User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/40

Wikipedia self-citation?

Rod, the source of the bit of information I added to the "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" article about the reference to the song in Clarke's book was from another Wikipedia article -- so I wasn't sure how to add the required citation. Gave it a shot though, but not sure it's the right way to do this.

LOL, the subject line of this post certainly looks perverse.

Martnym (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drama queen?

I find it hard to believe you accepted an unblock request where an editor calls another a "drama queen" in the unblock request regardless of the validity of the block. Yesterday he was talking about something up WMC's ass, today he's calling him queen. What were you thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't sign, I have no idea who you are, but I examined the history of the article leading up to the block, and irrespective of any other issues, determined the block to be defective on its own merits. Marknutley may not be the most polite editor we have, but he should be blocked for conduct that deserves a block, and not otherwise, and certainly not by an involved Admin. The block was grossly incorrect on its own merits and I overturned it on that basis alone. Other issues may belong elsewhere. Rodhull andemu 23:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work enabling that chronic problem. Toddst1 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that Marknutley should be blocked, fairness dictates that he should be blocked for the right reasons and not the wrong reasons. If I've misunderstood what you said, please feel free to clarify, but for obvious reasons I'm spending more time on Commons these days. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How closely did you check? My content involvement earlier today was to fix two spelling errors that I noted as I was checking the, at that time "possible copyvio". Last May I removed some obvious copyvio material added by the same editor following a couple of minor edits prior to discovering the copyvios. My talk page discussion consisted of commenting on the then "possible copyvio" content which User:Marknutley had reverted back in after another editor had removed it as a likely copyvio. His beligerant re-adding of questioned content without discussing it or modifying it was most problematic. The user had been blocked for numerous copyright violations on various articles last May. I issued that block and to see him again adding questionable content triggered the alarms. Vsmith (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, you had become involved in content, as I see it. Other editors have commented that it was paraphrasing published content, which is always difficult when we are dealing with a published work as the subject of an article. It is usually impossible to tread the fine line between copyright violation and citing the work in question, and I have already stated that in writing such articles, some leeway should be given between (a) adding content and (b) citing it appropriately. Rome wasn't built in a day, after all; however, even given that, I didn't see your block as being proportionate in the circumstances. Rodhull andemu 23:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt one month was long, yes, but I think Rodhullandemu, perhaps you should've asked for a second opinion, maybe from an admin versed in CCI, to see whether they would agree with unblocking or shorten the block rather than doing so yourself. </non-involved talk page stalker> Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you were fooled by MN's peanut gallery into incorrectly claiming Vsmith was involved. Your own Appalling. An Admin involved in content issues should not block and even more so not without clear chapter and verse as to the alleged violation. seems grossly disproportional - were you deliberately trying to be insulting? And all this for a non-urgent situation without the slightest attempt to contact the blocking admin. You do know that you *are* supposed to talk, don't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few points, first Toddst1. 1st I did not mention about anything being up WMc`s arse, try at least to get the names right, it was TFD i said had a bee in his, shall we say bonnet to avoid offending you?. Is the reason you are here to complain due to the fact your bad block was overturned? From the ani thread i believe it was only you who felt that comment was actually offensive. 2nd If WMC decides to follow me around wiki causing drama on a regular basis just because he dislikes me then it is wp:spade time, this was not the first time he has come to this article and removed content, he gutted the reception section quite a few times as well. Which is why i reverted him btw, as i said i was working on the article, it is not easy to work on an article when someone who wants to piss you off keeps removing content. One other thing, i did not call him a queen, there is a difference between a queen which is slang for gay and a Drama Queen. Rod, sorry to have created such a headache for you mark nutley (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#This_should_be_brought_to_the_arbitrators_attentions William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually answer the questions rather than evading them William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push it. If I am required by ArbCom to answer them, I will do so when I have the wherewithal so to do. Meanwhile, I am rather busy elsewhere. Thanks for your understanding. Rodhull andemu 22:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering on a block/block notice

You recently blocked User talk:78.148.200.29 for sockpuppetry. You logged the block (1 week), added the templated block notice to the user's talk page, but then later removed that notice. I'm just wondering, what was the reason for removing the notice? Your summary said "rm incorrect notice; but still blocked for sockpuppetry." What was incorrect about the notice? I feel like I've seen a few actions like this recently, where IPs are getting temporary blocks but not having a clear explanation on their talk pages. Is this part of WP:DENY? Or something else? Just to be clear, I'm not questioning the block or the action, just trying to learn more about operations. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At present, when blocking, the standard templated notices don't necessarily match what you want to say. In this case, the sockpuppet notice for an IP says "indefinitely", which did not match my intention, or my block. Someone is apparently fiddling about with Twinkle, or whatever, that makes it difficult to keep up. Meanwhile, we've lost a vandal, and a good thing too. Rodhull andemu 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see--I didn't notice the difference between the time lengths. Good riddance on the vandal, of course. Thanks for the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi, I want to say I'm sorry for not informing you that I mentioned your name at the Climate change PD talk page. I was going to but I got called away from my computer for awhile and when I got back you were already commenting. Again, I'm sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken. Rodhull andemu 20:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on celebrity names

Hi Rodhullandemu,

I wanted to get your thoughts on how celebrity names should be listed on Wikipedia following a recent incident with the Duffy (singer) article. I have changed it list the artist as Duffy, followed by her full birth name and DOB. This has been challenged by another member so I was looking for a second opinion.

