Jump to content

User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/29

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

New RLS Source

[edit]

This past week, the RLS Website was launched in celebration of Robert Louis Stevenson's birthday. The website is extraordinarily comprehensive, including content not available anywhere elsewhere. Could this be added to the semi-protected resource area of Wikipedia's page on Robert Louis Stevenson? Thanks. From relatively new user, Labombarde (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look tells me this could be a useful external link, so I'll add it. Thanks for advising me. Rodhullandemu 01:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry, scratch that. They re-launched this past week, but I now notice that a link with a different URL already listed in Miscellaneous references on the Wikipedia page already re-directs to the RLS Website. Maybe just updating the URL. Otherwise, ignore this note, sorry. Labombarde (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter. I'll leave it for now. Rodhullandemu 01:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences set-up

[edit]

Re [1], and just out of interest, could you let me know how this preferences set-up works? And is it available for other types of content as well? --JN466 16:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only images as far as I'm aware, but the answer is here. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 16:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wasn't aware we had this facility. --JN466 16:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User bankhallbretherton

[edit]

Can you give this chap your usual considered and thorough once over. His talk page is difficult to follow because whenever anything negative appears on it he deletes it immediately. He has been warned over and over again since he first arrived in February 2009 about uploading copyrighted pictures and claiming them as all his own work and still continues to do it (some pictures date back to the late 1890s and early 1900s so he must be pretty old if he did take them).

His replies to well meaning advice and suggestions how he can do it correctly are replied to in a very snotty and sarcastic manner. His contributions are here Revision history of User talk:Bankhallbretherton 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 03:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have got through to him. I hope he'll take your advice. Rodhullandemu 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism ??

[edit]

User:Chace Watson contributes puzzle me. Making a significant contribution to Corbin Bleu but with occasionally edits that are undone with vandal warning and puzzling user page edits some months ago [2] Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Experiments, possibly, but I'd guess he's young and still new round here. Perhaps an experienced editor could be found to adopt him? Rodhullandemu 15:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wallasey

[edit]

The previous version was a bit of a mess, but at least it was in chronological order. To me that makes more sense, and imparts a little more information on the development of the settlement, than alphabetical order, which is just a list. More to the point, what you did was to delete dates in most but not all cases; delete descriptions in most but not all cases; and leave behind some random nonsensical additions (eg at Charles Crichton). All in all, I'm afraid you left a bit of a mess which someone else would have had to tidy up. But my main point is, why do you think an alphabetical list is preferable to a chronological one? And is there any guidance that says that form should be used? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take my lead from extensive experience here of maintaining such lists; looking at the general guidance, it seems that a list would be inappropriate here, although a block of prose would, in my view, make finding individuals harder to locate. We could always have {{Main: List of notable people from Wallasey}} for which a list format is acceptable. As for chronological order, that says nothing about the development of the settlement without some explanation, which would probably be original research anyway - there are no obvious themes apparent in the original list. As for dates, birth and death dates are listed in the relevant articles and don't need repetition; as far as I am aware, the only dates I've left were those relevant to the person's connection with Wallasey, e.g. Eric Idle. For a casual reader, notable works are usually mentioned, as in Deaths in 2009 to provide additional recognition. As for "a mess", Wikipedia is a work in progress, and I didn't say I'd finished. Do what you like with it, I have proper work to do, and presumably, more of my time and effort wasted. Rodhullandemu 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayatollah

[edit]

Good work on the merge. You protected the BLP? Don't think it had been edited for a while. The dispute/edit war appears to be over List of marjas. This can probably be safely unprotected (it needs work -- i may even take a stab at it next weekend). Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I'm a moron. It's not protected. More coffee needed.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

John Barrowman at GAN

[edit]

FYI... since you are the top contributor to John Barrowman, I wanted to let you know that I nominated it for GA and it is currently undergoing a review. Feel free to participate or make suggestions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only because I revert so much vandalism, but I'll take a look it it. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking? - your thoughts

[edit]

Hi RodHullandEmu,

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_to_consider/Make_links_relevant#Overlinking_and_underlinking . It may be that you interpret this rather differently to me (and I definitely don't hold a monopoly on wisdom here :-) ) - what do you think? -

"Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement,[3] and dates"

CecilWard (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to comment without specific examples, but I bear in mind that we are read by those learning English as well as those who are already proficient in it. Festooning wikilinks isn't helpful, I think, and can make an article painful to read, but I think it depends very much on the case in point. Rodhullandemu 13:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kils

[edit]

Hi RodHullandEmu,
after seeing that you blocked User:Kils on :en for making legal threats, I (admin on Commons) want to inform you that I did the same on Commons but on the assumption that this account probably has been hacked/hijacked by someone else who either wants to abuse it or wants to damage the original owner. Regards. --Túrelio (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not certain of he is compromised but it looks like it. I find it difficult to understand why an editor claiming to have an advanced knowledge of English has so much trouble understanding that he needs to withdraw the legal threat before being unblocked here. I would have emailed him, but he doesn't have it enabled here; the account did email me, but that did not really address the reason for the block. I think he needs to email one of us or en-unblock-list properly. Rodhullandemu 18:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I had sent him an email already quite some hours ago (living in a different time-zone) to the email adresse mentioned on his Commons userpage, but got no reply as of yet. --Túrelio (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from The Slants

[edit]

Hello Rodhullandemu, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Slants has been removed. It was removed by Populuxeent with the following edit summary '{{hangon}} message sent to admin'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Populuxeent before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Метју

[edit]

He's requested unblock, promising to reform after you blocked him indef on one edit. Your thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he's got the message, and could be given a second chance. Rodhullandemu 11:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I've undone my own block. Rodhullandemu 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a deletion

[edit]

a deletion of yours -- which I support-- is being discussed at ANI [3]. You may want to comment. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, seen it. IMO articles like that should be deleted ASAP, and if LEA need to see it, it could be temporarily undeleted, but otherwise it's better gone. Rodhullandemu 21:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your changes

