck" (in which the short version has been released on one or two of McCartney's compilation albums), the short version of "Band on the Run" has not been digitally released on CD. (Perhaps it is available on download; I don't know. Maybe I'm just too old, but downloads feel like cheating to me. If I can't hold it in my hand, I don't consider it a part of my record collection.) MCB in Boulder 198.11.27.101 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanielDeibler/Investigation of Rodhullandemu#Requests for review

[edit]

Your comments were moved to the discussion page where they should have been added originally. You were commenting on the virtue of the investigation, not contributing to it in any way. If you wish to contribute to the investigation, you are free to do so. Commentary on the investigation itself, or on whether you edit count is higher than mine, belong on the discussion page, if anywhere. Please refrain from reverting edits without reason, particularly when the edit in question clearly explains its validity in its edit summary. Edits like this hinder the investigation. Thank you. --DanielDeibler (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hinder the investigation? What investigation? So far, as User:Mathsci has pointed out, it's nothing more than "a laundry list" and "unpleasant wikistalking". Do you seriously think that User:LessHeard VanU, having advised that he would take this to WP:MFD, and done so, would have attempted to bury this without due process, while you go on vacation without even putting this information on your talk page or user page or even a {{wikibreak}} notice so other editors can falsely gain an impression that you aren't that committed to your "investigation"? In what way is that fair to me? I think you have much to learn. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I quoted John Cleese?? You're very welcome --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that, but that you gave a rational argument. The comment in question was to a student from Leeds who, given the timing of his edit, had recently returned from the pub on a Friday or Saturday night. Given that I am from that area myself, we tend to call a spade a spade rather than obfuscating; it saves time, and also given his subsequent edits to my comments to him, made me believe that he was not a serious editor here. The assumption of good faith, in my experience, can be displaced in one edit, which is why I talked to him in language he would grasp, and rapidly. Americans may not understand that "twat" isn't necessarily that offensive on the UK. Rodhullandemu 00:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I voted "Keep" on the MfD, not to give you a hard time but per item (10) in WP:UP#NOT. Regardless, I think the RfC will be a blow-out. Cheers, --Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find that hard to follow, but I will look at your contribution there. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being from Bradford myself, I did feel I had to point out that Nurse! The Screens! wasn't necessarily the only response one could make to the word. And if I tell you that I used to work in a local government complaints office.....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bradford. I love it, and used to drive over from York just to get a decent curry in The Kash. Somewhat worrying that it was right next to the city mortuary, perhaps. I also remember the Italia Cafe, close by, and given the opportunity and the money, would move back to Yorkshire in a shot. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kash is still there next to the morgue (about which it occasionally used to complain. Downdraught table - don't ask!)and still excellent. Mamma and Poppa at the Italia sold up a few years ago though.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterspace joy

[edit]

Get off wiki as you are no good at it. You show no impartiality or even common sense. You constantly to suppress legitimate views and superior contributions. You are clearly a part of a clique. Wiki is about knowledge, which needs to be clearly put across. You appear not to identify knowledge or how it is put across in simple English. Please leave and take your clique with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.17.61 (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Rod! Bow down to Waterspaces' superiority - or else! He his clearly a genius so no sources will be required here, it is The Truth. As the man said: You constantly to suppress legitimate views. It doesn't get clearer than that. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 11:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it. I'm no good. This is why I've started over 50 new articles, got five to Good Article status and had 15 DYKs on the Main Page, whereas Waterspaces... oh, on second thoughts, scrub that. Rodhullandemu 11:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, you can prove anything with facts! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked a Checkuser to look into this and will be filing an investigation. My previous attempts to get Tiscali to do anything about their users haven't been that successful, but it may be a rangeblock can be worked out to prevent further abuse. Rodhullandemu 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Prescott

[edit]

I was told that story by a guy down the pub who used to work at the Palace. Are you saying he was lying?