My research around the site shows dozens of other artists such as Tina Turner, Sting, Prince, Cher and Madonna (to name but five) who use the same format I have applied. So I would have assumed Duffy following the same format would be accurate and fair (as long as her full name is of course listed after)? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter if you could. Thank you.

Onlylovemusic Onlylovemusic (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either would seem to be acceptable, so it's up to the editors of the article to discuss and achieve consensus. I have no opinion either way. Rodhull andemu 14:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with AFC clerk bot?

I was simply testing it. Some mistakes have caused it to move an live article back to AFC. I have fixed it. Now to my wikibreak. —I-20 the highway 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered, but it shouldn't have moved any unapproved article, particularly an unsourced NN-BLP. Enjoy your break! Rodhull andemu 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts, I'll discuss with the editors and see if we can reach a collective decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlylovemusic (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help once again

The user Brownoftheking consistantly removes a section from the Red (band) page. I added a vandalism template to his talk page, even compromised (his many problem seemed to be there was no source for the album title) so I edited it accordingly. Now because he doesnt want it there (from what I can see) he says he is to "keep erasing your stuff so enjoy." and keep blanking the section. I apologize for bringing another problem to you again. (HrZ (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It seems another editor agrees that the content should be included, so the matter should go to the Talk page; meanwhile, I've left a 3RR warning. Rodhull andemu 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes, please

99.239.192.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
genre warring after third warning. Radiopathy •talk• 01:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My photo

I thought stuff was only supposed to move to commons if it was of general interest...

I don't know how a photo of me is of general interest. Unless it would be relevant to my userpages on other wikis (which I generally don't bother with photos on...).

If commons is the place user photos are going, then that's fine. I just am not aware that that's what's going on. If I'm uninformed then that's fine, let me know...

Thanks!

-george

No, if they are used on any Wiki, they can be saved on Commons and categorised as {{User page images}}. It places an extra level of protection against abuse, although of course if it is moved to Commons, I will know that and watchlist it there. Rodhull andemu 02:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded

Here. Silver seren^C 02:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

semi p

Hi Rod, would you please semi protect Ed Milliband, the UK leaders all attract a lot of vandal additions and as they are high profile they are usually long term semi protected. Currently we have multiple opinionated addition and reverting of ethnicity and religion or absence of it, it simply isn't politically fair to long term semi protect some parties and not others. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Agreed, it needs semi-p for a while. Rodhull andemu 18:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. 18:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time for full protection. If you look at the history Off2riorob is far over 3RR and just deleted a wealth of sources that aren't even used to cite Miliband's atheism but instead how they themselves refer to him with that word. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone reverting after RFC has been filed comes out with much credit, but since I semi-protected at Rob's request, I would rather avoid applying full protection in the circumstances, but I think you'd get a sympathetic and quick response at WP:RFPP, where new eyes might be welcome. But by all means refer that page to this thread. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 23:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hansen

Hi, I understand your concern about potentially libellous claims because I noticed that you deleted a couple of recent edits to this page. However, the apartheid comment is well-documented online, in fact if you type "alan hansen" into Google, the top suggestion from auto-complete is "alan hansen apartheid" so it is certainly notable. I haven't been able to find a video of him making the comment, unfortunately. 140.203.12.5 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP - where there are comments of a negative or accusatory nature they must be sorted by reliable third party sources. Google options do not suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the nature of the deleted edit, it is more a case that it does not speak of Hansen's notability in any manner - rather than being controversial. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a chance to check this out; sportspeople do tend occasionally to spout rubbish, and although Hansen's comments may be sourced, I would find it more difficult to find that they had attracted ridicule, which is the more serious BLP violation. Rodhull andemu 16:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ELP

Could you look at the situation at Emerson, Lake & Palmer again, please? Radiopathy •talk• 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late here now, but Blender is listed here; after that, it's up to editors to achieve consensus as to whether include a particular review; I'll take another look at this tomorrow, but it is arguable even in the face of a mediation. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you stopping me from stating facts on Wikipedia? Are you a Fianna Fail supporter attempting to keep the right to free speech down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PodgeF (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jade Goody

Hey there Mr. Rodhullandemu, Just to let you know I have removed the idiotic message on Talk:Jade Goody left by some IP user, and have issued a [subst:uw-vandalism1|article], template, on their talk page just thought I'd let you know as I noticed you had replied to it anyway Regards —Dweeby123 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it helpful, but I don't think it was vandalism either. However, better deleted. Rodhull andemu 17:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed —Dweeby123 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lindsay Lohan vma

honestly I would only the page is locked and I am not an official member and therefore i dont have access to editing the page, i only help the wikipedia community by posting on discussion pages and editing unlocked pages, i know this must be a pain for you but here is the source if you wish to add it to the article: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/Lindsay+Lohan+Makes+Surprise+Appearance/3514777/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.81.156 (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Tells The Truth (talk · contribs) requesting unblock

