Jump to content

User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/36

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


Regarding Emmbrook improvement

[edit]

Hey, I wasn't kidding, you know. That lad seriously could replace his teachers. No citation, but I'm a pretty trustworthy guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.100.111 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Failed verification and noteworthiness. When he's notable, he can be mentioned. Until then, not. No way. Never. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never never? Like, never NEVER never? Go oooon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.100.111 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:until Rodhullandemu 23:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... Ok, I have to admit, that was pretty slick. Well played, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.100.111 (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mike Bloomfield

[edit]

Hi, can you tell me why the addition I put about Mike Bloomfield being names one of Gibson.com's Top Guitarists was considered spam. I didn't include any links but the citation. Please let me know if I'm doing something wrong. Thanks Wawzenek (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Wawzenek[reply]

It's clear that other editors don't consider this information worthy of inclusion, given the number that have reverted your addition of this link. Accordingly, you should justify its use, and I suggest you ask MarnetteD what the objections are, although this is made clear in his edit summaries. Rodhullandemu 21:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place I can see the edit summaries? I don't know why other publications and websites' lists are OK, but this one isn't. Is it because it's recent? Thanks again for your help. Wawzenek (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek[reply]

If you go to the article page, such as Mike Bloomfield, which is the one that I see on my Watchlist and click on the "View history" tab at the top, you will see all recent edits, and the associated edit summaries. As to the the website you're using, it's up to you to show its relevance. In general, you can ask at this board. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool. Thanks. I'm sorry to cause trouble. It wasn't my intention. Wawzenek (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Wawzenek[reply]

Hello Rodhullandemu. I wanted to give you an easy link to my reply here User_talk:MarnetteD#Re:_George_Harrison_2. Since you are an admin who has been involved at various times with some parts of this you may also be interested in my thoughts here User_talk:Prhartcom#would_you_please_take_a_look_at_these_and_let_me_know_what_you_think and here User_talk:Bretonbanquet#Your_note. Thanks for your time and if this is more than you wanted to know let me apologize for taking up said time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Hinge Theorem Information

[edit]

New information about the hinge theorem has been added to spp15.emagc.com. Click on the "Daily Rabble" tab to see this more reliable info. Squall B L 20:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. It's still a blog. Rodhullandemu 20:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a blog which the FMA shares with some other guy. Allow me to create a page either about the FMA or the hinge theorem. Squall B L 20:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquallBL (talk • contribs) [reply]

Hinge Theorem Controversy

[edit]

Thanks for all your work in resolving this matter. I reward you with this. Squall BL (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vandal Whacking Stick is given to users who have been attacked, and didn't lose their cool. This could be yours if you work hard.

Abebenjoe and Canadian Arab Federation

[edit]

Thanks for your feedback on Canadian Arab Federation. The fact was updated based on a new source - a television channel's website. It is now sufficiently referenced. Abebenjoe, however, has again reverted this edit. If you still think Abebenjoe is editing in good faith, please review the new reference he deleted. He is engaging in POV. Please help ensure he ceases his POV vandalism. Your good faith edits are essential to ensuring this misconduct is discontinued. Thanks.HaltonMcSquinty (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your Talk page. Rodhullandemu 21:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Defend Someone Before They Have A Chance to See It

[edit]

No matter how much you like Aspects, which I can tell you like him a lot, don't be making changes on his behalf. It is not your place to say what is on Aspects's page, only on yours. --76.107.17.32 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is gonna be funny... HalfShadow 22:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I do not know Aspects that well, but that would be irrelevant. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are non-negotiable policies, as I feel you will shortly discover if you continue on this tack. Vandalism, including personal attacks, may be removed at any time by any editor, including Administrators. You're already on thin ice. Rodhullandemu 22:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berwick upon Tweed

[edit]

The reason I removed the Gaelic version of Berwick was because I didn't see why it was necessary; Berwick is in England, and it has never been part of the Gaidhealtacht. Why is it there? 92.27.214.94 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that since Berwick has in the past alternated between being in Scotland and in England, it would have a Gaelic name. Perhaps this should be discussed with more knowledgeable editors on the article's Talk page. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a note on the talk page. Hopefully someone will look at it. 92.27.214.94 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

[edit]

Hello my friend, my name it's Rolando Gomez, i am brother of the User:HumbertoGillan who you blocked in 2009.

