User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/35

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


The Shirelles[edit]

Hi Rod, a user named Rothorpe has vandalised this article by the means of lower-casing the 'T' in 'The' for 'the Chantels' group name, when in fact their group name really is 'The Chantels' (and I have personally seen a copy of this written contract, as I'm a witness of proof), so if you could be on the look-out for any future possible vandalisms of this sort, much would be appreciated. Also, this user has not provided a source for their reasoning as to waht I've already had. Best, --Discographer (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up...[edit]

I have allowed User:Timmy Polo to edit his talkpage. You probably haven't seen the discussion at User talk:Physics Honors, but I'm laying out a blanket of AGF for a bit ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have now. It's the usual story, but I suppose he should be given a chance to make a case. Rodhullandemu 19:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harvey Oswald[edit]

You appeared to be invollved in an edit war in the article Lee Harvey Oswald. It did not look to me like the user was vandalizing the page so try to talk it out with him. Oh, and sorry for templating you.Spitfire19 (Talk) 00:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to him to justify his edits, which were blatantly non-neutral ("allegedly"). I suggest you advise the IP to seek consensus for his (unsourced) additions on the Talk page. The process is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Repeat. You'll also note that I gave the IP a full explanation that his edits were against existing consensus. Rodhullandemu 14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy?[edit]

Hi Rod.

Gary L. Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What can we do about this BLP, at least I think he is still alive, poorly cited stub of a barely notable person. Along comes an IP and starts adding big section of legal issues, edit summary that some org asked him to, revert and semi protect. After a search legal content was copy vio and I tagged as such, all content is tagged but it could likely be stubbed back with a single citation. imo it is good for a speedy delete but under what process I don't know. If you get a min have a quick look and let me know how to proceed. Article was mentioned at the BLPN recently. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Gone. Even without the copyvios, it failed to meet the recent requirement for at least one reliable source to establish notability. Rodhullandemu 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, appreciated Rod. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:203.89.172.251[edit]

Has this user exceeded his welcome yet ? Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see no recent useful edits, so anon-blocked for three months. Rodhullandemu 22:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010[edit]

Sandy Denny[edit]

Hi, Sorry to cause any problems. A bit new to this: I'm working for Sandy Denny's estate and was asked to amend the page. Anything I can do, let me know. best Greenslade32 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I'm fixing it now. No sleep for me tonight! Rodhullandemu 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does seem strange to me that we cant use Sandys album covers in a page describing her career- that mentions in detail those albums! I think its important to at least show the cover of the 'Sandy' lp so if its a question of numbers I'd rather delete one of the other covers. I work for Sandys estate and Universal, so have complete authority to change this page. I am compiling and mixing a 19 cd complete collection of Sandys work due for release in the second week of september and am also developing an official website. Greenslade32 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This arises because we set out the be a "free" encyclopedia- that's free of copyright, not free to read. In being such, it is obviously unavoidable that occasionally copyrighted material is the only material available to satisfy some purpose- and the legal bods have decreed these limitations.