This user, who you blocked in March, says he is a reformed character and asks for a second chance. I see you mentioned a suspicion of sockpuppetry, so I am referring it to you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I see Favonian has already declined. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundations

Our American friends have surfaced again and restarted edit warring - see [1]. Any assistance would be appreciated. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Clark and The Dave Clark Five

I know we have been here before, but virtually all recent (months and months worth of) editing on either article surrounds a continuing ping-pong battle over Clark's birth year. I have long since given up caring over the birthdate matter per se. However, I think Wikipedia can look rather silly when such frequent, and petty, edit warring completely overshadows any significance of the subject matter(s). By and large, they seem to be effected by IPs with little else to fill their lives. Time for action ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism!

vandalism on Nikolay Davydenko from IP:219.79.82.102!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have stopped for now but you can warn the other editor. Rodhull andemu 21:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hi there Mr. Rodhullandemu, can I just ask you a question, now please feel free to tell me mind my own business, but I just wanted to know were your based, the reason I ask is that I have seen you make edit(s) to Merseyrail (occaisionaly), like I said forgive me for asking only Merseyrail is on my watchlist you see, so I was just wondering are you from Liverpool, I mean if you are I'd be proud to call my home Liverpool, because I mean isn't it a lovely place!! like I said I hope you don't mind me asking Regards —Dweeby123 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used to live in The Wirral and worked in Liverpool. Not any more. Rodhull andemu 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison

Right, I thought it was SPAM but now I see. Should have checked who you were first, never knew you was an admin. OK doky. Professor Fairness (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

River Foss

Surely it's Castle Mills Lock not Castle Gate Lock? The York Ring Road bridge is the Castle Mills Bridge. Castlegate is the road from Nessgate/Clifford Street to Clifford's Tower. More here --GuillaumeTell 23:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I changed it when an IP user on Commons blanked the page and said it was Castle Gate Lock, checked on Google Earth and found that my original image, labelled as the Foss Barrier, was incorrect. There was nothing there to indicate the name of the locks, so I took that on good faith. I'll take a further look at it. Rodhull andemu 23:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Wisdom

I see you got a mention on The Register. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, happens. I see it was actually a revert of content removal+vandalism. The original additions was actually by 82.23.199.152, not by Rodhullandemu. Guess el reg couln't be bothered to actually look a bit better. They got all excited that they "caught" an administrator. :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- How bizarre; they accuse others of failing to check facts properly and get this one disastrously wrong themselves. I hope they've got good solicitors. Rodhull andemu 15:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It never ceases to amaze me just how bad people on WP are at reading comprehension. Why don't you go back and give the article a re-read, eh?--96.35.175.16 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if I misinterpreted the article, that's a defence to libel? Not in my legal experience. Rodhull andemu 16:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Register article has been corrected. A WebCite archive copy of the original version is here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The update is no better; in particular the Scientology reference, accusations of incompetence and innuendo that I am lying about my appearance remain. I've already alerted my solicitor, but his office is now closed, so this will have to wait until tomorrow. Rodhull andemu 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After I read the original article (which claimed that Rodhullandemu added the misinformation), I emailed the writer of the article, a Mr Andrew Orlowski, with difs, to point out the error. I received a quick reply with an assurance that it had been corrected. However, the new version is still clearly false, and I have emailed Mr Orlowski again. So far, I have received no further reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I suspect he's now gone home for the day. Rodhull andemu 18:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Rodhullandemu, I'd be happy to forward you by email a copy of my, albeit minimal, correspondence with Mr Orlowski if you think it would help - just let me know. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, messages crossed - we'll see what, if anything, he says in the morning. Best -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had sent a message earlier with the correct diffs and explanations, but it doesn't seem they really got the point. Story is far from straight, still twisted in all kinds of pure mistakes. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. My experience of criminal prosecutions is that you have to get it right, by crossing the t's and dotting the i's, because Liverpool juries are notoriously suspicious of such failures. The current state of the article is no better. In particular, I don't see any attribution for the images they've used. I think that journalists looking for a cheap jibe could do better than this in the due diligence department, and if The Register ever had any journalistic credibility, they surely have thrown it away by running this poorly-researched, and inadequately-corrected item. I no longer have any qualms about deleting citations based on them on the basis of reliable sourcing; pure incompetence, that's all, and they didn't even bother to contact me for a comment. Arrogant twats, and what is worse than that is that they get paid for this shite, and we volunteer our time and expertise. Fucking parasites. Rodhull andemu 23:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had no further reply to my emails to the author of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support El Reg. The "Operating Thetan" thing is a joke, obviously. It just meant that you're high in the foodchain. The "stepped in to preserve the bogus information" quote is also correct, lets see in the history. Your edit of 27. August [4] and your edit of 2. September [5]. Between the two [6], there were only IPs, thus suspicious. You did revert one edit, but didn't revert the rest, although it was unsourced. A classic case of sleeping at the wheel, and yes, that is incompetence. But I'm sure that your solicitor will be glad to accept your money to tell you what you prefer to hear, and after a few months and thousands of pounds more, he'll tell you what I told you. Have a nice weekend and much sleep! --Tilman (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So when reverting one piece of vandalism I also supposed to check and/or delete every other unsourced assertion in every article? I think not, for I am only here for about 8 hours a day, and there are only 24 in a day. I would end up getting negative sleep if I did that. As for the "Operating Thetan", it's an obvious reference to Scientology, and I resent it. I note you do not address the obvious innuendo that my image might be a lie, nor that the image is used without appropriate attribution. But you carry on pick and choose the bits that support your view, but I prefer the advice of my own legal team to yours. I hope I won't hear from you again. Rodhull andemu 20:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have the time to apply your mighty admin powerz properly (which should include preventing trolls from inserting funny things), then drop it, or concentrate on less articles. About the images - El Reg just tells that there is no way to know it's you. (There's also no way to know that the weird photograph below "you" is actually David Gerard. It could also be Bob wearing a mask). --Tilman (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening to the last sentence of my reply to you. Admins are not arbiters of content, and are deprecated by ArbCom when they seek to be so. Neither are they required to be all-seeing, all-knowing scourers of articles for unsourced statements or even vandalism; that is a counsel of perfection that I have never seen advocated here. I shall say this only once: goodbye, and you should know better than that, unless you have studied, qualified in, and practised, law in the UK. I don't see that you have. Rodhull andemu 22:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you've seen the latest correction. Fmph (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now, thanks for the link. ~~I'll take advice on its adequacy, given the matters of which the editor in question has had notice.~~ I see the original article has also now been amended. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 15:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Did you or your solicitor actually send a formal legal demand letter regarding libel? (just curious, really) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't need to get that far. I was considering a DMCA takedown notice for the unattributed image, but I see that has also been removed. Rodhull andemu 16:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander McQueen