[edit]

I've reverted your changes here on wikilinking "Scream" in the tables. Please see WP:OVERLINK, since those links are already in the article. Also check out the GA's Halloween franchise and Friday the 13th franchise. Thanks. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I've only been here for 30 months, but I did get the impression that WP:OVERLINKING only applied on a section-by section basis such that wikilinks in a new section were fine. Perhaps I've misread that guideline, but I do remember that other articles may link to sections rather than the tops of articles, so links in those linked sections may actually be useful to a reader. Mea culpa. Rodhullandemu 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm so fucking sorry". Wow and you're an admin? Seriously? Wow. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irony doesn't really transfer well in plain text, does it? Rodhullandemu 14:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I apologize for not checking to see if you're an admin before letting you know [nicely] the reason I reverted your edit. I mean because being an admin makes everything right, doesn't it? Go ahead and revert my changes back. That article is a train wreck anyways, what's a bit more going to hurt? Thank you. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really at my best after either midnight or twelve hours here. By the 14th hour, I tend to get tetchy. Apologies, and please lobby for flagged revisions so my time here could be used more productively. Rodhullandemu 20:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you took it as insulting your intelligence. I just don't make it a habit to check to see if a user is an admin before letting them know why I reverted their edit. I suppose I should from now on. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 03:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

Thanks for adding coordinates to Model Cottage, Sandiway; I'd failed to identify it from maps and aerial photos. I guess you may have some local knowledge. I needed the coords to improve the List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas which I'm working towards a hopeful FL (to join two other John Douglas FLs). If you are able to improve this list from local (or other) knowledge, I should be grateful for any help you can give; I just hope the other local identifications I've made are OK! Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice required

[edit]

This is a bit of a cheek, but I wondered if I could ask for your advice. On three topics ..mmm, I know.

Firstly, I am planning a new article on Whistling Alex Moore. He is so billed in my reference book - Russell, Tony (1997). The Blues: From Robert Johnson to Robert Cray. Dubai: Carlton Books Limited. pp. 147–148. ISBN 1-85868-255-X. - but both Allmusic and the two existing Wikipedia internal links have him as Whistlin' Alex Moore. Would one or the other be preferable ? Secondly, I have recently created articles on both Paul Lamb and Larry McCray, and thought of putting them forward for DYK. However, the best hooks I can come up with are "that... Paul Lamb, the British blues harmonica player, had a 1994 hit in the UK Singles Chart with the track, "Harmonica Man" (under the pseudonym of Bravado) with record producer Pete Waterman?" This seems rather lengthy, and not too exciting. Equally for the other subject matter "that...Larry McCray, the American blues guitarist and singer, learned guitar from his elder sister, Clara?" Which is hardly enough to 'float one's boat' either. The claims are both adequately referenced, I think, but I do not want to unduly waste people's time. Am I being unduly pessimistic ? Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going by Google hits, ""Whistlin' Alex Moore"" seems to strongly outweigh ""Whistling Alex Moore", so going by WP:COMMONNAME, perhaps the first should be the article title, with the alternative as a redirect. As for the DYKs, I haven't done one for a while, but my experience is that these hooks would be seen as too boring, the idea being that they attract readers to the article and sadly, the likely response is going to be "so what?". I'd look about for something more interesting. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 19:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - that's very useful.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:IABD69.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:IABD69.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've replaced this in the article, as it has a perfectly valid fair-use rationale. Rodhullandemu 23:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Stewart

[edit]

How is that a copyright violation? It is a ClevverTV video uploaded to their own channel. For An Angel (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, fine, but normally links to video clips are copyvios and I didn't have time to check it out. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maidenhead Boyne Hill railway station

[edit]

I've reverted your last two edits to Maidenhead Boyne Hill railway station because the coordinates you gave were for Maidenhead railway station, something like half a mile away from Boyne Hill, by rail. I have not put a gridref in the Boyne Hill article, because I've been unable to find out whether the station was north or south of the A4 (Castle Hill); I do know that it was adjacent, so possible grid refs could be SU882810 or SU882812. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This guy seems to think it was on the south side, so this: 51°31′20″N 0°43′44″W / 51.5222°N 0.7289°W / 51.5222; -0.7289 would probably fit the bill. Thoughts? Rodhullandemu 13:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by Bing, that's the bridge itself. My spherical geometry isn't too good, so I don't know whether this is an exact conversion to or from any particular OS grid ref. However, this pete93 guy does indeed imply south of the bridge, with the station entrance apparently in the bridge parapet itself, so I've re-examined my OS maps (the 1945, 1959, 1973 and 1987 editions - I must get a newer one - on that basis I was due to get one in 2001) and decided on grid reference SU882811 - which is (a) the southern parapet and (b) exactly half-way between the two that I gave earlier. It's correct to 100m anyway, and without a decently old map at 1:5000 (or larger) scale, that's the best I think that we'll get. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That link puts the station just to the north-west of the A4; comparing the line (although it's 120 years ago!) north and south makes me think that there isn't enough footprint to the north for the station to have been there. The problem with a 1:25000 scale is getting the correct precision, and for smallish areas I tend to use 1:5000 on the basis that the reader can always zoom out, whereas zooming in may not hit the correct location. However, for general use, I think we've certainly hit the spot. Rodhullandemu 14:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even have 1:25000! The 1945 and 1959 editions are 1:63360 (one-inch/1 mile); the 1973 and 1987 are 1:50000 (2 cm/1 km). On the 1:50000 map, if you measure from the 81 northings grid line to the southern parapet, it's exactly 2mm, which makes the northing 811 (to 100 metres). I have, however, long suspected that either the gbmapping template, and/or the page on toolserver, do an unnecessary conversion from OS grid ref to lat/long, and possibly back again, when some mapping services (such as the OS page and also Multimap) will accept an OS grid ref directly. The double conversion will introduce a double error.
Next task: obtain some more stuff from pete93's site. Till then, I've added it to the article as an external link, not a full ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1:25000 seems to be the default scale in {{gbmapping}} and {{gbmappingsmall}}, whereas if you use {{coords}} you can set the scale yourself. That's the difference I meant, not the maps themselves. pete93's site has some useful stuff, and I'll leave it to you as an expert to incorporate. Rodhullandemu 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I often economise when editing talk pages. I intended it to be read as "[My] next task [is to] obtain some more stuff ...". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I read it, but I've just found oldmaps.co.uk; there are 19th century maps at fairly high resolution, but they don't all allow zoom & pan, so it's not necessarily possible to home in on specifics. However, I think we've got it as close as we are likely to. Rodhullandemu 15:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, already checked them - I usually get to the page via the grid ref to get to GeoHack, select "Old OS maps" from the Great Britain list, then in upper right corner there is "View at old-maps.co.uk". Unfortunately the oldest map they show is "1876 - BERKSHIRE 1:2,500", and the station closed 1871. It won't enlarge enough to show buildings or platforms that may have survived 5 years; and certainly there is no reason that the station would be indicated by name. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Road Cemetery, Deal, Kent