If you can get Island Records or Hannibal Records to release these images free of copyright, fine, but as long as there is a market out there for Sandy's work, I doubt it will happen. I'm sure you will have encountered similar licensing issues in the compilation you are currently working on. Meanwhile, you should take a look at this guideline, lest your enthusiasm carry you away. Cheers. (PS, I've just had to sell my 1985 WKWTTG? vinyl box set, so I look forward to your new compilation) Rodhullandemu 22:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I've deleted the Where the time goes lp cover, and would like to re-instate Rendezvous- happy to delete Unhalbricking as a compromise. As the page is 'Sandy Denny' i think its more important to have her solo albums represented, and the Rendezvous album is discussed in some detail so technically more relevant. Greenslade32 (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work either; use of the image has to be necessary in a way that words could not replace. OK on an article about the album, where the sleeve artowrk is an integral part of the package but not elsewhere. Rodhullandemu 22:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you have now deleted the album covers from this article. I did not upload the images. My recent contribution to the article was to make minor corrections to the text. The images were uploaded by another contributor some days ago (evidently after discussion with you), so why have you now chosen to delete them?Gildasderhuys (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they do not meet our requirements, which are intentionally more strict than US "fair-use" law, for copyrighted images. In particular, they are not discussed in the article, only mentioned; they fail the "minimal usage" test because they are already used in the articles for each album; they lack fair-use rationales for the Sandy Denny article, and appear to be being used for decoration rather than within those guidelines. Overall, they cannot be allowed to remain in that article although they are fine in the articles for each album, because their use there does have rationales, which are specifically allowed for album covers, but only in an article about the album, not the artist. Rodhullandemu 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I re-uploaded those images because they had been uploaded with different titles, causing a duplication which took me quite some time to sort out, and I have better things to do with my time. Rodhullandemu 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I am not questioning the policy on copyrighted images as such. I am questioning the consistency with which you have applied it in this case. From comparing previous versions of the page, it appears that the cover images were uploaded after negotiations between yourself and Greenslade32 on 4 May. That means they have been there for three weeks with no apparent problem. Now, when another contributor edits they page, they suddenly become "decorative".Gildasderhuys (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because vandalism doesn't stop, and I am very busy with other stuff. Occasionally, things that should be done don't get done because of this pressure. Your edits to Sandy Denny popped the article to the top of my watchlist, and reminded me. Sorry, but there is only one of me. The article needs some rewriting anyway, since it could easily be a Featured Article, as its counterpart on the Italian Wikipedia. Rodhullandemu 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wiki Historian N OH[edit]

After several days of snarky comments on his talk page, Wiki Historian N OH came back today to the Marysville, Ohio page and continued his WP:OWNing of the page. Wiki Historian N OH was previously blocked from the page for 3RR violations, edit warring and putting an inappropirate banner on the page on April 25. Today, templates were removed, sections deleted, just all around BS. I reverted and warned the user with a Warn4IM template as his edits were clearly disruptive. I attempted to bring this to the blocking admin and an admin posting on the talk page, but both are offline, so since you are online, I thought I would bring this to your attention and ask what should be done. This is clearly an editor who isn't responding to requests to comment on his talk page and feels that he OWNs the Marysville, Ohio page and has no problem with his disruptive edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left a stern warning and what amounts to a 1RR restriction. I've watchlisted the article. Rodhullandemu 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you, Sir for your help. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Feelgood[edit]

Could you take a look at something for me. The template at the bottom of this band's article (and elsewhere, obviously) refuses to allow editing stating "Wikipedia does not have a template with this exact title". I think the problem may be that the name of the article changed fairly recently from Dr. Feelgood (band) to simply Dr. Feelgood. Can you fix the bugger ? Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, although I don't see how the DAB'd template was necessarily linked to the article. DumbBOT should fix any remaining broken links in a day or so. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Vega birthdate[edit]

Hi. Could you take a(nother) look over at Talk:Alan Vega. While there are many conflicting sources, all seem to boil down to the 'official' biography versus the label. The question is, should we have a conflicted fact in the article? Wouldn't be a prob but we've got a hot-under-the-collar newbie who needs gentle handling. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, please! Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this one slipped under the net somehow. The problem is that the sources are so far apart, even in a much-hyped industry. I think the best way forward is to say something like "Vega states he was born in X whereas other sources claim Y". This is the way it's been handled on Jimmy Wales after much pain. There's no admin input needed here, but you might want to ask on the reliable sources noticeboard, because they deal with this sort of thing all the time. Rodhullandemu 19:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson[edit]

Sorry about that. I was using wikipedia to illustrate how information on the internet can be unreliable to my Year 6 Primary School class, because anyone can write anything. I had intended to change it back ASAP. If its any consollation, I think I got the point accross.--Crestville (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're lucky I didn't think your account had been compromised and blocked you; but at least you have shown your class that vandalism doesn't pay! Rodhullandemu 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have taken the blocking just to prove the point. That's how dedicated I am to education!--Crestville (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monnette Sudler[edit]