I only leave a message for you. My brother Humberto was says me, if you want to unblock him, because it's an error, and i believe it. IT'S AN ERROR, HE WAS EDITING THE MUSIC GENRE IN THE SONG "SMOKE ON THE WATER" IN SEVERAL TIMES, BUT HE IT'S NOT A VANDAL, BECAUSE HIS NEVER VIEW HIS TALK PAGE, HE WAS DON'T KNOW THAT WAS THE TALK PAGE, HIS IT'S VERY SUSPICIOUS WITH HIS COMPUTER (THE COMPUTER THAT I USING IN THIS TIME, BECAUSE MY COMPUTER ARE INFECTED BY A VIRUS OR TROJAN OR SOMETHING) AND I ONLY ENTER IN THIS PAGE, TO EXPLAIN YOU THAT.

THE BLOCK THAT YOU MADE IT'S AN ERROR. PLEASE UNBLOCK MY BROTHER, PLEASE, IT'S ONLY HE'S & I NEEDS. THANKS & REGGARDS--Rolando69 (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

[edit]

Hello Rodhullandemu/Archive/36 I see my talk page, that you or some guy says that... My account it's a Sockpuppet, but you or the guy who says that, are wrong, because, i was created in the same computer of my bro. but I am Rolando, not Humberto, my account are not independent of the account of my brother (i know) but it's not a Sockpuppet, it's the Rolando's Account, not sockpuppet. Reggards--Rolando69 (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding vandalism on Ryan Reynolds page from my IP:

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.124.101.30

I didn't make that edit, and no one else in my household has access to my network. I don't know a whole lot about how IP addresses work, so I have no idea how this could've happened. Please don't ban my IP if whoever else is using it continues performing such vandalism. Thanks. 97.124.101.30 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already have an account, but if my IP was banned, how would I be able to log into that account? 97.124.101.30 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I WAS NOT VANDALISING

[edit]

I was simply fixing the nationality. Are you some kind of Hungarian jealous of Romania's national achievements? In either case, IT WAS NOT VANDALISM. I am reverting it back.--Dumitru Gherea (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do that. The sources do not support your edits. Rodhullandemu 14:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

I am such an idiot. Thank you for telling me about fair use. I shall abide by it and also remind others, when needed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Your actions were well-intended. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

User:Rohedin

[edit]

Something seems fishy about this user. His first (apparent) edit was May 27. Somehow he is the first user to respond to the "Potential sock" post on AN/I (within 8 minutes), and he just happens to know all about the case? I don't see how this could be unless he's been watching AN/I... and why would a user less than a week old be watching AN/I? It all just seems so unlikely... Yworo (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this user seems to know more than a new user should be expected to; however, this may be an experienced IP user. I don't want to take any unnecessary steps, but will monitor the situation. Without an SPI, there's not much we can do. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I was asking for. I agree we should assume good faith. I certainly have no evidence pointing to a specific previous incarnation.It just all seems so duckish. Yworo (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Richard - songwriter

[edit]

Are you still watching Cliff Richard? Surely all this newly added stuff is OTT or needs to be in a separate article? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested on his Talk page that this should be in Cliff Richard discography, but he hasn't replied. If he doesn't take the hint, I'll do a merge proposal. Rodhullandemu 01:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's back

[edit]

Hello again after an all too brief rest it looks like our Demerkurev sock is back in the form of this user Firstlove1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The usual flowery language along with sources that may or may not be reliable. Fully formed editing after only three days since registering. To be fair I thought that this editor would be back sooner but perhaps the page protection kept them away. I've tagged their page but I won't be online much longer so I thought I would let you know just for the sake of it. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 05:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

...for the quick AWB add. That's all :) Thparkth (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Vega

[edit]

Same editor. Same problem brewing. Please keep an eye. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

I've sent you an email.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

A propos of nothing ... being in the US, I never knew where your username came from until a little while ago when I read this column, and I thought you might enjoy it as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I particularly liked "Rod acted the part of a goofy, cheery gent who went through life, carrying this big, flightless fowl around as his personal albatross", which is me to a "T". Rodhullandemu 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

[edit]