80.254.147.68 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying he is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia, and less so are you; also that the incident, if it happened at all, is trivial and not encyclopedic. Rodhullandemu 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xtian1313

[edit]
Hello, Rodhullandemu. You have new messages at KyleJustinD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It seem you have dealt previously with User:Xtian1313 and part of my issue has to do with things said on your talk page.

The Reign

[edit]

Just had a look at the history of The Reign--good grief, it was on here four years and nobody spotted the copyvio? Blueboy96 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same site was used as a reference in Christina Milian, and when I went to check it out, it was substantially the same, and I suspect CorenBot wasn't running when the article was created. Rodhullandemu 17:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SAD!

[edit]

Are you not really sad about Bea Arthurs Death, i mean such a famous icon. Why do people have to die! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.141.224 (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is always sad when people die, but not always unexpected. She lasted longer than most of my family, and was very successful; her relatives and friends should be thankful for that. However, for the purposes of her article, I maintain a neutral point of view. Rodhullandemu 22:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's one of the few people I always thought death couldn't touch. Stupid reaper. She was a grand ol dame! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They say only two things are certain; death and taxes. The Golden Girls was shown over here, but didn't seem to have the same impact it seems to have done in the US. Our own version, "Brighton Belles", flopped and so poor old Bea doesn't have the same regard in the United States of K. Still sad, tho. Rodhullandemu 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:KellJOHNSON

[edit]

We've got a situation at Lady Gaga. User keeps reverting the main image to one that is a copyright violation. Also has been a disruption to other Gaga related articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. User has been blocked. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller 25 and Simone Jackson

[edit]

Hey Rod, I saw you revert Simone Jackson on the T25 article. I'm having real problems with this editor again, particularly with genres and lack of citations on numerous Jackson articles. I drew him to your attention before. Not sure if a block is warranted at this stage but just letting you know that I am still seeing significant issues with this editor. — R2 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article for "The Girl is Mine" describes it as "pop-rap", whatever that is; accordingly, it must be distinct from "hip-hop" to those who care; I may be able to spare some time to look into it, but I am very very tired right now. Rodhullandemu 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Is everything OK? My email is always open. — R2 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too much pressure. The knobheads seem to be crawling out of the woodwork tonight and there's only one of me. I've seen some st00pid editors here, but there are some who just don't get it, never will, and that's wearing to the soul. They are beyond education. However, as they say, "that which does not kill me makes me stronger", although it's fucking close at present. Tomorrow I shall be stronger. Rodhullandemu 00:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cilla Black

[edit]

Can't get your own way, so lock the page down! As you wrote in your message to me - now deleted of course, by you - you agreed with the edits I made. But since I wouldn't rise to your bait, you had to find another way to win out. Very mature. Very adult. Very responsible. Doubtless this message will be branded as "uncivil" or some such and I will now be banned again. But you'll never win. Enjoy your interim victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends whether one has a professional attitude to writing articles here. I'll let my track record be the indicator of that. Rodhullandemu 06:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would let your track record speak for yourself indeed. It speaks volumes about you. For example, in the past week, you have not added to, created or edited one single page without it being a delete of something unsourced. You have at the same time got into several disputes with editors, making several blocks and undoing their work. You have never once actually bothered to go and source something to improve an article. You simply delete.

What you did yesterday is petty, childish and exceptionally unprofessional. By deleting my talk page, you cleverly removed your spiteful and petulant comments to me, also removing them from history so that no other administrator could read them. Having done that, you then reversed the edits I had made, having previously agreed with them. Then you locked your precious page.

If you consider it "professional" to behave that way; to leave comments in articles that are unsourced, unreferenced and unreliable, then that proves that you have no regard for the wiki project at all, just a petty vendetta against editors and a determination to get your own way at all costs, regardless of accuracy. You claim that the unsourced, unreferenced, unreliable comments I removed are "easily" sourced. But instead of sourcing them yourself, you demand that I do it. I suggest you do it yourself since it's so easily done.