I am writing one right now, will be online in about an hour.Reqluce (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. Rodhull andemu 22:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more personal note than MfD

I feel no need to drag this bit of our MfD conversation "into the open", but I want to say I deeply, deeply sympathize with you and the plight your family has undergone. I realize you are offended, and I cannot say you are in any way "incorrect" to feel that. I don't want to walk away with forgiveness or a write-off - that's not something I expect. The reason I'm contacting you is because I don't want to take even the slightest chance of you leaving this with any misunderstanding of my intentions. However misguidedly, however wrongheadedly, you feel I did so, I have written in support and sympathy for people who have been the victims of genuine wrongdoings in the real world, and in condemnation of those who sincerely make light of them. My efforts were to mock those who mock unknowingly, and in doing so give them cause to reconsider their words and thoughts. I hope you will consider me someone who has at least tried to be on your family's side. The ineptitude of my attempts is something I leave you to judge entirely for yourself. If, in cognizance of my intentions, you consider my efforts failed, I am very, very sorry. Forgive me only if you see fit, but I hope at the very root that you at least understand. - Vianello (Talk) 01:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take anything here much personally, but my experiences cannot be ignored. I just don't think, personal opinions aside, that your essay does us any credit, simply because journalists tend to pick up on this sort of stuff and use it against us, and they are more interested in ammunition, however misguided. So it's better not to provide them with any. Rodhull andemu 01:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a legitimate point you raise there, and you do raise a perspective I had not considered. Deprivation of context could cause such thing to be dangerously taken the wrong way, that is true. - Vianello (Talk) 01:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For going out and risking life, limb and happiness in the pursuit of people who want to create a mess Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated, but just doing my job here. Rodhull andemu 20:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Beyoncé Knowles

Hi Rod, this presumed sockpuppet 78.22.20.249 is at it again, might you at least have a look. Thanks!‎ Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry apart, I see few useful edits from this IP address, so have anon-blocked it for three months. Rodhull andemu 19:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British county of birth prior/post 1974

Hello, may I refer you to this talk page where a debate is being considered regards to the birth of the "almighty" Terry Christian, and its wider implication? I noticed you reverted an edit on the Johnny Vegas page towards the exact same effect. Do you know any of definite policy regarding this? Cheers. An index of metals (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Potter'sRabbitSchool.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Potter'sRabbitSchool.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Geldof

I'm mystified by your edits here. This isn't a BLP violation, contentious information or tabloid speculation. It's a neutral statement of fact, sourced to a reliable source. Cleo is already mentioned in the article so a brief mention of her passing is appropiate for his personal life section. Exxolon (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason why she should be mentioned at all; she doesn't contribute to his notability or his career, so to my mind, she might as well not exist in encyclopedic terms, much as Albert Einstein's sister had no input into his works in relativity. Readers will expect to perhaps have some family details relating to the subject of a article, but to an understanding of the person about whom we write, some details just do not matter in that regard. As I said, we are not Hello!. Not my fault that multiple editors continue to get it wrong, but I don't think that that is what we are here for. Rodhull andemu 00:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change our biography policy to exclude family members from personal life/early history etc sections unless they are relevant to the person's notability or to actually remove all "Personal life" sections completely then there are forums & procedures for that. I will post on WP:BLPN to see what other editors think. Incidentally, I found your use of "ORLY?" in your edit summary for your reply to me slightly condescending. Exxolon (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I see no reason to make a point of her death, since it does not appear to me to add to an understanding of Geldof himself. We've all lost family members, but such losses are not necessarily germane to an understanding of ourselves and our articles here. So we shouldn't deal with them unless particularly relevant. Even I will die some day, and at present, the sooner, the better. Rodhull andemu 01:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation

As a respected WP editor, you are invited to participate in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination)

Self appointed experts are wrong again

Dear Rodhullandemu,

So, another self appointed expert denies us the opportunity to correct another inaccurate article on Wikipedia. This time on the grounds “Even if there were such an organisation as the "UK Deed Poll Service", it wouldn't operate in the early hours of a Sunday morning.