Hi again Rodhullandemu. I wanted to make you aware that I started a new section here User_talk:Wawzenek#An_apology_followed_by_my_concerns wherein I apologize for my sockpuppet assumptions. I have also added my thoughts regarding the Gibson.com edits in question. I know that you have only been partly involved in this but some of the information that I gave you was in error and it would be remiss of me to not correct that. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a different and completely coincidental note your user name had been ringing a bell with me for some time. When I did a google search I came across the very same link that Newyorkbrad posted above. I remember seeing Rod when I was young and also remember laughing a whole bunch. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with an administrator

[edit]

A request for your opinion

[edit]

Hi Rodhull,

This is QuietCountry25, formerly known as Fiedorczuk. As an administrator whose conduct I have always found to be balanced and fair, I would like to ask your opinion about whether another administrator is acting in good faith. This began with JzG removing a page I created The Playing Fields (band) citing a lack of notability. I disagree, but okay I suppose. Next JzG deleted a page I created called Ola's Kool Kitchen (a DJ, Radio DJ and journalist who has interviewed many massive bands.) Both of these pages deleted without any warning fulfilled the criteria for wiki inclusion to my mind:

"Significant coverage"- the sources address the subject in detail. No external research is neccessary.

"Reliable"- sources many published works.

"Sources"- quotes secondary sources from independent press articles.

"Independent of subject"- I am not affiliated with the band or Ola's Kool Kitchen

"Neutral sources"- many, quoted.

But again, notability is subjective, so if I am wrong, so be it, I am willing to let this go.

I was then blocked by JzG, as you know. Okay, I guess, someone broke a rule on my log in, but I'm not sure it was also neccessary to block my IP address.

But since then JzG has now deleted a page I created called Radio23 about a growing and independent internet radio station connected to an FM station, an article which WikiProject: Oregon had marked as being an important resource. This article JzG marked as unambiguous advertising. Firstly, the station is non-profit. Secondly, it has featured and supported a great deal of new music from Oregon as well as global music. Thirdly this is a community resource, for example disabled children are encouraged to be part of broadcasts which supports the entire community. This removal I dispute wholeheartedly.

Now, JzG again, is signalling his intention to delete the only other article I began, which is: Nelson Rand, a published author signed to Maverick House and reknowned South-East Asian correspondent for The Nation and Asia Times amongst others, of over a decades standing. Apparently JzG is citing "inappropriate tone". I am well-versed in South-East Asian history and have recently completed a book on the history of Laos, for which Nelson Rand's work was a valuable resource. I have updated numerous articles on South-East Asian history, some of which other editors had asked for clarification on as parts of them read like, and indeed were, 'pure fantasy.' (See Hmong Insurgency) I had intended to work on many more.

I do not wish for conflict and only ever wanted to contribute to the wikipedia project, adding valid and valuable information. I can accept quite a lot, but when a single administrator not only blocks me and me entire IP address, but then single-handedly removes every article I ever began, I have to feel that this is verging on vindictiveness and not in good faith.

I value any feedback you could offer.

I realise that it is quite likely that JzG will now block this account, so if you could be so kind as to check my talk page if you do not hear from me again, as I may not be able to contact you.

Regards,

Steve QuietCountry25 (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another block required

[edit]

Hi Rod - a couple weeks ago you blocked IP 62.31.196.31 as a sock of User:Anna2123456789. The block has expired and the IP has immediately begun undoing Tracey Beaker redirects. Is it possible to block longer? The block on the Anna account will likely also need to be extended due to the consistant block evasion. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the main account for three months and the IP address for one month. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was super speedy. Thank you once again for your help! --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Heavy Metal Music

[edit]

I have discussed the changes i made on the talk page of the article. My discussion is under "Changing the title of the article". The only person who has oppossed this was proven wrong so I assumed it is okay to do. I could not find a way to change the title of the article but i changed many things relating to the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalfan72 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied in that section. We have to go by what sources say, not what we feel. Meanwhile, I didn't detect a strong consensus to make such a huge change. Rodhullandemu 22:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thanks for helping out with the vandalism on my userpage. Well, I guess you didn't technically help out with the vandalism, but you did take steps to make sure that the image placed on my userpage won't be placed anywhere without the permission of an admin. Thanks for that! cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the presses, "Anna2123456789" finally says something

[edit]