Godamn it! Let me get the article done THEN jump on it. Grrr!!! Cheers. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm ready. Let 'er rip! :-)--Phyllis1753 (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cooled off, now. I'd never heard of her until last night when the jazz radio I listen to had an interview with her and played some of her work. I was impressed. She plays in a hard bop genre but she has her own sound. So many women jazzers tend to be derivative but Sudler seems unique. Cool, sez moi! Unhappily, once you filter out the website peacock goo, there isn't much "encyclopedic" to go with. Hopefully someone else will work on it. How you doin'? Cheers. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Aloud[edit]

Hello - what on Earth are you doing there..? Checkout the Popstars article... there was earlier vandalism you keep reverting! Stephenb (Talk) 19:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find a decent version to revert to. It's now fixed. Rodhullandemu 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not easy, I agree! I've fixed it all now... Stephenb (Talk) 19:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor returns (nasty party)[edit]

Hi Rod. Just a note:- Nasty party creator is back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Harriet_Harperson blocked indefinitely by Spartaz after a discussion at ANI for username violation Harriet_Harperson and now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Harperson123 back as Harperson123, editor is continuing along the same road. I'll keep the editor on my watchlist and see how it goes. This is him continuing along with the new account at the same place in the same way http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Thatcherism&action=history Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Frum pointless reversion of constructive edit[edit]

Kindly stop reverting my edit. I made a pasting mistake and corrected it. Please see message on my talk page. There was absolutely no reason for you to decide my correction was vandalism. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well somehow, a second reversion of the my edit appeared briefly my screen but it has now disappeared. So problem solved. 209.44.123.1 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.26.160.93[edit]

Hey Rodhullandemu, I saw you left a message for User:86.26.160.93 re external links. Their contribution history seems to show they're adding the same link to many, many television series articles. Do you know if there's a place this is meant to be reported, some sort of spam / linkrot task force? Would that be appropriate? Thanks! — Pretzels Hii! 20:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a final warning. Although this is apparently a legitimate hosting site, it is nonetheless funded by advertising, which is against our guidelines. If you see it again, please let me know. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 21:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Baxendale Walker[edit]

Can you please tell me why you keep editing this page?

The information I have added is accurate and is backed up by links to websites confirming such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.236.192 (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. I've checked out all linked websites that are supposed to confirm this. Some mention Chaplin, and some mention Baxendale-Walker. Neither mentions both, so we can't assume a link. Please see WP:BLP for reasons why we cannot accept this sort of thing here. Rodhullandemu 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

accusation[edit]

First of all you need to read before throwing around accusation. I say it is possible that you and the other names i mentioned (may} be the same person based on the trend that was seen developing on the Michael Jackson editing page. You need to read before throwing around accusations, maybe you are blind,you just need glasses. Knighttrain (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SockPuppetry Accusations[edit]

The user accusing you of sockpuppetry has been canvassing other editors. He told me 2 or 3, but I see 5 in his edit history. He also deleted my canvassing caution. Just in case you need evidence... --N419BH (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I see jokers here on a daily if not hourly, basis. He's already on thin ice here. Rodhullandemu 23:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've come to that conclusion as well. Does make for some interesting diffs on huggle... --N419BH (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_on_Larry_Sanger —Dark 02:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review[edit]

Hi Rodhullandemu, tonight you blocked the editor with no specifics given. May I please ask you to review the policy:Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked (Highlighted by me). Please, if you are ever again to block an editor, provide "a clear and specific block reason". Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be, Mbz1. This isn't helpful. —Dark 08:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DarkFalls wrote: "This isn't helpful."
Translation: I just don't like it, ie When faced with an incontrovertible fact use an emotional response to counter it. Never an impressive reply that, is it? 173.52.182.160 (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I didn't impress you. I wasn't aware I hired a translator though, funny that. Well, since you presented the translation, care to elaborate on my thought of this issue? —Dark 12:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DarkFalls wrote: "I wasn't aware I hired a translator".
Hired? Don't be silly. WP editing is volunteer editing. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodhullandemu. I'd really like to hear your explanation for this incident. The only warning you provided to the editor can't be described as anything but a personal attack, and I have serious concerns about any admin who takes a "you're either with us or against us" mentality. From my vantage point it looks political and petty. Rvcx (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You're either with us or against us" is totally at odds with what Wikipedia's values should be, and an appalling statement from an administrator. You make us look ridiculous. the wub "?!" 12:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy (Sandy Denny album)[edit]