Well Sir, there is an organisation called the UK Deed Poll Service and we operate during the nights and at weekends. We are the UK’s main issuer of deed poll documentation and we provide help and support to British nationals living around the world, who happen to live in different time zones.

What is it with you self appointed experts? I’m the person who actually prepared and posted the deed poll document to Cheryl Cole last week that Simon Cowell signed on the Xtra Factor show. When I suggest you correct your entry on the event (which had poor punctuation and the wrong name change), you dismiss it because of the time of posting – without any attempt to verify my input or check if we existed. But you did rely on another self appointed expert wrongly saying a deed poll is only legal if it is signed by a solicitor or notary public.

Whenever I hear someone speak about Wikipedia articles, I warn them about how inaccurate the articles can be since they are monitored or managed by self appointed experts who take umbrage when real experts, who knows more than them, suggest improvements or attempt to correct inaccuracies.

Wikipedia’s opportunity to be an accurate source of information to the public is being denied by people like you. I can only speak about people’s names since we issue many deed poll documents to celebrities, or to their children, and I know about their names, name changes, dates of birth etc. There must be many other 'real' experts in other fields who feel the same way and experience the same as me.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Barratt, Chief Executive Officer, UK Deed Poll Service, www.deedpoll.org.uk UKDeedPollService (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Put a heading in to turn it into a proper section, notified him on his page that credentials are irrelevant, we only want sources, we have no proof that he's involved with the UK gov't, and that we don't accept group accounts. Edit: Also, found a couple of sources, (Simon Cowell changes his name to Lightning Cowell on the UK Deed Poll Service website, Simon Cowell changes his name to Lightning Cowell on Fleckingrecord.co.uk), if the story is notable, and contacting the deep poll service to see if this guy is legit. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there clearly is such a thing as "an organisation called the UK Deed Poll Service". In fact there are many of them: www.deedpoll.org.uk, www.TheLegalDeedPollService.org.uk, www.BritishDeedPollService.org.uk, www.ukdps.co.uk, freedeedpoll.co.uk, www.deedpollsonline.co.uk, www.simpledeedpoll.co.uk, to name but a few. These are of course legitimate businesses offering a valid service of filling out forms for their customers, but it may be that there was some misunderstanding that any of them were or would have to be some kind of governmental body. That is not the case; these organisations are all merely private businesses with no statutory standing. There is no requirement under UK law to execute a deed poll in order to change your name; as long as your purpose is not fraudulent, you can simply stop using your old name and start using a new one without any complication. The service provided by these companies is essentially the same as the service provided by US companies who offer Green Card lottery application services (although with obviously a far more guaranteed rate of success!) 82.6.108.62 (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all of this, and particularly that such companies exist to claim to facilitate changes of name, and not all of them offering a full service to inform all one's contacts that you have changed your name, although a simple announcement in the London Gazette, and possibly in a local newspaper, usually suffices to effect a change of name. These companies, IMO, are making money out of something that need not cost anything near to their fees, and are relying upon the general legal ignorance of the British public. Basically, all they are doing is providing a document that states "I have changed my name from X to Y", and whereas this isn't itself unlawful, it is perhaps bordering upon fraud. Rodhull andemu 00:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu,

Instead of just saying sorry for the way you handled my suggested correction to YOUR entry, you resort to belittling the service my company provides and making a libellous statement that the service we offer is bordering on being fraudulent. It is irrelevant how many companies provide a particular service and whether the public need that service. I, for example, don't need a mechanic to service my car, but you might decide to employ a mechanic. I grow vegetables in my garden, you might prefer to buy yours from Tesco. There are many goods and services that the public can do for themselves but instead decide to pay someone else to provide. We were asked by Cheryl Cole to provide a deed poll document so she could present it to Simon Cowell - and we responded. If you watch the VT of the Xtra Factor program, you will hear Cheryl say she kept her part of the bargain by getting the deed poll for Simon to sign. What were we to do? Refuse to send Cheryl the deed poll document on the basis that if Simon wanted to change his name he can do it for himself - or even tell Cheryl to knock one up for Smon herself? The relevant fact here is you wrongly reported on a matter relating to Simon Cowell, and I (as the person involved in the matter) tried to correct you - only to be dismissed because "Even if there were such an organisation as the "UK Deed Poll Service", it wouldn't operate in the early hours of a Sunday morning." All you had to do was Google us and email us for verification. But oh no, that was too much for you to do because you're the expert and you thought you knew better than the actual people involved. How is Wikipedia going to be a credible source of the truth when there are people like you deciding on what the truth should be?