[edit]

Hiya,

Thanks for your interest in my article. Could you be a bit more specific about what kind of structural alterations I could undertake to wikify it?

Cheers, Kbaughan1 (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your input. I'll have a think then try out some of your ideas for size :-) Kbaughan1 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

Jimi Hendrix

[edit]

Rod,

I'm disagreeing with someone of the inclusion of a mugshot on the Jimi Hendrix page. He views it as an important historical document (although surely there must be thousands including his draft notice etc.). My concern is that Hendrix was acquitted on the charges behind that arrest. In my opinion, mugshots go one helluva long way to informing criminality and in this case it is completely unwarranted. There's no edit-warring and as usual, I'll bow to your view. Thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even remember Hendrix being arrested, but then, I was there at the time! As far as I gauge consensus on use of mugshots, it seems to be that they should not be used for mere illustration and only if the criminal case was notable- since Hendrix wasn't convicted, and the arrest doesn't appear to be notable, I'd tend towards rejecting any claimed "encyclopedic purpose", despite its availability. Classic WP:UNDUE, I think. Rodhullandemu 15:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rod. I've asked him to comment here to argue the case for inclusion. Hope that's OK. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arrest is mentioned in the article, right next to where to mug shot is, and it illustrates that. The fact that one wasn't even aware that Hendrix was ever arrested at all shows the educational value of the image in the article. Whether he was convicted or not is immaterial - he was arrested, this is the actual photograph from the arrest, and it says nothing about his guilt or innocence to have it here; just proof that it happened. It only educates the viewer, as has already been demonstrated. I'd be more than happy to expound further if necessary... Doc9871 (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, you have this the wrong way round. The picture isn't supporting the text, the text is now explaining the bits the picture is missing. People glance at pages, occasionally stopping off to read a line or two. Pictures create an instant impression - one glance is all that is needed. In this case, one glance would suggest to the viewer that Hendrix was a criminal - such is the impression created by mugshots. Obviously, the impression would be wrong. It is inappropriate to include this because by so doing we are potentially misleading people. Hendrix was not a criminal - and we shouldn't be inferring it. David T Tokyo (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; this arrest does not appear to be relevant to an understanding of Hendrix's life and career, and therefore mentioning it at all seems to be unnecessary. It follows that the image is also irrelevant. It would appear the article is being used as a WP:COATRACK for some ulterior purpose. Rodhullandemu 12:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added both mug shots of Jim Morrison on The Doors page - guess how many people have complained? David, if you truly believe that someone is going to look at the Hendrix page, see the mug shot I added, and only come away with the impression that he was a "criminal", without reading anything in the article, - then I truly weep for humanity. As for whether or not the image is "relevant to an understanding" of Hendrix's life... (sigh). As I said on my own talk page (in response to David), this was a big deal at the time! He, a world famous musician, was arrested for heroin possession in a foreign country. He went to criminal trial for it, and he could have just as well been convicted of the charges. It would be a huge deal today if "Chiggy" or some other hip-hop artist got arrested for the same thing, and if someone put up the mug shot from that arrest, I wouldn't complain. This is not a "fan" site, gentleman, and it never will be. I'm not removing this image, and if it is removed without a passing proposal, I will respond appropriately. If you want the factual image gone so badly, you must raise it as a proposal for deletion on the talk page (or higher up, if you wish). If you get consensus, I lose. Thank you for your time... Doc9871 (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Doc - I feel we're going round in circles here. There is a world of difference between Jim Morrison, who was found guilty, and whose exposure on a Miami stage is a pivotal chapter in his life, and Jimi Hendrix, who was found innocent in a case that very, very few remember now. As for "weeping for humanity", the first comment on the Hendrix talk page on this issue shows exactly the kind of misunderstanding a mug shot can create. The comment states that we should see Hendrix's "feet of clay". What feet of clay? He was innocent. David T Tokyo (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclaimer: I was invited to weigh in by Doc9871) I don't for a moment think this is coatrack material, which is about intent, and nothing about Doc's actions supports the intent of using the subject as a pretext to grind an axe, or to commit character assassination. Furthermore, I think the textual material (regarding the arrest, not sure about the contractor material) belongs in the article (as well as his arrest in Sweden and the grand theft auto arrests). A bit of quick research shows that the narcotics arrest and acquittal is highly notable to his biography and the article would properly fail the comprehensiveness prong at WP:FAC if not present. It is the subject of numerous reliable sources. See, for example, NYT article on arrest; mention in both of his NYT obituaries, [4], [5]; and other sources: [6]; [7]; (really interesting material here if you keep reading); [8]; [9]. There are literally hundreds of others if you search Google Books, News (archives), scholar and other places. That being said, I think the text is properly removed by anyone until such time as it is sourced, which I may do since I did the above research, but not now).