I've been keeping an eye on this situation ever since I closed the first AFD. I personally find "wiki mutes" annoying as I have said here. However, she finally says something here. It appears that either English is not her first language or she has trouble with interactive communication for some reason. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess from the subject of her edits that she is UK-based and perhaps not that old, which would explain the literacy issue. She has not yet grasped the concept of notability, and is blocked for sockpuppetry. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Omega Man and I Am Legend (novel)

[edit]

Hello. In your capacity as an administrator, I wonder if you might advise. Perusal of the above articles shows that this is 'true'. However, BLGM5 claims that it's OR. Whilst possibly technically it is OR because a wiki-external citation hasn't been found, it seems a bit harsh.

I should perhaps also add that BLGM5 seems to be cracking the OR whip with no concept of good faith and that the alleged OR has been in The Omega Man article for quite a while now. Mannafredo (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

Patrick Stewart

[edit]

Thank you for intervening Phaeton23 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES - FALSE PAGE

[edit]
detail
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. Exact classification of South Slavic languages :

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=292-16

  • Wrong table and perverts language, Serbo-Croatian language does not exist! Text can be written in one language only the first Croatian or 2 Bosnian or third Serbian!


  1. Exact table:
South Slavic West Slavic East Slavic
Late Proto-slavic reconstruction Late Proto-Slavic meaning Old Church Slavonic Slovenian Croatian Serbian Bulgarian Macedonian Czech Slovak Polish Belarusian Russian Ukrainian
*gvězda star звѣзда zvezda zvijezda звезда звезда звезда hvězda hviezda gwiazda зорка звезда звізда
*květъ flower, bloom цвѣтъ cvet cvijet цвет цвете цвет květ kvet kwiat кветка цвет квітка
*tisošta tisošta тысѫшта tisoč tisuća хиљада хиляда илјада tisíc tisíc tysiąc тисяча тысяча тисяча
Sorry, not interested. If you can't sort it out with other editors on the Talk page, please seek dispute resolution. I am not an arbiter here. Rodhullandemu 22:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Rolling Stones

[edit]

Hi, Rod. An anon is vandalising this template, of which if you might look at, you will notice that it involves the template over-stepping its side boundaries, where it should remain wholly seen on the page without doing any side-scrolling at the bottom of the page. I keep fixing this, but the anon keeps reverting my edits. Please help! Thanks. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this actually is vandalism, rather a content dispute. However, it is a large template and could benefit from being split into manageable sub-templates. Meanwhile, the proper venue for a debate about this is the template's Talk page. Unless this really gets out of hand, it should be discussed there. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rod. SilkTork also is for the sub-templates, so I left a message with him explaining this situation about it. I think this is a brilliant idea (now, I do!), and it's time this gets done! Also, might you check out all the Wikipedia books on music I've created. As always, thanks my friend! Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Let me know if you have any further problems on this front, and I'll deal with the technicalities. Rodhullandemu 01:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Brianna+nickjonas

[edit]

It doesn't seem to be implying Nick Jonas is using the account, merely that a girl named Brianna has a crush on him and wants to couple with Nick. Enigmamsg 16:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a borderline breach of username policy, but perhaps a {{uw-username}} might appears more friendly. I'll unblock and add that now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. The account seems unlikely to make positive contributions, but we may as well wait and see. Enigmamsg 21:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Kennedy vandal

[edit]

Hi Rod - I think 117.204.120.112 needs to be blocked - he's gone around putting this false information about her all over the place, and I posted a warning on his talk page a little while ago, but he came back and did it again. I think he needs at least a cooling off. Thanks Tvoz/talk 15:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've anon-blocked for a week. Rodhullandemu 15:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Tvoz/talk 15:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

[edit]
You're welcome. Rodhullandemu 17:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page conversation.

[edit]

Don't bother responding to trolls like that, especially *admitted* trolls. This is the entire point of trolling, the griefing enjoyment of seeing people tut-tut and "seriously" talk about it and thus waste time. He or she knew exactly what they were doing and don't need to be "rewarded" with a lecture. SnowFire (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of...? Rodhullandemu 01:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...oh good lord. You fail. Thanks for the templated message telling me how talk pages work for someone with edits stretching back to 2006. I'm sure the person behind this IP address is cracking up at this.