Hi Rod; I don't suppose you've got Sandy (Sandy Denny album) on vinyl? The side one/side two headings are missing, but my copy is CD. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I've still got it. I'll try and dig it out. Rodhullandemu 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Dem yellow[edit]

I'll trust you on that then. I don't know whether the official yellow applies to the Lib Dems as it did to the Alliance any longer though. It would probably be best to be simple about it. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that can be nabbed by examination of the pdfs at http://libdems.org.uk/posters.aspx or possibly the scripts at http://libdems.org.uk/For_Your_Website.aspx - one of these might have the colour information in some usable form. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well I took the joint parties from the Alliance into the LibDems, and the material related to the colour for the new party. I've got photos of the launch at the Barbican somewhere, and you can clearly see the new colour, since it's all over the show! I'll try to get hold of a source, however. Rodhullandemu 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well it's official then. I was going to say that they probably use darker yellows to distinguish themselves from the SNP in Scotland for example, but based upon that guide it definitely warrants specific inclusion. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helpfully they also give VDU colour values; red 253 green 187 blue 48 comes out as #FDBB30. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I used for the colourbox above; since we now agree on this, I'll add it back to the article. Rodhullandemu 21:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you may need to amend {{Liberal Democrats/meta/color}} too. I can't, it's protected --Redrose64 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I see you've had previous interaction with User:Wiki Historian N OH so I thought I'd let you know I've blocked him for a week and revoked his talk page access after he used it to attack other editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He failed to take my advice. Can't disagree with the block. Rodhullandemu 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle[edit]

Hi,
just talkbacking you with regards to WT:Twinkle#Error message, not sure if you noticed the reply.
Cheers, Amalthea 15:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New essay[edit]

You may find the following essay interesting: Wikipedia:You're either with us or against us. *** Crotalus *** 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terse and to the point. Rodhullandemu 19:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User::NatDemUK[edit]

I think it may be a joke, but this is pretty much over the top - especially given your warning. --Snowded TALK 20:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and blocked for a week. Rodhullandemu 20:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fast action appreciated --Snowded TALK 20:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for someone to block...[edit]

... you can block me for the next month or so. I'm pretty sure that in the disciplinary world of Wikipedia, even my offline screwups, completely unrelated to Wikipedia, merit a block. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't do self-requested blocks. Try User:LessHeard vanU, who advertises this service. Rodhullandemu 14:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010[edit]

Just to let you know...[edit]

... BBC are confirmed Clegg as deputy PM [1]. Good work on the protection up to this point though! raseaCtalk to me 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expressed an opinion on Talk:Nick Clegg on that source. The early editions of the RS press will be online within an hour or so. Rodhullandemu 22:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw, thanks. I just grabbed the first link i came across but it's popping up everywhere now so it's probably worth adding it into the article. Maybe leave protected until tomorrow morning though, just to be on the safe side? raseaCtalk to me 22:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clegg[edit]

Hi, could you action those templates on the talkpage (editrequest, not done) it would be good, I couldn't find how to do it yet. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once the proper, sourced, content has been added, I'll close them. As a tip, all you need to do is add "tlx|" to the beginning of the EditRequest template. Rodhullandemu 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod, and for the tip. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of David Miliband[edit]

Hullo Rod, I just went to this article only to find I couldn't edit it. I checked the history and it seems you protected it for a week after there were a handful of bad edits a few days ago. Any chance you would knock it down to time served? Now that Miliband is standing for the Labour Party leadership there's going to be a lot of coverage of him and the article will need to be updated. Cheers, 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Not sure that's a good idea, since recent events have been reflected in all UK political party articles, and not always to the benefit of the encyclopedia. I'll give it a try, but if vandalism recurs, it will be locked again. Rodhullandemu 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very reasonable of you (fwiw I've been knocking about the election articles and much of the work is being done by IPs and is mostly constructive). 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi there. I've recieved your message about the Eva Longoria Parker image I uploaded. How do I post the link of the source, where I got the image from?