However, despite my defense of the textual material, I think the image should be removed for two reasons. I agree with those above that a mugshot gives a visceral impression—a highly prejudicial one—that places undue weight on an arrest that resulted in an acquittal. A mughsot screams "criminal!" and you have to read the text to learn why that impression is wrong. Second, I think the image fails NFCC#8, contextual significance. I don't think this image significantly increases our reader's understanding of the topic such that its removal would be detrimental to that understanding. We have free images in the article which show his likeness already, so this image only serves to say "he was arrested", which the text already covers. By the way, this discussion really should have taken place on the article's talk page I think, and some kind of link to here should be placed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the two later major points made here that (a) a mugshot may be regarded as inherently POV (and I did review discussions at WP:BLP Talk Archives, although no clear consensus seemed to emerge there), and (b) my Talk page is an inappropriate venue for this discussion; I gave an opinion, but I did not want to be drawn into a debate. By all means link to this discussion from Talk:Jimi Hendrix, but the bottom line is that I believe a mugshot is simply unnecessary, because of the POV issues already canvassed, and most people know what Hendrix looked like; there is no reason on earth to introduce a deliberately negative image, and particularly so when the follow-up was an acquittal on the relevant charges. In short, this image has no encyclopedic purpose, and falls too close to the line of denigration by association; hence my earlier comment re WP:COATRACK. Even shorter: Why should we publish this image, simply because we can? Rodhullandemu 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rod. Sorry this got started here; is there a way you could move all of this onto the Hendrix talk page section? I've tried, but it didn't work, and I don't have the "savvy" to keep trying. I think this entire discussion should be archived in one place, including the entries on both David's and my talk pages, in chronological order. If it's too much trouble, I'll figure it out somehow. Thank you... Doc9871 (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About your comments

[edit]

Yes, I am restraining my self, however, other people at the page are not, and someone needed to point it out in an opposing view. Anyway, my reputation's not being tarnished by this; if you have a problen sir, lets take this to WP:Arbcom; I'm getting mighty sick of people suggesting that people vandalize other Wikis, and not just because it's a "conservative" wiki, but because it's just flat out immature. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a notice right at the top of Talk: Main Page that says "This page is for discussing improvements to the entire Main Page only." That thread should have been strangled at birth, and the resulting "discussion" is probably just what the original troll desired. However, if you look at the indentation of my comment, you'll see it wasn't directed at you. Rodhullandemu 15:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. Actually, that's exactly what I was thinking. I thought it was aimed at me because I had just posted a response to the one you were replying to, and because I accidently did it as an IP, an RC patroler took it as vandalism because I was just a tad more strong about it than you were (I further explained the obvious, requiring me to post a "four letter word"), although I didn't do anything against policy. Glad to here we're on the same page. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message to multiple users

[edit]

Hi. You just rejected my application for AWB. No problem there, I understand, but I was wondering if you might help me with an issue which was my reason for being interested in AWB. I'm active at WP:3O and would like to send a message to several other users who are active there. I was interested in AWB because I think it allows that process to be automated. Since I can't use it, is there some other way to send a message to multiple users? TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simplest way without AWB is to put your message into a subpage, e.g. User:TransporterMan/3OMessage then transclude that page on to others' Talk pages using {{User:TransporterMan/3OMessage}}. I don't know of any other way of issuing broadcast messages, but you might also ask here. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the 80's...

[edit]

Rod, here's [10] something, uh, unusual. Hope you enjoy! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is .. bizarre. Rodhullandemu 13:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar alert!

[edit]
The Main Page Barnstar
for being the only one other than myself to see the immaturity in the comments at the "who created wiki" thread at Wikipedia talk:Main Page and speak up about it. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) Thanks! Rodhullandemu 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two stupid geoloc questions

[edit]

To save me from spending three weeks looking aimlessly for the answer, can you give me some advice on geolocations for UK geog articles? What is the location of a "line"-ish feature such as a river, road or path? How about for a (large) "blob"-ish feature like a parliamentary constituency, county, park, range of hills or similar? Thanks in advance! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are problems I encountered when I started. For linear features, I try to locate both endpoints, e.g. "X railway line ran between Y<ref>{{coords1}}</ref> and Z<ref>{{coords2}}</ref>", although a centre point seems to be just as acceptable- you'll need to set the coords to be inline rather than title for this to work. For larger ones, I try to locate the rough centre and set the scale parameter in, e.g. {{coord|55.642|-4.789|display=title|region:GB_scale:10000}} large enough for the map to show all the feature. Some trial and error might be needed, but I find 2000 for a building or monument, 5000 for a street, 10000 for a village, right up to 2,000,000 for a whole county seem to work. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 21:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense, more or less. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Henry

[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for protecting the article earlier to put an end to the vandalism. But now something worse has reared its head: inexperienced editors still reeling from the incident trying to have a say -- wrecking references, leads, spelling and punctuation, and inserting their own pov in the process -- and it's been mightily counterproductive to revert these. Any thoughts? Chensiyuan (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since these would appear to be good-faith, if misguided, edits the most we could do is semi-protect, and advise these editors of our standards. I don't see this situation warranting full protection, but I am keeping an eye on it. Rodhullandemu 20:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he says is actually untrue.If you check the history yourself you can see.People believe that the major incident should be mentioned in the lead as people who are not even into football at all have now heard of Thierry Henry.No references were wrecked as said,no spelling mistakes,punctuations were fine.If any grammar was incorrect,surely they could be modified rather than deleted entirely.I'd assume good faith,but the arrogance of someone more experienced talking like that has to come into question.--Kevinharte (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not revert because of 3RR, but just take a look at the current version of the article. I've already mentioned these issues on the article's talk page and the edit summaries. Two main problems: (1) the lead is supposed to be a summary, but editor has moved the entire text from body to lead, leaving the body empty. Previously, the lead already accounted sufficiently for the body. (2) the lead had no references, but now references are included in the lead for no reason. Thanks. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revisions