This IP address is not a legitimate person inquiring about the Wikipedia article. He's trolling and you're either intentionally supporting his trolling or, more likely, taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. This should be VERY OBVIOUS from his comments, but even if he WAS a genuine Islamic fundamentalist, his comments should STILL have been speedily removed as unconstructive and a distraction. I shouldn't have to link this to you since you appear to be an administrator, but please see WP:TPO for guidelines on when material can be removed:

  • Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism.

Also, if it wasn't obvious enough that these replies do more harm than good, see the IP's note about "that response is priceless." You are feeding the trolls. That said since you are clearly set on having this pointless conversation, I'll ignore it for now, but this conversation should eventually be removed so that random readers don't read his comment and assume it to be from an actual Muslim rather than someone trying to make a point on their soapbox. SnowFire (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but I'm busy both here and elsewhere. I asked you for some context, which I still see is absent. Links are valuable, and when I am in the middle of (a) dealing with vandalism (b) updating a recent article, and dealing with issues on WP:ANI. I'm not convinced that your contributions are helpful, so I look forward to your next edit here. Rodhullandemu 01:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
....what.
Are you saying that after you reverted me, called me a vandal in your edit summary (complete with helpful link to WP:VAND!), and dropped a template on my talk page, you've forgotten what this was about?
There aren't any links to be had. I didn't link the article in my first comment because I didn't want to further reward vandalism by encouraging readers of your talk page to take a look, but fine. We're talking about Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy , a high visibility article, where you are responding to blatant trolling as if it was a serious comment. I take it you would also be in favor of, say, leaving comments at Barack Obama's talk page saying "We blacks are peace-loving people who will kill anyone who opposes our president!" and then whose further comments mocked the people who took it seriously and noted he was just "making a point?" I don't know what more evidence you need. Read the IP's contributions. This is trolling.
Actually there is a link to be had. Another user in good standing also removed this ridiculous thread as trolling. I guess you would call them a vandal too? SnowFire (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to assume that I care about distinguishing between apparently good faith comments and others. To be honest, I take comments at their face value. What else can I do? Maybe I'm not so involved that I have the time to spare to care of about this nonsense. Meanwhile, thanks for your messagh. Rodhullandemu 02:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a fan of WP:AGF, then I tell you this in good faith: that IP's contributions were not in good faith. And even if they were they should still be removed - that's what I was noting with the "even if he WAS a genuine Islamic fundamentalist" stuff above, disruptive comments are disruptive comments whether in good faith or not.
As for what else can you do, I'll just say that I would recommend not calling people vandals when you revert unless you are very sure of this. If you had reverted me and your edit summary said "I genuinely believe that this conversation has value, I'm restoring it, humor me" I wouldn't have said anything. Calling *me* the vandal, in effect "taking sides," means that you had best start caring about which side of the nonsense you are on. And it's a lot easier to spare time if you just quietly and quickly revert trolls, like I was doing before, rather than respond to them. SnowFire (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block reversal Based on merits.

[edit]

Per you r claim here [[1]] I have researched and found at least one example of a block that was reversed in the recent past because it was meritless in the eyes of another [[2]]. Wouold you care to revise your false claim that none of your actions have been reversed based on the merits of a case? Maybe it's just me but honesty is an important quality a admin should possess... Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a great block. Thanks for your feedback. Rodhullandemu 15:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, you answered that with class, you have a patience and long suffering manner I try to obtain but rarely do. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

Hi. I just noticed you were online, and you seem to be uninvolved in relation to the dispute between Pedant17 and Cirt, as well as the discussion at ANI. Would you be able to close it? All you'd need to do is enact the community consensus by notifying the subject of the outcome of the discussion and adding a resolved tag with words to the effect of "sanctions enacted" or "sanctions failed". (I can take care of the entry at WP:RESTRICT if that helps). Of course, if you're busy or can't for any reason, that's OK too - but if you could, that would be appreciated. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do so, but I am so very tired at present. I don't have an oxygen cylinder available right now, so I have to limit contentious issues and defer them to other admins. Sorry. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello

[edit]