Thank you, Manar —Preceding unsigned comment added by DesperateManar (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the image page itself, but if you got it somewhere on the Internet, chances are it's not a free image that can be used here. Images of living people must in almost all circumstances be free of copyright. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWB[edit]

Im so sorry! I'm so used to being auto logged in. Whoops! - Fumitol (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look at it now. Rodhullandemu 22:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Sir.-Fumitol (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We aim to please. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

semi prot[edit]

Hi Rod, would you semi this article Maurice Strong for a few days, some guy called Glenn Beck has mentioned him and multiple ip are vandalising, I have made a request at page protection but it is presently appearing to be unmanned. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rod, seems like this Glenn Beck guy sent the attack party.(all a bit out of my knowledge field) Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Let them sort it out in Talk rather than editwar the article. Rodhullandemu 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong end of the stick![edit]

[2] suggest you read that thread again - carefully!  Giano  22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me. Intricate detail at this time of night/morning is tricky while I'm trying to wind down. If I've misrepresented you, please let me know; but your reputation, whatever it may be, does precede you. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means you said "Giano" in that link when you meant to say "Matt57". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I've misattributed, I apologise, but the post I saw was unsigned. I'll fix that now. Rodhullandemu 23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor glitch for awareness/fixing[edit]

Just happened to notice this glitch—it seems something weird happened on the save or something, and what was intended to just be the addition of a signature has duplicated a load of comment text within another comment in a different section. I would undo it for you, but I thought you might prefer it if others don't fiddle with your talk page edits! PL290 (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out- at 2:38 a.m. I tend to get a tad tired. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:BellmerPoupee.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BellmerPoupee.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 FUR added Rodhullandemu 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I once had trouble with a Bellmer Poupee, but the local laundromat quickly solved the problem.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're dry-clean only, otherwise the joints tend to creak. Rodhullandemu 22:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Merrill[edit]

Hi, While Alan Vega seems to be settling down, I, who have always led a peaceful life, am in yet another situation - this time over at Alan Merrill. I originally did some clean up after Aurorock had added that he played with The Arrows to the opening para [3] - which includes a list of non-notable bands he played with in the 60s. Didn't seem to fit. So I created a lead section, and moved the other info to an "Early life" section. [4]. Since there were no references whatsoever I added a 'references' tag. Nothing too controversial one would think. You can see for yourself the result. Today I received private mail from the article's subject suggesting I devote my energies elsewhere, citing complaints from a third party who 'wrote' the article. I guess I'll back off and, as soon as I have time, start digging for refs. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To- Wwwhatsup and Rodhullandemu: Sorry for causing any confusion. I write website biographies (including the bio on the official Alan Merrill website) but I know little about Wikipedia etiquette. I didn't understand that an article "lead" can contain information which may later be repeated on the same page. Seemed redundant to me so I deleted it. Didn't know it was the norm. My error. Thanks for your patience. Your help and teamwork are much appreciated.

Thank you- Vanwalker (talk) May 14, 2010—Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A very undiscussed page move[edit]

Hi Rod. Sorry to bother you, but an editor who stretches my AGF has blanked Rock DJ and then moved it (without discussion) to Empty Page. Because they subsequently blanked the ensuing redirect, I can't revert. Could you do it, or must I walk the long, slow road through requested moves? Favonian (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, subsequent actions by Aliw136 (talk · contribs) seem to indicate that it's a very inelegant renaming they had in mind. Would try to communicate, but messages tend to get blanked from the user talk page. Favonian (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, it seems to have been fixed, but I'll make sure it's all OK. Rodhullandemu 21:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it has. There are so many variations on the theme of "Rock DJ" floating around, that it's getting rather confusing. Maybe I should just go to bed. Thanks for your help! Favonian (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see only two possibilities and little need for a DAB page since this could be dealt with by hatnotes, but I don't want to tackle sorting it out at this time of the evening! Rodhullandemu 21:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good Evening, sorry about Rock DJ, things got a little out of hand when something went wrong but I've put it right now I think. And if one of you was poking round an article called Roundway, Devizes, it's been moved their because its a suburb of Devizes, not a village near it, similar to Wick, Devizes. --aliw136 21:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Wick does need disambiguating, but Roundway doesn't, per article naming conventions. Rodhullandemu 21:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in any event disambiguation of UK placenames is by <placename>,<county> except when that would be insufficiently precise. Rodhullandemu 22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