[edit]

Amusingly on a related note to above, I think you are misguided with your comment on Jimbo's page if you think you will have peace of mind over your watchlist if Flagged Revisions is adopted. Take a look at this beauty I encountered on Wikinews [11], where an extremely experienced user auto-sights the fact that Henry will have his hands chopped off for the offence of handball! It was funny because, just like a lot of the time here too (remember the Ted Kennedy test even?), it was left to an unapproved editor to notice it and clean it up (me), and then I realised that because of FR, I had not actually repaired the front page version at all! MickMacNee (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That little sequence is quite amusing, and the best of us can make mistakes! FR is going to supplement existing defences, as I see it. And as soon as the tech guys get it together, I'm all for it. Rodhullandemu 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File source problem with File:RobbWilton.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:RobbWilton.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done & WP:DTTR, please. Rodhullandemu 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. That's just a random website that happens to use the image. --Damiens.rf 19:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath

[edit]

Rodhullandemu: You might want to check on YouTube or any article on California Jam I with band photos. You will notice that the photo of Tony and Ozzy onstage in the wikipedia article doesn't match with YouTube. Notice the clothing they are wearing at California Jam I on YouTube. This photograph is not at California Jam I. Sparklewand (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take this up with the original uploader of the photo, or on the article Talk page. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP involved in Disruptive editing

[edit]

Here's another IP involved in Disruptive editing like those other two. Momo san Gespräch 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Enigmaman got him. Rodhullandemu 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]

DYK for Sir John Tankerville Goldney

[edit]
Updated DYK query On December 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir John Tankerville Goldney, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spongebob reference

[edit]

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. My original posting was not properly sourced.96.224.23.31 (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your input.

[edit]

Hi, an editor that I adopted a while back and helped a bit, is currently going through an RfA - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Basket of Puppies 2. I'll refrain from giving any comment at the moment but I'd be so interested to see your vote and comments if you would be willing to pop over there. Many thanks. Paste Let’s have a chat. 09:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay in getting back to this, but I did take a look at this. I'd just say BoP doesn't seem to have the grasp of basic policies that is required, and this is clear from his various addenda to answers and corrections when questioned more closely. It's a lot harder to pass an RfA in recent times, and you really do have to show that you know that stuff. Since it's closing shortly, I won't pile on, and a neutral vote would have no effect anyway; I'd advice him to wait a little longer (more than 3 months, in the circumstances), read the policy, and contribute constructively in the meantime. Rodhullandemu 22:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston transmitter lincolnshire

[edit]

I'm lost. Why did you un-PROD this, then AfD it? --SquidSK (1MC•log) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROD can only be used for an article that hasn't previously been PROD'ded, which I did myself about a week ago, but then withdrew it. The wording isn't clear, but rather than argue the toss, I took a strict interpretation of the wording of the PROD policy and AfD'd it instead. Either way, I don't think the article belongs here as it is. Rodhullandemu 02:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animation

[edit]

It appears you accidentally blanked a section in your recent edits to Animation - or did you intend to remove the Persian bowl paragraph? --Janke | Talk 08:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A previous editor had also removed it, without an edit summary. I replaced it, then noticed "blogspot" in the references, so instinctively assumed that is what the previous editor was objecting to. I think the whole bowl thing is vague anyway, but it might as well stay. Rodhullandemu 14:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been in the article for quite some time, and it being "animation" is actually disputed - personally, I don't think it is. For this reason, there are two refs, one for, the other against. I'd be happy to see it go, if you think so too, go ahead! --Janke | Talk 23:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think on balance it could stay as a disputed example of primitive animation, both sides of which are reliably sourced; as one points out, there would be no sensible way of spinning the bowl to achieve any intended effect of motion, but the same argument could be made about Egyptian hieroglyphics rendered on a flat surface. Certainly, more primitive man, as in the Lascaux cave paintings, sought to portray movement by adding multiple legs to buffalo, but you wouldn't reasonably call that "animation". It's borderline as regards the topic at hand, IMV. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cowen - semi prot

[edit]

Hi there, you recently semi-protected Bertie Ahern, I was wondering if you might do the same for Brian Cowen, for a month or so? Tx, Snappy (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rodhullandemu 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Snappy (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chace Watson

[edit]

I notice that you have been keeping half an eye on Chace Watson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just wanted to make sure that you noticed I have given him a final warning for copyright violations. The material he has been adding to Corbin Bleu is about 90% copyright violations, and he has restored it after being warned about it.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Now on a 55-hour break. Rodhullandemu 17:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That follow up on the sock was pretty quick. I'm not sure what this edit summary was meant to imply. I'd happily take care of this stuff myself, but that seems not to be in the cards anytime soon.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing meant by the summary; I must confess I thought you were an admin, but better luck next time. Rodhullandemu 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

[edit]

Thank you for putting this through for AWB use. Would you mind also confirming me as well, so I can get started on my tasks right away? Thank you AKRUBX (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rodhullandemu 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. It is most appreciated. AKRUBX (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay

[edit]

Why English as opposed to British?

The Bassist is Scottish. Try and tell him he's English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.32.68 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band formed in England. If it matters to you so much, discuss on the Talk page as suggested by the editor's note. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Fairweather-Low

[edit]

There is some pertinent comment on this article's discussion page - which is historic - that his name is Andy Fairweather Low. That is to say, without the hyphen. His own website, plus his own album covers etc., seem to fully back this point. However, I think it may need an admin to effect the name change 'move'. Seemingly, past editors have created links/disambiguations etc., that would probably cause a Wiki gasket to blow if I tried to effect this.