Yours, Mike Barratt, UK Deed Poll Service.

Please see WP:TRUTH. You and your company are not alone in providing a service that, if the British people were better informed, they could realise they they do not need, let alone need to pay you for it. It's perhaps unfortunate that Google tends to point them towards you, and similar websites, but as I see it, you are providing a printable piece of paper for £14.99 and nothing else, leaving the legwork to the customer. I don't see that as a "service" and certainly not as value for money, considering that your services don't appear to be that necessary in the change of name process. Yours sincerely, Porple Zyrie Nurdlestraup (name changed online using a website similar to your own, and paid for, although I doubt I will ever receive any mail to my address using that name). Rodhull andemu 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you

Rodhull, could you nominate the Don't Be a Dick Page for deletion? I'm don't understand the nuances of the procedure indicated on the AfD page. Nightscream (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be already in progress. Rodhull andemu 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chace Watson

Just thought you should be aware of this. He's starting to request other editors to edit Corbin Bleu for him.—Kww(talk) 21:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, still have Corbin Bleu watchlisted, so will pick up any meatpuppetry. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 22:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Site to blacklist

Hi, on User talk:82.9.171.195, you said "If this link is added again, it will be blacklisted." Well, they added it again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the IP has been blocked for two weeks; if there's any sockpuppetry I'll blacklist the site. We might as well see if they get the message first. Rodhull andemu 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argos

I found that resource from a book. Please stop deleting various information and it was only the year. Nothing else.

You need to cite your sources, and if the book got the year wrong, perhaps it can't be trusted? Rodhull andemu 21:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their own website says 1973, so I have now added that as a source. Your book has a misprint. Rodhull andemu 21:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe infobox photo

If you hadn't already spotted it this editor [7] has repeatedly changed the infobox photo while the talk page discussion is still in progress. Could you keep an eye on his activities please? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sooty Show

I won't edit anything now that I understand the policy is strict about citation needed, but it mentions Sooty was popular in other countries, can this include the US as I know it was very popular over there as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweep12 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better with a source, otherwise someone might come along and delete it. I'm sure there will be some evidence online somewhere. Rodhull andemu 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not hold accurate information all the time though, even though I may have got a bit of incorrect information beforehand. Could I please have this as an edit request? I do not know how a source can be added to this statement. It's only a very small part of information. Does every single thing you edit have to contian a source because I have no idea where you would get all that from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweep12 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only material that is not required to be sourced are facts regarded as "common knowledge", e.g. "water is wet", "grass is green". Everything else is required to be verifiable, otherwise it's worthless. In practical terms, anyone who disagrees with your addition is entitled to remove it so it may stay, but it may not. I did spend a little time yesterday looking into this, but couldn't find anything beyond that Sooty was going to be aired in the US, but little evidence that it has. However, it's up to you to support your edits, not me. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 15:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a user you blocked

User:Josh Rumage, that is. I just created a sockpuppet case for this user here, but I am unsure as to whether I just outed the user by stating what state the user is from. What do you think? Nymf _hideliho! 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so, such information is commonly available here or ascertainable otherwise. Since he's currently still blocked, with a pending request, it might be of interest to the reviewing admin to be aware of the current SPI case. Rodhull andemu 15:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Irrelevant messages

You really should stop taking this editing business so seriously. I understand sources needed but your policy is ludicrous. The reason I did that is because they aren't needed anymore and I would rather shoot you a PM than having it fully displayed. There was no need to give me that message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweep12 (talk • contribs)

Stop interrupting my work. It's disruptive. Again, stop. Rodhull andemu 21:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't delete anything but if you could delete this I would be very much appreciated. Sorry but I can't help but notice the hypocrisy. I didn't mean to be rude so I owe you an apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweep12 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Meanwhile, I need time to get some work done so I'm going to protect this page so I can do so in peace. Rodhull andemu 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about getting my account deactivated for my inappropriate behaviour but since I just joined, I only misled myself so I hope there wasn't anything that was too be flagged or blocked since I need to understand the Guidelines and the violation against it. In the meantime, I will be more tolerant. User talk: Sweep12

You shouldn't leave just because your initial experiences may have been a little rocky; it takes time to get used to the policies and guidelines, and take advice when it's offered. Stick around. Rodhull andemu 22:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the impression given that I am unworthy of being a member. It was all a misunderstanding. User talk:Sweep12

IP

Hi Rodhullandemu, I think that the same IP user [8] who was blocked for 3 months because of disruptive editing in Meher Baba is back under another IP that keeps changing. Both previously blocked and the current IPs are from the same area of India. Can you please help? Hoverfish Talk 10:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits seem similar but not quite the same; however, he is adding copyright material and will not discuss his edits other than via edit summaries, I've semi-pro'd for a week. Rodhull andemu 15:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out. Yes the material was copied verbatim from the Hyderabad Meher Baba Group. Hoverfish Talk 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection if possible