This is the final edit I shall be making to any wikipedia page. I have tried to improve articles, but clearly, you do not understand the concept of wiki or the spirit in which it is meant to operate. You are simply a sad, lonely geek who must get their own way at all costs. I feel pity for you. Good luck with your obsession. It will ultimately be a very hollow and lonely life for you. I hope the joys of the administrator's club is worth it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.217 (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:V to the letter, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." - i.e. you. It is not up to Rodhullandemu to find a source for information added by others, and he is well within policy to challenge and remove unsourced content without himself citing a source - that's the job of the original contributor. Now, unless you wish to be blocked, I suggest you stop trolling and continue to contribute constructively to this encyclopaedia. Or just leave. Your choice. TalkIslander 11:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appologise - there is clearly a lot more to this than is immediately obvious. Note that I'm not condoning your behaviour, but nor am I reprimanding it either: I'm merely taking a step back and disassociating myself with this matter. TalkIslander 15:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from WP:V

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."

"Reasonable"- good word, that. Rodhullandemu 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst you're sorting out your barnstar collection

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Awarded to Rodhullandemu for his tireless and dedicated work as an administrator in many different fields. BencherliteTalk 22:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged to you. It makes a pleasant change to get some appreciation for the work I do here, and is humbly accepted. Rodhullandemu 22:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greensleeves

[edit]

I'm hoping I can call on your help again. I've reverted an edit twice that says (in effect) that Henry VIII "could" have written Greensleeves. The reason I've reverted the edits is because there has been no supporting reference to validate them and repudiate the existing reference (which states that Henry did not). In both cases I've followed it up with explanations on the discussion page but I'm not making any headway - the user involved does not believe he requires any supporting references. This issue of Henry and Greensleeves flares up periodically; normally it's settled but in this particular case I believe the user will continue to make the edit. I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye on this. Many thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a popular theory; but without sources, all we can cite is the attribution. I'll take a look at it. Rodhullandemu 21:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've just noticed that it's already been changed. I can't revert it again, it'll take me past the three edit rule. David T Tokyo (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shame, I've just expressed an opinion on the Talk page, so I can't protect it- I'll flag it at WP:RFPP. Rodhullandemu 21:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. David T Tokyo (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rod, I'm sorry to see you questioning yourself quite so much on this issue. For what it's worth I came to you because I knew it would get sorted, I would have accepted whatever you proposed and I genuinely can't fault your actions at any stage of this issue. I'm not part of the Admin staff (obviously!) but I have managed more people than I ever care to think about. My best advice to you, if you are feeling unsure, is find an example of the admin style you'd like to aim for and keep that close to your heart. None of us ever stops learning. Isn't that why Wiki exists? One day I'll work out how to award the appropriate Barnstar - until then, Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I missed this post of yours; it's been a very busy evening. But thanks for your concern, it is appreciated. All I strive for is an encyclopedia that can be trusted by its users for accuracy, completeness and relevance. that is our duty here. Too many people, particularly vandals and POV-pushers, take it as a game, but it isn't. Those who wrote the hieroglyphics inside the pyramids didn't see it like that, and neither do I; maybe they didn't foresee that their writings would be pored over some 5000 years later. However, we have a unique opportunity here to document the past as we interpret it and the present as we experience it. Our lives are short, and the best we can do is to leave something of value for the future. That's why I am here. Rodhullandemu 00:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who's blocked

[edit]

I think we should just lcose it off entriely, considering he somehow threatend ot find out where i live (not that hard since i say so on my userpage...) and the fact ALL he really did was vandalize.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locked, bolted, done and dusted. I thought maybe he'd just gone off on one, but his last post was indefensible. He's now, as we say, "toast". Rodhullandemu 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Snake

[edit]

I was checking some dubious edits and came across Jay Snake where I see you added a {{prod}}. A banned user removed your prod without fixing the article. I don't know what the next step is, but I'm hoping you will take it! Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this editor was not blocked when he removed the {{prod}} but looking into it, the subject of the article just passed WP:PORNBIO, so I didn't take it to AfD, although it's not a great article and it could stay. Rodhullandemu 13:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional pages