Sorry, but I am not really good on the in-house management stuff, and wonder if you have have a look when you have the time. Actually, I am not really sure what I am good at, apart from bugging you !?! Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Have moved this, while preserving the history, which is what matters for GFDL purposes. DumbBOT should sort out the redirects on its next run. And don't panic about bugging me, it's what I'm here for. (Not to be bugged, but to get things right). Rodhullandemu 00:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]

158.43.1.22 & Wordsley

[edit]

Hi Rodhullandemu! With this edit, you removed a warning template that I had placed on the above-captioned editor’s talk page using Huggle. Your edit summary indicated that it was “not vandalism.” I have a few comments.

First, I agree. It was not vandalism. When I reverted that edit, I specifically selected from Huggle’s pull-down menu “Removal of content,” which Huggle, I thought, was going to automatically issue at Level 2. This should have been akin to manually applying the {{Uw-delete2}} warning template. I have no idea why Huggle escalated it to Level 4. Also, when Huggle issues a Level 4 warning, it uses {{uw-huggle4}} which only uses the word vandalism regardless of what the Huggler has selected, in this case “Removal of content.” So, when you see a Huggle Level 4 warning on an editor’s talk page, remember that that happens whether or not the Huggler selects vandalism. It happens no matter what he selects once the miscreant has reached Level 4.

Second, your edit removed my comments from the talk page of a third-party editor, comments that were not vandalism, a personal attack, etc. My understanding of WP:TALK is that Person A cannot remove the comments of Person B from Person C’s talk page. That one can only remove comments from one’s own talk page. I have even seen it stated at WP:ANI that one cannot even remove one’s own comments from another user’s talk page (i.e., Person A cannot remove Person A’s comments from Person B’s talk page). What I usually do in instance like this one here, where I don’t agree with a warning issued, is add a comment below the warning (see this edit for an example).

Third, I did make a mistake with that revert, however. I only meant to revert the edit where the editor removed material without an explanation. But, I missed ticking the box telling Huggle to revert only that edit and so Huggle reverted both of that editor’s edits. However, I knew it immediately — because I always double check — and undid my revert and then put back in only his one unexplained deletion of material.

Finally, with your last edit to that article, you said, “rm unsourced non-notable per WP:BLP.” At first I thought, “What does WP:BLP have to do with a wikiarticle about a community?” So, I went and re-read WP:BLP and discovered that it applies not only to bioarticles about living persons, but to biographical information about living persons anywhere in Wikipedia, whether or not the article in question is itself a BLP. Thanks for that! — SpikeToronto 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just found out why Huggle issued a Level 4 warning: With this edit, you had issued a Level 3 warning. So the Huggle algorithm automatically escalated to Level 4. — SpikeToronto 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no problem, except "put not your trust in tools, which can be st00pid". I often find that I add warnings concurrently with Cluebot, which makes the situation look worse than it is. I have no criticism of you, or your use of the tools, but as regards removal of talk page messages, I think clearly erroneous, but good-faith, messages should be removed so as not to give a false impression and appear unduly bitey. Rodhullandemu 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about not wanting to appear to bite the newcomer. I just didn’t want you to get in trouble with some editor down the pike who thinks that every action he takes and every word out of his mouth is so brilliant that its deletion deprives the world of the benefit of his wisdom/opinion, and so he trots off to ANI and throws WP:TALK at you. That’s why I just add a comment disagreeing with their application of the warning template. But, you’re an admin, so I have no doubt you know what you’re doing. I’d just be too fearful of the fallout myself. Thanks for the reponse! — SpikeToronto 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit]

AWB Approval

[edit]

Could you take a look at my AWB approval Here and get back to me ASAP. Thanks Paul2387 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I've left an adequate reason for my usage of AWB for you to look at. Paul2387 (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been banned

[edit]

Just wanted to thank you for this. You made my day. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't see any point wasting time on editors like that. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism???

[edit]

You have removed my contribution to the Elvis Presley article claiming that it was vandalism. It is certainly not vandalism, as I have used reputable sources, among them publications by university presses. Onefortyone (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Your editing history is plain for all to see, and I, for one, am not going to put up with single-mindedness, whether it be right or wrong. Rodhullandemu 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. What are you talking about? I have only reinstated in a somewhat abridged and rearranged version what has been removed by user ElvisFan1981 some days ago. See [12]. Do you think that this removal of large blocks of information written by me, Rickstar and several other users some years ago was O.K.? Onefortyone (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see you acquiesce regarding 141, though your current circumstances are worrying and can hardly help. If any previous editors were left on the Presley article, they would not agree with 141's reinstatement of removed material. Recent, new editors, called in by 141 apparently as mediators, have not backed his tired claims of 'whitewashing', AND one has made the repeated call to reduce the article's length, which is exactly what ElvisFan1981 was bravely attempting to do. I wish you well. Rikstar409 09:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user said on the Elvis talk page about the recent removal of well-sourced material, "firstly, more discussion should be had, this isn't your page, and a lot of information has been put through a work of a lot of people over time. I find that in your attempt to do good and remove unnecessary information you've also removed vital information..." Onefortyone (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck to you, Rodhullandemu. Onefortyone (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content dispute in which I feel loath to get further involved; I am too unwell to mediate, and there are plenty of younger admins around with better chances of making it through Christmas. I'll leave it up to them. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:EnidBandPic.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EnidBandPic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

I have placed a disputed non-free use template on File:EnidBandPic.jpg. Aspects (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

69.228.251.134

[edit]

This IP isn't getting the point. Please carry out your threat to block (see Talk:Police for more ranting). Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. I can't block since I'm involved in the content dispute, and am referring this to WP:AIV. Rodhullandemu 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course. Thanks, he's getting on my nerves, Griffinofwales (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
looking good. (Y)--Guerillero (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

[edit]

{{Talkback|tide rolls}}

 Done Rodhullandemu 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response

[edit]