Rod, Why don’t you put those {archivetop}/{archivebottom} tags on the sweet-talk RfC? Greg L (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? It's a whole page, isn't it?Rodhullandemu 01:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for closing it down, Rodhullandemu - appreciated.  Chzz  ►  02:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sir Henry Firebrace[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC nomination of Harry Potter[edit]

Just to let you know, I have nominated Harry Potter to be a featured article. Since I saw you were one of the major editors, I wanted to let you know. Thanks.--Guy546(Talk) 05:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disruptive IP[edit]

This IP: Special:Contributions/174.49.185.84. I asked another admin to take a look at it here, but he thought it was best if another admin dealt with it, so any chance you can take a look? The user has been issued several warnings (even 2 final warnings) and he's just not listening. He pretty much keeps adding irrelevant information to articles, such as [5], [6], [7], [8] etc. Thanks. Nymf hideliho! 17:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon-blocked for a week; let's see if that gets the message across. Rodhullandemu 17:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

Hi Rod, I'm hoping you can help me out here with an apparently very young editor. Anna2123456789 has created a number of non-notable biographies of individuals and characters related to the Tracy Beaker Returns series. Many of these have been deleted or redirected as non-notable. The problem is that this editor is undoing the redirects and continues to add unsourced trivial information to the articles that have been removed (such as [9] here). Her talk page is littered with requests (many from me) pointing her to our WP:RS policies, but she has not responded to any of the requests or queries. I'm at my wits end trying to explain things to her in a polite manner and her insistance on reverting articles to her chosen format (i.e. unsourced or against concensus) has become disruptive. Is it possible to have this account blocked? --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a year, but her edits are good-faith, just incompetent and she needs to take some time to get used to the way we do things. Hence the block for a month. If she shows willingness to learn some lessons and ask people, this could be reduced. Rodhullandemu 19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. If she had shown the slightest inclination of wanting to learn or become a better editor I would have been happy to help; however WP:COMPETENCE was certainly an issue. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from above) Take 2: Anna is back editing the same articles under IP 62.31.196.31 and is showing the exact pattern that got her blocked in the first place (undoing redirects, adding unsourced trivia etc to Tracy Beaker articles). Is it possible to have the IP blocked? This is growing quite tiresome... --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked into touch for two weeks. It's a static IP & clearly the same editor. Rodhullandemu 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers again, you just bought me two weeks of sanity. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 00:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block on 72.251.191.216[edit]

You think that block is a tad on the light side (i.e. 24-hour softblock)? –MuZemike 01:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have blocked for longer on the basis of the history, but you'd be better raising this with the blocking admin, since he presumably has his reasons. Rodhullandemu 01:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock![edit]

Hi, man. Few of them was blocked by other admins in the mean time, so you can now this one:

For example see (this extraordinary words of him).

For more, i am here, of course. Be good! :) --Tadijaspeaks 15:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Sorry to steel your glory, Rod, but I've blocked him because  Looks like a duck to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is always a duck. And he is here ones a week. :( That why i just notice Rod. There are simply no need for SPI. Thanks, anyway, both of you! :) --Tadijaspeaks 16:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Items[edit]

First thanks for getting the Cfd going, and for informing the editor involved, regarding the Criterion Collection category. I was on my way to do both after posting a message on the filmprojects talk page and found that you had already got there. Thanks again. Second the current edits on the George Harrison page look to be our returning sock that I previously mentioned here [10]. I noticed that things got a little frustrating for you here in the last couple of weeks and I just want to reiterate my thanks for all that you do and hang in there. MarnetteD | Talk 21:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks. Rodhullandemu 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)r[reply]
Thanks for the update. I noticed that FisherQueen was adding the sock tag to the ever increasing number of sock editor pages. As you note this editor may not go away for awhile, fortunately, there are many editors who have Harrison's page on their watchlist so it is in good hands. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cash[edit]