Hello to you RH&E, I wish to draw your attention to the unconstructive edits that have dominated the last month's revision history regarding Xherdan Shaqiri. Nothing new. This happens to be another Albanian subject born in pre-2008 Kosovo and edits stretching as far back as this one just appear to amend the birthplace information to suit the design spec of the individual editor with no regard for the common practice of observing historical accuracy. IMHO, there is probably one person who is behind all these IPs which is why I gave up issuing warnings a long time ago. I contend that there have been few if any constructive edits coming from IPs for the past month on that article and the page will certainly not be missing anything should IPs be disabled for a time whilst registered users manage the article. I'm sure if he should achieve overnight celebrity status by overturning Obama in Washington and then declaring war on North Korea, there will be enough editors able to paint the picture without the help of single-issue persons only concerned with promoting self-interest. Do you agree with this proposal for protected status? Evlekis (Евлекис) 12:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me, but at present I am not best equippped to deal with content-based isuues. Rodhull andemu 01:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI archiving

Was that entirely timely? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: More heat than light. Meanwhile, I have £20 to last me until Saturday. You work it out. Rodhull andemu 00:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hi, an AN/I close of yours is mentioned here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wankers.3F. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 00:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it. If you want to feed me until Saturday, you are welcome to contribute to my Paypal account. Otherwise.... Rodhull andemu 01:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to be referred to as the Nebulous Wanker, myself. I mean, if you insist on calling us wankers, I'd like a personalized title. HalfShadow 02:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some trash; I hope that was alright. Also sent a brief e-mail. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and for your kindly email. It's good to hear occasionally that one's work is appreciated. Regards. Rodhull andemu 18:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added (or, rather re-added) note to Gene Simmons' website listing stating it's undergoing DDOS attack and may or may not be available.

Site is currently down; Anonymous is hammering away at it. 20:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have the article watchlisted, so I saw that. Thanks for the heads up. Rodhull andemu 20:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon is pissed. Seems Gene found a way around them for a bit, but they found another way in. The site is completely down anyway, so something's gone pear-shaped. HalfShadow 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campion School Notable Old Boys

With reference to your recent deletions. If the school itself categorise pupils as 'Famous Pupils' IMHO that should be sufficient 'notability' to merit inclusion in the 'Notable Old Boys' list. Refer to:

School website

Chris Burrows (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a conflict between our idea of notability and theirs. Since this is a global encyclopedia, I tend to prefer ours. Rodhull andemu 02:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

{{Db-spam}} is used on user pages and images all the time. But I have sent it to MFD as recreation of deleted articles and spam. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's 13 and can put a userpage together that is better than most articles created by people his age. If you want to drive him off the project, however... Rodhull andemu 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to take a look at Davy Kamanzi? Thirteen or not, Wikipedia policy is clear that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion", or in the clearer words contained in guidelines: "Simple use as a personal web page is not in itself a speedy deletion criterion, although clear advertising and promotional use is." It is not uncommon for new users who create a page such as this to have their pages deleted and their accounts blocked within a few hours of registering and creating them, and I am against the sort of thing. For me if it was just a noobie mistake than I would be fully in favor of blanking the page and directing them to read the guideline and policies on userpages. Having said that In this case, however, there have been warnings going back to June and the fact Davy Kamanzi has been deleted repeatedly puts this a bit past a noobie mistake. User:Retro 2010 appears to be a friend of this user and has contributed to this userpsace "article" as well, although their user page is more in line with what is acceptable. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that the substantive article had been repeatedly recreated and deleted; apologies for that. Let the MFD run its course, but I think it's borderline and will abide by consensus. Rodhull andemu 15:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:74.2.191.66#October_2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.2.191.66 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so Maravilhosa

Despicable attitude to contributions. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you did not find a reason for "Speedy", not? -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Context? I'm not a mindreader. If you have a problem, please spell it out, but the cold weather here in this country dulls my psychic powers somewhat. Rodhull andemu 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Context? your edits. Added link in sectiontitle. Now, there is no reason in anyone's mind to start thinking a PROD there, whatever level of temperature or mind. Are you really, really browsing this WP to tag PRODs? Why not skip, and add one thing to one page a day? I can assure you: that feels good. Just try once. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm not going to forage around on some wild goose chase. Unless you can explain, I'm not interested. Rodhull andemu 23:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for speedy deletion do not apply to songs. However, although this song is alleged to be notable, there is no evidence, by way of reliable sources to support that. Hence the proposed deletion. If you were bothered to follow the links, you'd find that a PROD can be contested merely by removing the tag and then, if the article remains unsourced, it can be nominated for deletion. If you want the article kept, it's up to you to justify its existence. Next! Rodhull andemu 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I already have seen the links before you mentioned them here. I know I can drop he tag in a second. But I thought, well, maybe you would have an idea or logic or so, when PRODding the page first time you saw it. But clearly you only do wikilawyering, so no communication expected here. Remaining question: why not add a maintenance tag, next time? -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a humble janitor here; I am not supposed to be fixing the failures of other editors to bring their edits within policy, although I am amenable to giving advice if it is requested. To be honest, if I took on editorial control of every defective article I see on this encyclopedia, I would be dead within a month or so, because it simply is just too much work to so. I am not some "super editor" who can take on others' failings, and all I can do is to point out their limitations and leave it up to anyone who cares enough to bring the article within Wikipedia standards. Sorry, but you get what you pay for, and my salary here is zero. You work it out. Rodhull andemu 00:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. The subject is: you tagged it for PROD within half an hour after creating (substantiating the R, in fact). Which is not helpful at all. Really, since you know about "notability" and so, your judgement could have been more useful, instead of negative, from the start. None asked for correcting "failures of other editors" (you are making this up). To be short: the article is wikiworthy, and you could have known that. -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, i've got it covered. Silver seren^C 01:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sutcliffe