I understand your frustration. This is definitely a situation that falls in between our dispute resolution processes. But I would recommend that you take this to ANI, even if it does cause some annoying drama. Academic Challenger (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I'm really too cold and tired and hungry right now to pick up the ball and run with it, but since I believe in this encyclopedia, I shall do so. Rodhullandemu 01:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.100.218.118

[edit]

There must be some reason why this idiot is still allowed to edit Wikipedia. However, looking at his/her talk page and history, it is beyond me. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonblocked for three months for persistent disruption. Let's see if that quietens things down. Rodhullandemu 22:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sir James Shaw, 1st Baronet

[edit]
Updated DYK query On December 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir James Shaw, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:StonehengeThumb.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:StonehengeThumb.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK) 09:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross High School (South Lanarkshire)

[edit]

I've removed the coord you just added to Holy Cross High School (South Lanarkshire). At best you were pointing to the site they vacated in 2007. The new site ... does not seem to be well represented on the web maps I use. But there again, you've managed to code a number of things I gave up on - notably the yacht (where did you find that coord?) so perhaps you can find their new site "in New Park Street". --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The postcode I got from their website, goes on Google Earth to Muir Street. When you seek out New Park Street, GE shows the same postcode but correct location. I think GE is in error, but have fixed it here. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is, on google maps, the pin now points to an undifferentiated warehouse on a trading estate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. I think a netball court is a bit of a giveaway. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I go for that. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:98.237.250.200

[edit]

The threat is terrible, threat of bodily harm. Given the block duration of other editors, one week seems rather short. Even legal threats result in indefinite block. Consider a longer block, such as 30 days. Since it is an IP, allowing current account holders to edit after, say 31 hours or 7 days is acceptable. Would you reconsider? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dynamic IP address and I've only blocked anonymous editors. The IP could be recycled quite quickly, and I think a week is about right for this block, but you are welcome to mention this at WP:ANI, where the block has been approved by at least one other admin. Rodhullandemu 15:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I didn't mean to imply that you're an idiot. Why do people have to threaten others? Also, how does one find out it is a dynamic IP? So, I guess that the dynamic IP causes a shorter block. What would be the usual block if, say, Rodhullandemu (an account with a name) did it? Just curious as Wikipedia lacks a one stop rule book, something that a Wikipedia foundation trustee member has suggested. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take it as such; there's no guide set out for length of blocks, and it's largely up to admin experience and discretion, bearing in mind blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive. A registered editor would be likely to be indefinitely blocked for making death threats. The WHOIS page usually gives an indication whether the IP address is static or dynamic, but even static ones may be reassigned every few months or so. Rodhullandemu 16:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Police

[edit]

This IP address is starting to become disruptive and uncivil. I've given him a first warning on the above page, but suggest bringing in a 3rd party to deal with any outright breaches of WP:NPA that may occur. SGGH ping! 21:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's previously been blocked for disruptive editing, and there is a recent thread at WP:ANI; I'd take it there but I'm involved so I can't block him myself. Rodhullandemu 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Keira Knightley

[edit]

Actually I did take part in the discussion talk page and what I did was merely ADDED to the quotations. I took out nothing. I mentioned that if you were going to QUOTE them, then quote them properly. Which you refuse to do. The part that I edited reflect the reception part. TCT (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a topic/section is under discussion, and the article is semi-protected, it strikes me as an abuse of the principle behind that for an autoconfirmed user to use that status to edit through that protection without negotiating prior consensus for such edits. As I pointed out, it's clearly a debatable area, and should be treated carefully. The alternative is to fully-protect the article until consensus is reached on Talk as to the treatment of these reviews, which I would have no problem doing in these circumstances. Rodhullandemu 02:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

[edit]

Great Job!

[edit]

I think you did a wonderful job on biulding your page. Can you please see mine? It's a bit boring and i would like some tips on how to improve it. Thanks!Xavier The Second (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's taken me 2.5 years or so to get it like that, but the best way to do your own is to decide what you want to have on it, look at other editors' pages, then you can just copy the code to your own page. As regards the size of your cat image, that can be set by amending the "px" size, and I've set it so it's all visible; but it might be better on your User page, since your Talk page is intended for conversations. Rodhullandemu 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Johnson

[edit]

Could you take a look at this article. I added the {Refimprove} and {POV} tags, but I think it is worse than that ! I have seen educated sycophancy before on Wikipedia, but never quite on this scale. Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very much like a fan essay, and not very neutral. I couldn't find any glaring copyvios, so it probably just needs editing for style and tone. Rodhullandemu 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League manager

[edit]

Much ado about this in the media today: [13]. In other news, Phil Brown (footballer born 1959) was semi-protected on 23 December 2009. Merry Christmas from m'learned friends.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, can you be contacted by e-mail?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from panel to left. Rodhullandemu 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sent.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and received. Will keep an eye out. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 20:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some common sense about this story in The Times at [14].--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What constitutes "the public interest" has had to be modified since the Human RIghts Act, it seems. Rodhullandemu 15:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas

[edit]
File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Riemann Hypothesis Video

[edit]

Hi,

You recently reverted my link for the Riemann Hypothesis video and I'm a fairly new and infrequent wikipedia editmaker and just wanted to clarify why. The reason I read cited was that "Copyright Status not established and content could be established otherwise". The copyright is mine as I created this video - my name is clearly at the end of the video. Also, I'm not sure if the Riemann Hypothesis background content explored here could be established otherwise - this was mainly for visual and right brain thinkers on this more abstract mathematical topic for others who may also be wanting to learn about the Riemann Hypothsis (learners) or non mathematicians who would like to get a feeling for the background of the Riemann Hypothesis. This had been previously reverted by a bot (I'm again unsure why) and previous to this, someone said it was a visual impressionistic portrait - which is again true but I'm not sure if this would a good reason for reverting this. Again, it seems hit and miss which links are deleted - a link at the top of the list was a poem regarding the riemann hypothesis and a couple powerpoint presentation slides - should those be deleted because the content could be established otherwise or its more impressionistic? Perhaps others out there don't like the poetry one and this is a mathematical topic. I don't think so though and am glad the poem song was there as non mathematicians may also be interested in these topics for other reasons than the usual. I wanted to simply present another visual background history and introduction for even grade school children who may be interested in entering this topic. The twentieth century was a visual one and many people think mostly in pictures. I will not revert this again but if you feel any of these reasons are valid, please feel free to place back my video link. I don't think video should be banned from Wikipedia as I learn through images and this modality should be an important one for Wikipedia to develop. Again, I'm not a frequent contributor or editor, simply when I do think I have something that would be valuable to share with the community. Thanks for your time