I am only editing this for a school project...I am only trying to reference my work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msfetters (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then to do so, the best way of proceeding is to find out how things are done here perhaps by looking at other articles, and then using that experience to improve this article. However, as an example, it's not the best to choose. However, you are learning two things at once and for free, so it'll be of great benefit to you in the long run. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to getting some sleep. Eventually. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010[edit]

Assistance required for user in violation of Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy[edit]

Hi Rod. Be grateful if you could assist in the speedy resolution and removal of an image on the Alexander Graham Bell article, where there is the straighforward breach of two wikipedia policies by the user Gwillhickers over the use of a disproportionate commemorative image. National bias -- Firstly it (two US stamps) is a repetitive commemoration...which is where i called for balance and proportional representation to avoid breach of WP:NPOV... (ie.a commerorative image each from Scotland, Canada and US). Secondly the commemorative stamp is relevant to the legacy/honors section (where one already is placed) which meets the image WP:MOS, not where the recent extra one is placed. It is both a disproportionate commemorative image, and also out of place. In talk the user Bzuk has mentioned this. Be grateful if you could bring this to a conclusion Rod.Gold coast surf (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem, but it's not something as an editor I can spare time for right now nor as an admin do anything, since it is currently a content dispute. It seems to have quietened down for now, and maybe the editor won't push it, but if he does, I'd point you at dispute resolution, maybe starting with a third opinion. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

I am new to editing but have been reading wikipedia for many years. I have nominated this article for deletion because as an essayist I am appalled at the poor referencing. Two of the references are the person's own MySpace page. One is a video that does not contain the person and one is a video used to make a claim about Lion's Gate Studios but does not mention it. I need help because there is an experienced editor who has blindly ignored what I feel are valid point. Cheers. Bunzo1984 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much I can do here, since I'm not qualified to comment on the subject matter; the AfD will last for 7 days, but if the article is improved in the meantime, it may well be kept. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhullandemu 14:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not blind, Bunzo, I am trying to respond on your points. But as Rodhull notes, the AfD is seven days long and that provides time for article improvement and other editor input. I'm just one opinion. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Martin Personal Edit[edit]

Thanks for accepting my edits. When following the referenced links, of which the Rolling Stones article is not available yet held as most prominent, it appeared Martins views were quote-mined to reflect a particular bias, instead of easily including all of his quotes, which undoubtedly leave the reader with a different impression. Thanks again for your fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckstephenh (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Rarara1111[edit]

Hi again. Based on edits made today [11] it looks like Rarara1111 may be trying to get enough edits under its belt to edit on the page again. I have very little experience with SSP cases so since the original sockpuppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmerkurev/Archive has been archived are we supposed to open a new one? For your info I am also posting this on FisherQueens page just to keep you both in the loop. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can start a new SPI on the same page; the archive is only for those which have been dealt with, to avoid clutter. I doubt a CU would work because DMerkurev's records are likely too old, but worth a try per WP:DUCK. Rodhullandemu 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Looks like FisherQueen has already blocked this sock. She is quick. Have a great weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 21:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victory of the Daleks edit deletion?[edit]

I dont understand why you say I am adding "original research"... and as far as a "reliable source".. I can only tell you to watch the shows and see for yourselves the facts.

Seeker211 (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we see the serial number of the pistol in both episodes, such that we can be certain that it is the same weapon? I doubt it. Even so, it's a prop, and to draw the conclusion that it is the same weapon is original research. Thousands of such service revolvers were issued in World War II; my father had one. Let's not get unreal here. Rodhullandemu 23:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ahh.. it's how I phrased it and gave my opinion that it is THE EXACT same revolver.. for the story, that is unknown.. but as far as the prop itself, it most likely is the same prop used in both episodes.

So I take it if I simply point out that it appears to be the same model pistol in both episodes, that would not be considered "original research"?