I'm posting this question on a couple of people's discussion pages. People who have more experience in editing. These people are not hard to find seeing how I'm a a relative newbie. I'm adding a couple of new artilces to J.D. Salinger in the unpublished section. Tricky, as there aren't many sources for works that haven't been published. But I think I did a good job of finding where they are mentioned and, hell, even where they can be located. See [3] But they were reverted because, as the edit summary claims they are "unsourced." Hmm. I suspect it is because I've crossed paths with this particular person before, and it was not pleasant. But shouldn't we keep our personal issues out of here? (roar of laughter is heard). No. Seriously. It's discouraging to do work, as I did on these, and have them vaporized because some strange vendetta from someone. No wonder new people on WP don't stick around! Any input appreciated. Jim Steele (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your problem is that reliable sourcing is seen as pretty basic here, and other than obvious stuff like "water is wet", needs sources. And the more non-obvious the claim, the more it requires sourcing. You seem to be adding sources in good faith, and if a particular editor is reverting you, the debate properly belongs on the Talk page of the relevant article(s). If it gets to the stage of an edit war, I will step in; meanwhile, I see no reason for admin intervention. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just added the article with sources as well as something on the talk page. Shouldn't the article be tagged before being reverted?

Jim Steele (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, my take is that sources should always be provided. That way, doubt can be avoided and we retain the integrity that is required for our purpose here. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Phil Judd's Page Edit & Libel reference

[edit]

Hi there, Thank you for your swift response. I was not making any legal threats. I merely pointed out that the last sentence in the article posted was not referenced, nor published in the original newspaper item. It has been added by whoever is persecuting Mr Judd. This sentence at the end of the article implies that he recently was sentenced for 12mths in regards to the original article. This is not the case. In fact he received a suspended sentence and a fine in regards to the 'stalking' charge. The recent court appearance is of a personal nature and is a custody battle. He is not currently in custody and is appealing his case, therefore could you please edit out the last sentence under Conviction and allow me to insert the correct finding of the court. The court statement in regards to the 'stalking' charge reads that "there was no sexual intent found or proven" and I can verify this through the appropriate channels. In regards to my article which I submitted May 21st under Mental Illness: Sub heading Criminal Conviction or a Miscarriage of Justice. I believe what I stated was an unbiased review of what has taken place in Mr Judd's life and if you like I shall have it verified by the man himself. In addition I have hard evidence that he has been persecuted on a website called frenzforum.com and called a paedophile. There is an investigation ongoing of these statements which have been published by this website over the last 6mths unmodified and put into public domain. His website on facebook has been hacked into twice urging him to de-activate his account. He has received death threats and threats to his property. Under the circumstances I urge you to reconsider the Conviction article. The person publishing this is known to Phil and is a member of Frenzforum.com I can furnish you with pages of libelous content from this site.

Please read the article I wrote sub heading Criminal Conviction or a Miscarriage of Justice May 21st which was removed May 22nd 2010. Can this be re-instated? The evidence in his case was circumstantial. This was leaked to the press to cause grief 8mths after the proceedings. It is a complicated situation and his safety is of utmost concern. He was innocent of the original charge and badly ill advised to plead guilty! He was not financial at the time to contest the charge and didn't consider the damage and consequences of his guilty plea, due to his bipolar condition. I do know the facts as I am close to the situation but do have an unbiased opinion of what has occurred. There needs to be some clarification as to the published article and what has actually taken place. There is a vendetta going on presently and IP addresses are being tracked. Under the circumstances I think this needs to be redressed, by Wikipedia and at least a clarification put in place.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely SweetDreamz 04:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetDreamz (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I see administrators, including myself, are now watching this article, and since it is a biography, any poorly-sourced material is likely to be removed immediately, and if necessary, the article will be locked against editing. Rodhullandemu 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Jagger

[edit]

Hi Rod! Vandalism being done on this article by an anon. Can you please keep a look-out on this! Thanks. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching it, but you could issue warnings to the IP. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Rod, did it! Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison

[edit]