Ray —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.44.147 (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Xavier

[edit]

Hi again, i want to thank you for giving me some advice. I also want to point out that i am NOT chinese or wherever the name Xavier comes from. Rodhullandemu can delete this post if he wants to. :) Xavier The Second (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I always thought "Xavier" was originally a Spanish name, so I would not have thought you to be Chinese. Good luck! Rodhullandemu 16:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, are you on Wikipedia 24/7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier The Second (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, only 12 or 13/7. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did an IP edit slip through AFTER you protected a page?

[edit]

This edit was made just after you put the page on semi protection; is there sometimes a lag in applying protection to when it actually takes effect? Note, btw, that my last edit to the page states that I was planning to go through the hiustory of the page to search if there was any legitimate editing buried within all the vandalism; there wasn't, so my edit should be the last good version. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, it was probably queued and applied by the software anyway depending on how locks are applied to the tables; I would be worried by that, only I've never seen it before in 2.5 years, and doubt it's a problem. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Carol.Christiansen beim Wixen!

[edit]

Any idea why I can't see the block? Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. All I can imagine is that the version deletion of some of her contribs has caused the database to delay updating. Not sure who did that; you might want to ask User:Momusufan. Rodhullandemu 15:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on my talk page regarding what happened here. Momo san Gespräch 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is a user of similar name on de:wiki, but there's nothing there to show any connection. I don't like mysteries, and I can see no reason why this was done since we don't usually revdelete run of the mill vVOAs. Rodhullandemu 16:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this is actually pretty routine. There is a person often referred to as "the Diesel vandal" who creates attack accounts like this on many wikis simulatenously, and they are "locked" at the meta level by stewards, which causes their edits to be oversighted on all wikis without the need for our own administrators to act. It's possible to go years on the English Wikipedia without running into Diesel because he tends to get oversighted almost instantly, but he's actually quite active from what I understand, having made hundreds of these accounts over the past few years. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for that; I've never seen this guy before. It all makes sense to me now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of my talk page. I've blocked this guy on de:wiki, requested oversight and it seems he didn't like it. Cheers --Howwi (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blocked user, no block notice

[edit]

Hi- can you leave a note on User talk:William on Reels to indicate the user is indef blocked? I'd do it, but I don't know that we've ever crossed paths, so I don't want to step on your toes. tedder (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's a long-standing vandal (See User:Willy on Wheels) and has had literally hundreds of previous block notices. If you view the history of his Talk page, you'll see that he is adept at adding an {{unblock}} template without a block notice. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your Posts of my Talkpage

[edit]

I am not speculating his religion because he used one Yiddish word, I am merely pointing it out. I am offended that you have responded in this way and I do not appreciate your contribution, maybe if you had pointed it out in a more positive fashion I would have understood but you took a rather pessimistic view on this matter even though it is a significant item to point out regarding his religious views. If you had put it I wouldn't have stopped you. You are not Dara's personal assistant who knows what he thinks!

Also, this is the second time you have responded to a contribution I have made on Wikipedia. You don't seem to have come to terms with the offence you are causing me by making an action a second time, I understand you didn't know the first time but I am being direct here and would be happy if you did not interfere with my contributions. What you are doing is taking advantage of your abilities that I don't have on Wikipedia. Please stop otherwise I will take this further. If there is a problem with my contributions I would rather someone with more optimistic views to control it. I simply do not like the way you are dealing with this and am sensing a strong amount of harrasment.

--Wikiisaac (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing here long enough to understand the basics of our policies and guidelines, particularly on reliable sources and writing biographies. If you are offended if anyone points out that an edit of yours does not appear to comply with those non-negotiable policies, perhaps you should not be editing here. It is the very essence of a Wiki that all is open and visible to, and changeable by, everybody and anybody. If you think I am wikistalking you by giving advice (whereas I could have templated you instead), please feel free to take it elsewhere, and I will sit back with a coffee or a beer, depending on the time of day, and watch the ensuing hilarity. Rodhullandemu 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to contribute to Wikipedia

[edit]

What are some ways to contribute to wikipedia? You can answer on my talk page. Also, take a look at my user page to see how it's going. IF i am getting annoying please tell me and i will stop talking to you. Xavier The Second (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your Talk page. Rodhullandemu 18:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i knew it

[edit]

I knew there were some closeted scientologists workin for wiki. thanks mate - ZEROpumpkins (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, dismally so, but I am fully aware that there are uncloseted anti-scientologists, which is not the same thing. Rodhullandemu 23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

[edit]

Retired lawyer userbox

[edit]

Hi, Just wondering if you could change the {{Retired lawyer}} userbox on your User:Rodhullandemu page to {{User Retired lawyer}} as then the Retired lawyer reditect can be deleted. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do now. Rodhullandemu 19:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the wikipedia policy?

[edit]

Hi! What's the wikipedia policy on using pages about explicit topics as masturbatory aids? I feel less guilty coming here (pun intended darlings) than a porn site, what with it being an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.193.175 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have such a policy; however, if you feel you have to use Wikipedia for such a purpose as opposed to all the other stuff on the internet, I'd suggest you don't really understand what the Internet is about. I can't help you, but then, perhaps nobody can. Rodhullandemu 23:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/29&oldid=1089135236"