Seeker211 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One such revolver looks much like another, and when Doctor Who alights in a particular historical period, it is inevitable that props will be re-used for authenticity. So pointing out that the gun "appears" to be the same is not only original research, but also, to my mind, somewhat pointless. This is a great example of what we should be trying to avoid; however, if a reliable source confirms that it's the same gun, and for a reason other than mere production convenience, fine. But I don't see its importance otherwise. Rodhullandemu 23:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


You come across sounding pretty rigid. Some people like to hear about and watch for the novelties of reused props.. or the possibility of a link for a future episode. There are many Continuity statements made on other Doctor Who episode WP's regarding props.. yet you seem to be adamant to not let my edit stay no matter how I word it. The fact that you have stated, "So pointing out that the gun "appears" to be the same is not only original research, but also, to my mind, somewhat pointless.", seems to tell me your opinion, or should I say your very own "original research", is getting in the way of allowing the edit to be in place. This initial experience and policing of an edit has left a very bad taste in my mouth.. that's for sure. I dont think I will bother to contribute to WP in the future thanks to the rigidity of biased opinions policing edits here.. ...some people do like to see if props are used over and over again and find humor in it.. such as This

Seeker211 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel disappointed, but this is an encyclopedia, and our basic principles are set out here. We are not publishers of original thought, and rely almost entirely on secondary sources. Of course, it's always open to those who see things in television programmes that others have missed to make this known on other websites, but sorry, this is not one of them. Whereas we are always open to good-faith additions to our project, there have to be limits, which is why we must insist on sourced edits. Perhaps if you stick around a while, you'll get a feel for this, particularly if you look at Talk:Doctor Who to see some of the discussions that happen. It may not be easy, but our principles are not based on anything being "easy", otherwise we'd tolerate any old nonsense posted here, and would very quickly lose any credibility; however, in approaching ten years of existence, we have become more popular, not less. Read into that what you will. Cheers, and my opinion is based on experience here of what is acceptable but you are free to raise the issue on the Talk page linked above. Rodhullandemu 00:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Richard[edit]

I've learnt my lesson. I'm not going to mess with people. However Cliff Richard seems out of control. See my comments on the talk page. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it under control by removing the section on the basis of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V, and fully protecting it for a week in the first instance. Editors who wish to have this content included are free to discuss on the Talk page. Thanks for letting me know. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this. I do have two minor edits to suggest, under Cliff Richard#Personal Life:
  • For some time there has been speculation about his sexuality in the media, and in response to rumours about being homosexual, Richard has said: "I am sick to death of the media’s speculation about it.
Should read:
  • For some time there has been speculation about his sexuality in the media, and in response to rumours about being homosexual, Richard has said: "I am sick to death of the media’s speculation about it".
and:
  • Richard has called on the Church of England should affirm people's commitment in same-sex marriage.
Should read:
  • Richard has called on the Church of England to affirm people's commitment in same-sex marriage.
Thanks. Mish (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Do92[edit]

I'm somewhere around 90% sure this is Chace Watson again, especially given the copyright violation I had to remove at Justin Martin (actor).—Kww(talk) 18:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen his edits, and am not sure. For one thing, he's not making the same ludicrous edits, and he seems to be able to string English together. We could leave it or start an WP:SPI, but Chace Watson and his socks have a dynamic Iranian IP address which perhaps wouldn't be conclusive. I'm prepared to wait until there is more concrete evidence. Hopefully, not for too long. Rodhullandemu 18:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't take long. The combination of Farsi edits, edits to Tokio Hotel, fake Babel boxes on his userpage (first version), and parallel misbehaviour on Commons was enough for me. I blocked him.—Kww(talk) 13:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; you got to him before I did. Rodhullandemu 16:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More bad images[edit]

More recently bad images used for vandalism include: File:scrotum boy.jpg, and Image:scrotum piercing.jpg. Thank you for your help  – Tommy2010 02:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that use of these images should be limited, but could you give links to the vandalism? Thanks. Rodhullandemu 02:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rod, im really sorry for the late reply. Here are some of the links: here and here as well as here. IPs and a VOA —Tommy2010 03:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rodhullandemu 17:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010[edit]

Fairport timeline[edit]

Nice work. I was thinking of getting around to something like this that could be easily edited, but didn't think of having different colours for different instruments. I look forward to seeing the final version. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.--SabreBD (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The format & colours need some tweaking, but I'm working on it. Rodhullandemu 21:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism only account[edit]

Cast your eyes over this chap's activities [12] 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Rodhullandemu 15:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/35&oldid=1091535704"