Rodhullandemu, I had to laugh at some of the comments!! Once again stop accusing me of being a stalker. Once and for all let me get this straight. I AM NOT INTERESTED AT PUTTING A SHRINE on GH or anyone else for that matter. Where you got that idea I don't know. I just wanted to add two award that GH received that should be on the page. That's all!!!!!!!! Apparently that's a problem for some people. I thought wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral source where everyone should get the recognition they deserve. The editors are being meaner to me than I have ever been. I was told to discuss some changes on the edit board. I followed that direction. There was no response. Is this how everyone gets treated? First learn the lesson: expect to be treated how you treat others. I am very sorry. if I may seem disrespectful in my tone, but I people don't seem to understand it any other way. I just wanted to post two award, not much change at all. I have legitimate sources. I NEVER POSTED anything without a source. I have posted it on the edit proposal page. None responded. No one, except for two editors, had trouble with it. I don't think the opinion of two editors should matter in an addition that may have a benefit to other wikipedia users. If it's not that important, then so what? There is a lot of information on wikipedia that people can live without. Maybe it's not important to one person, but another one may find it useful. Don't you think deleting everything that's added is a little disrespectful to the person who is trying to add something useful? It can be very frustrating. Roseindela (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseindela (talk • contribs)

I've replied on your Talk page. Rodhullandemu 20:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

A copyvio question

[edit]

First, some history. Wikipedia has flip-flopped several times over the inclusion of an article about the Rolling Stone Magazine issue titled "The 100 Greatest Guitarists of all Time." One of the greatest battle grounds was over the actual wiki-inclusion of Rolling Stone's 100 list entries. The eventual agreement was that it would be OK to show the top ten and then include a link if anyone wanted to know the rest of their list. Somehow, it was determined, if the Wik showed the entire list it would be some sort of copyvio against RS and therefore it could not be shown. The article for that issue has since been deleted and its content included in the Guitarist article's 'notable' section.(I hate POV section titles) My question is... if you would take a peek at this article The 100 Greatest Metal Guitarists... Are we somehow in a copyvio situation with this article's inclusion of the 100 entries listed in the (*ahem* non-notable *ahem*) book? We couldn't show the 100 listed at Rolling Stone but, for some reason, it is OK to list the 100 POV favourites of this non-notable hack author? Thoughts? Wiki libs (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's moot how far a mere list of information is copyrightable since it perhaps doesn't represent any creative effort, but I would assume it is, and that reproducing it here would be a derivative work. The above article isn't great since I'm not even sure it's a notable book. You'd probably get a more authoritative response here, where the copyright experts hang out. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10-Q kind Sir. I can just cut/paste my query from here-to-there and we'll see what floats.

Thank you, regarding de-1 versus de-2

[edit]

Thank you for the revert on my talk page. I think there was a time when I was actively studying German when I might well have been able to tentatively claim de-2, but since I haven't been studying German for the past couple of years, I've become rusty to the point that de-1 is all that I can solidly hope for. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AMAs: Artist of the '60s

[edit]

I posted the reason of the my modifie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles S&J (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you have got the time, answer. S&J (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's nearly my bedtime otherwise my mother will spank me. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

98.82.3.81

[edit]

Could you take a look at the edits by this user? I believe them to be a sockpuppet of User:Wiki Historian N OH, specifically by their first edit made as 98.82.3.81. That banner is something that Wiki Historian N OH fought over and was brought to ANI about. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was taken care of by another user as you were offline. If you wish to comment on the whole thing, please let me or User:Georgewilliamherbert‎ (the blocking admin) know. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Mercury

[edit]

Wow, that was fast! Falcon8765 reverted my edit without consulting the talk page and left me a note about vandalism...I guess an unregistered user and the word "blanking" set some people in motion. Thank you for actually reading the discussion and understanding my reasoning in removing redundant information. 98.221.124.80 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. An anon blanking information with no edit summary makes me think it's vandalism. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due diligence, although really, an edit summary helps a great deal. Rodhullandemu 23:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairport Convention

[edit]

Re this revert - there isn't an edit notice on the page. That is, none shows up when I click "edit", unless I try to edit the whole article, when I see "This page is 31 kilobytes long". Not being an admin, I can't create one; I believe it would be at Template:Editnotices/Page/Fairport Convention or possibly Template:Editnotices/Group/Fairport Convention. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an embedded editors' notice:

}<!--THIS ARTICLE IS WRITTEN IN BRITISH ENGLISH, WHICH TREATS COLLECTIVE NOUNS LIKE "BAND" AS PLURALS (i.e. "Fairport Convention ARE a band"). PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THIS.-->

Short of having this in large flashing neon text, I don't know what more we could do. Rodhullandemu 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Williams' FO serve record

[edit]