Hi, I wondered if you would take a look at the current editing at this article by Zucchinidreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). S/he seems to be on a mission to remove what they believe to be "irrelevant" information (ie victims' names, ages, etc) in order to make the page as simplistic as possible. Zucchinidreams has the impression that information should be in the citations for a reader to follow up if they want to know the "precise" details. Obviously I disagree, but am not now in the frame of mind to discuss this further as the editor in question is quite the wikilawyer and I can see that I am going to become particularly uncivil if I don't step away. In a nutshell: the article, imho, is being mistakenly dumbed-down, please would you look into it. Thanks. Gwen Chan 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have commented on Talk page. Rodhull andemu 17:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Gwen Chan 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP

The IP that we discussed a couple of months ago here is back editing again as 90.200.85.2. And the edits haven't improved, at all. Any chance of a block again? Nymf _hideliho! 11:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you don't want to deal with this user or not. Let me know so I can bring it to ANI instead if that's the case. Thanks. Nymf _hideliho! 00:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to look at the rangeblocks again, which I am in no position to do right now. Tomorrow, perhaps. Sorry for the delay, but I share premises with dickheads who rob me of my sleep.Rodhull andemu 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked above IP for a week; if he doesn't get the message, please let me know & I'll redo the rangeblocks. Cheers. I did manage a couple of hours sleep- this morning! Rodhull andemu 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The IP is back as 90.199.99.21 though. :-) Glad you managed to get some sleep. My neighbor loops the menu on DVDs (on full volume) for 16-17 hours every now and then, so at least you can take comfort in the fact that it's something global. Nymf _hideliho! 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked 90.199.99.0/24, 90.200.85.0/24 and 90.201.141.0/24 for another 6 months. Looking at the contribs shows it's very likely to be the same editor. Rodhull andemu 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Beyoncé Knowles

Hi Rod, we're having problems with User:Jake again, not only with this book, but also with the templates. Might you have a look again, please?! Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock of User:Beyonceloverlove. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks my friend! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

Features and admins: The best of the week

ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: Zucchinidreams

...has raised an RfC about you at Talk:Peter Sutcliffe! There is a pattern of tendentiousness, disruption and refusal to collaborate from this user, which, combined with how s/he targets certain controversial articles (Goatse.cx, Israeli settlements, Fox hunting etc) and an obvious knowledge of policies (yet refusal to follow them or interpret them correctly) makes me suspicious that this user is a sock and is, I hate to say, deliberately disruptive for the purpose of their own entertainment. Is this worth escalating (eg RfC/U or AN/I), or am I being blinkered out of frustration? Gwen Chan 09:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. Meanwhile, I can't raise an SPI because I have no idea of whom this could be a sockpuppet, and it would look like retaliation on my part. As for ANI, I doubt much would come of that, but you could always ask whether other admins think the purported RFC by Zucchinidreams is appropriate. Rodhull andemu 16:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply: was catching up on some Sky+ heh. I think I will raise their editing behaviour, there's something odd going on there. Gwen Chan 18:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gwen Chan 18:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply sorry for putting down an RFC on the talk page of the article. I will not be editing Peter Sutcliffe from now on. It will not happen again. Regards, --Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

vandalize

209.232.151.49 have vandalized the article Carlos Santana.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 07:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee considered for role in Kung Fu

Hi, Your question was probably rhetorical, but, yes, Bruce Lee was considered for Kung Fu. To what extent he was considered and why he was not chosen depend on what POV one has. Some of the controversy is summarized here It is a ball of wax I'd rather not get into, but if it happens, it happens.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, but I'd prefer to see a clear source that says this, and in only one place in the article. Rodhull andemu 23:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freshly Squeezed Music

Hello there.

You deleted the above entry in June and I wanted to ask if you could re-instate it please? I'm quite happy to provide (in fact it is what I was about to do when I discovered it had disappeared) further information and substantiation. It is also linked from elsewhere in WP...

Thanks

Copydawg (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it and moved it to your userspace here so you can work on it. I don't think it would stay in mainspace in its present form. Cheers. Rodhull andemu 15:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks. Would you mind taking a look and advising again once I've done some changes?

Copydawg (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Give me a message when you've done. Rodhull andemu 17:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HI there. Added some citation and references. Sure lots more will crop up, but for now, could you reinstate properly, or explain to me how to re-name correctly... and reinstate? Thanks. Oh yeah, and also feedback. Most of the links were what turned up in a quick google search, so I could probably find better... and I have a pile of actual physical press copies, but need to go through it for dates etc... Cheers

Copydawg (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]