[edit]

May I drop another item on you (found while looking at Jay Snake edits above). I don't understand the criterion for when a company is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. The following two articles have recently been created, and I'm wondering if they are appropriate for Wikipedia: PHD Virtual Technologies (and PHD Virtual which is a redirect), and Virtual Backup Appliance. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP is the notability guideline for companies; in the first case, it's already been {{prod}}ded, and in the second it's entirely sourced from the company itself, so should be tagged {{db-a7}} since it doesn't assert any notability as far as I can see. Rodhullandemu 13:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I went to add db-a7 to Virtual Backup Appliance, but on inspection found that the article is about a "technology" (the article is not clear!), not a company. The only reference is to a "library" site which requires registration. The abstract, and author's name, show that the reference is a classic case of a promotional press release masquerading as an article. Also, the prod has been removed from PHD Virtual Technologies.
If you have any advice, I'll pursue it, but in my opinion someone has successfully put a company promotion on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Couch

[edit]

While I've no real objection to Commons I've put the pic up specifically for the wikipedia page so I think it's ok where it is. If it becomes orphaned it will, in the natural of course of time, get deleted. I've emailed the consent to OTRS. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, no problem with that. She said she'd send me a pic, but didn't, and OTRS requirements are difficult to get across. Thanks again. Rodhullandemu 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

You know what? I was soooo expecting this. In fact, I was expecting this so much that I have made a bet with my work colleague that the change will be reverted within hours of its publishing by some 12-Year-Old-Girl-Groupie-Come-Self-Promoted-Protector-of-His-Sexiness-Tom-Cruise! What??? You are actually not tweenager girl groupie ?!? You are in fact a guy, rather intelligent, English, and possibly even Liverpudlian like myself? Then I rest my case... Why you have removed this innocent, polite, non-offensive and well-meant reference to this top quality satire video which is of great rather than dubious relevance to the section in question, is completely beyond me. This guy (Tom Cruise) is clearly a nutcase (and so is the whole Church of Scientology) and this video if very poignant, yet very decent way of pointing that out. Any sense of humour? Anybody? I thought so :o( Cheers. NeonPuffin (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no axe to grind for, or against, Tom Cruise himself. However, our policies here are crystal clear. We neither host, not link to, copyrighted material, regardless of its merits. I took the trouble to go to the site you linked, and nowhere did it state on behalf of its creators that this material is free of copyright. Hence the "copyvio" comment; copy right is one of the two major legal issues that the Wikimedia Foundation is sensitive about, because it may cost a charitable organisation much money that could be better used in improving this encyclopedia than in paying damages to performers- and that's why we take it seriously. On you second point, of relevance, not everything that could be included should be. The acid test in relation to the article Tom Cruise is "what understanding does this link give a reader of the subject of the article that isn't available in the article itself?" May personal opinion is: nothing. So people take the piss out of Tom Cruise? So what? That is well-documented already textually in the article. I see no reason why we should provide examples of that; the internet is big enough that those interested in finding those examples can easily do so. That isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia; we aren't a tabloid. However, if you can get over the major copyright hurdle, you are free to argue on Talk:Tom Cruise that this should be included, and the best of luck in succedding at that; my experience says it won't happen. Rodhullandemu 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - April 2009 Issue

[edit]

Summary: Wikimedia UK has held it's first AGM! The AGM included numerous speakers talking about a wide range of topics, ranging from collaboration with the BBC to reaching out around the world with Wikipedia on a DVD! A number of official actions were also taken - including the passing of six Resolutions, the election of the new seven-person Board, and the first new Board meeting! Also this month, an overview of the Chapters meeting in Berlin, of which two of our number were present, and details of the upcoming meetups this month!

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Annual General Meeting
  2. New Board
  3. Chapters Meeting
  4. Meet-ups


Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skenmy (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/22&oldid=1139008479"