Hi, dont you know that Venus reset the record to 207KM/H at Roland Garros this year? The record she did was 206Km/H in 2007 and Serena tied in 1st round this year. But Venus soon gets 207KM/H (128.6MPH) in 2nd round. So please dont do revise again. http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/scores/extrastats/speed_ws.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.126.208.16 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as a source is cited, fine; but I don't remember that one was. Rodhullandemu 15:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Itvfootball

[edit]

I just indef'd Itvfootball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Any thoughts? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. It seems he just wasn't getting it, despite having had some good advice. Rodhullandemu 18:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Julianna Interview

[edit]

Hello,

What is the reason behind identifying the previous reverting edit of the Julianna Rose Mauriello 'External Links' section as 'Vandelism'?

This interview has already been classified as legitimate - Authorized by LazyTown Entertainment and Julianna's mother, Kahlua O'Callahan, both at the time of its release as well as the present.

Perhaps there is a rule I am not familiar with regarding adding External Links? If so, is there some other more acceptable way to add this archived interview to the page?

Hetja (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO is the policy. The link doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already there, as far as I can see. If it does, it would be better to use it as a reference, otherwise it's just unnecessary spam, authorised or not, since Wikipedia is not a depository for links. Rodhullandemu 19:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the heads-up.

As a guideline, it is never my intention to create any confusion or misunderstanding at Wikipedia. Please let it be known that my actions are aimed toward educating the general public and not for the use of 'advertising', 'spamming', 'promotion' or otherwise 'vandelizing' the pages here in any way.

Hetja (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Venus Williams' FO serve record

[edit]

You can see from the reference: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/18940094 Williams noticed the readout of 206 kph — which translates to 128 mph — on the court’s radar meter and let out a laugh, cracking her concentration.

From the French Open official website, Venus definitely achieved a new record. Maybe reporters didnt notice that but the official site is absolutely trustworthy.

Friend of yours?

[edit]

User talk:Tobyhullandemu. Given this edit summary I suspect you or someone knows this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Strange summary, but we're not related AFAIK. Rodhullandemu 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Lee Gardner

[edit]

Listed twice at Deaths in 2010 - I do not know which date is correct, but he did not die twice, me thinks. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if other editors would use edit summaries. Rodhullandemu 20:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tell me about it; and not introduce bollocks masquerading as 'facts', and reference their edits, and think the whole world is interested in their version of history etc., etc. Ain't life a bitch ! Regards, old boy, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeHarrison

[edit]

First of all, I did leave the edits on the message page as I was told. You can see for yourself. No one responded. I am just mad, because I proposed two good edits to the article, and they all disappeared. It is said that the information is not wikipedia-worthy. It is. These are the two awards that George Harrison received- one is being awarded number 11 on Gibson's guitar list and the other one is being inducted into the International Songwriter's Hall of Fame. These awards are worthy of being added to the article. There is no doubt about it. The other complaint is that the sources are not right. My sources are right. One is directly from the official page of the International Hall of Fame, and the other one is directly from the Gibson's list online. If these sources do not fit, I do not know what will. You can verify it, if you want. Please try to include them on the page. It is only fair. Roseindela (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impostor?

[edit]

Hi there - you might have an impostor: Special:Contributions/Rodhullandemu2 --Mkativerata (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username soft-blocked. I assume the user is unaware that simiar usernames sre not permitted. Rodhullandemu 16:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tobyhullandemu

[edit]

What do you think? Stealthy copycat by someone you've blocked? Friendly, well-meaning new editor whose username is too close to yours, and who should choose a different one? Or kindred soul, who will be your New Best WikiPal? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should judge (if we have to) him on his edits which are constructive, he has created a cited stub of someone that has a program on TV. The name is a bit of an issue agreed. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, it was created at the same time as the copycat account above (which is an obvious copycat, but also hasn't made any vandal edits) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about User:Stevehullandostrich? User:Jenniferhullandkiwi? User:Mohammadhullandkakapo? The possibilities are endless. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Bleakley edit

[edit]

Hi, you sent me a message about my edit on Christine Bleakley's wikipedia page.

I didn't have a verifiable/reliable source from the internet as I read in the newspaper something about Christine and they sais her age was 34. Perhaps they got it wrong then. But thankyou for the heads up :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.104.122 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/36&oldid=1143271492"