User talk:Rodhullandemu

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 15 February 2011 (→‎I thought you couldn't care less?: fix indentation. Forget the amoeba until he grows up, please.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Click here to leave me a new message. If you start a new thread here, I'll reply here. Also, please remember to always sign your messages with ~~~~ If this page is currently protected due to excessive nonsense, please post here
Tip of the moment...
Redirects

A redirect is a page that has the sole purpose to automatically redirect readers to a differently named page; to take the reader where they really wanted to go. Redirects allow a topic to have more than one title. Redirects are used for synonyms, abbreviations (initialisms), acronyms, accented terms (diacritics), misspellings, typos, nicknames (pseudonyms), scientific names, etc.

To create a redirect for the term "Oof":

  1. Type Oof in the search box, press ↵ Enter
  2. Click on the redlink for Oof that it presents
  3. In the edit window that appears, type #REDIRECT [[Foo]] on the first line to make it lead to the article Foo
  4. Redirects should be organized in to categories too. Each redirect can have up to seven redirect categories. Categories go on the third line of the redirect. (Note: Plant has a subcategory within the category of scientific name; enter plant after a pipe).

Here are two examples of a redirect category using a category template:

  • {{R from birth name}}
  • {{R from scientific name|plant}}

Preview your new redirect before saving it. Make sure:

  1. There is a big right-facing arrow to the left of the bolded name of your target page name.
  2. That your target page is bolded in blue (if it is red, go back and double check your target name in the edit window).
  3. That your redirect category has rendered properly and that the boilerplate it presents makes sense.
Read more at:
Become a Wikipedia tipster
To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

Gordon Ramsay: Prick of the Year 2008

It's a sad day when backed up fact [1] is replaced by consensus on Wikipedia. 92.20.63.131 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. Rodhullandemu 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence says it all "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"... what would you call GQ????? Oh and the fact people had to actually vote in a poll too... a large sample of the public not reliable?? Gimme a break! 92.20.63.131 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever studied statistics and appreciated the weakness inherent in self-selecting samples? If so, it's not apparent. I'll get back to this on the article's Talk page, where the debate properly belongs. Rodhullandemu 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then find some other awards to counter balance it then... show me what magazine voted him "man of the milliniuem" or "most inspirational man in the world", then mention them with it. If you can't find any that have, then it says it all really doesn't it? 92.20.63.131 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing of Fred Seddon

That's chilling. Do you have any more info that on the image page about how/why/who by that photo was taken? 62.189.161.120 (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; no I haven't, it is uncredited in the book, although obviously a competent photographer, most probably a press photographer. Rodhullandemu 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, not to answer my own question; er, actually, to answer my own question (I am the chap above) ;) - did some googling and according to [2] at least it was by The Mirror and it was these series of photos that led to photographs being prohibited in court. I'll see if I can find out more information in the indefinite future: if I find out more would you like to know? 86.178.52.148 (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be interesting, it would at least establish a better provenance for the image. I look forward to seeing the results of your research. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do - to be clear the time-scale is literally indefinite (will essentially be asking knowledgeable folk as and when I have the opportunity) - so I may be reporting back tomorrow, I may be in two years time. But when I find something I'll let you know. Happy editing! 86.178.52.148 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, further research suggests it's the Daily Mail (and somehow it's far more satisfying to see the Mail being evil than the Mirror... show a century ago wasn't so different) - again, this is super indefinite and certainly won't be in the next couple of months but I may at some point try to get a copy of the Mail from the time that it published it, and we'll see. Anyway been indulging in too much London Pride for the last 4 hours so I'll stop updating you with every google search and await me mate coming over for supper... even if I have to physically sit on my hands! Oh bugger, still rambling, and I have nothing to sign this off with... er... um... well again will reiterate that I'll let ya know once I know! Later. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Clark Five

Could you have a quick look at the ongoing editing war between User talk:Mrdubbing and User talk:216.89.127.48. Both seem to have a compulsive obsession dating back months. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the IP a warning about adding unsourced content; I'll take a look at the other editor. Both are in danger from WP:3RR at this point. Rodhullandemu 20:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frompastarchives.jpg

I got a second opinion on the file - User_talk:Fastily#Free_image_query and was advised to tag the file for deletion. There is another option of explaining how the cover of the From Past Archives CD fits into the Unhalfbricking article. There are other images available of the TOTP appearance - such as [3] - and it might be worth doing a search for one that can be used. Regards SilkTork *YES! 08:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the BBC, as far as I know, have never permitted photography in their studios, any image of FC on TOTP is going to be a copyrighted screencap. The "From Past Archives" CD is an unofficial release in any case, but does have the advantage of being in colour such that the onions round Simon Nicol's(?) neck are more clearly visible, cementing the French nature of the song. This cannot be said of the image linked above. I think a fair-use rationale could be sustained on the grounds of historical significance (a one-off appearance) and irreplaceability. As for criterion 8 mentioned by Fastily, this was not an issue on the last GA review. I may be able to dig out some additional material on the TOTP appearance to sustain that criterion. Leave it with me. Rodhullandemu 16:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Frompastarchives.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop templating me; it's grossly insulting. Rodhullandemu 04:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. Courcelles 04:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

I would like to invite you to consider joining the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, which is looking for experienced Wikipedians to be Online Ambassadors. The role of Online Ambassadors is to be mentors for students who are editing Wikipedia as part of class assignments. I've seen you helping others loads of times and know you would be a good mentor and Ambassador, so please look at the Online Ambassador guidelines and you can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. If you are not able to help personally I'd appreciate suggestions of people who you feel have the right attitude and experience, as the Program is starting this month Thank you Thruxton (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 pints changed back?

I put in new info for two pints of lager and a packet of crisps with and offcial source and it was changed back. I'd like to know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.114.41 (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you copied it word for word from the source; that's a copyright violation. By all means summarise what they say, but using their exact words isn't acceptable here. We are a "free-content" encyclopedia, which means that our words should be original, and if based on other sources, should give appropriate credit, but not to the extent of blind copying. Please see WP:QUOTE for how to deal with the words of others. Hope that helps, and please feel free to ask me for further explanation. Rodhullandemu 01:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Talk:Ricky Gervais#Nationality again

^. Your input would be appreciated there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, will amplify shortly. Rodhullandemu 21:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for undoing the insult that User Channarichan wrote on my Userpage. That person has been attacking me personally and he has been warned by the administrator not to do it anymore but he did not stop. I have reported him again; tired of the immaturity and personal attacks. BTW: How did you find out in order to undo my page ? Cheers. --BobbyCtkr (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on ANI but need to get some sleep, so I will let others deal with this editor for now. Rodhullandemu 02:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computing subject at AFD

I remember from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Placement syntax you said that you had C++ textbooks. Do you have Visual Basic textbooks? Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Looie496/Recall

Hi Rod, thanks for your comments at User:Looie496/Recall. Just letting you know that I've moved your message to the talk page, to keep everything tidy. Thanks for your input, all the best - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why do you consider yourself "not an administrator in good standing"? 28bytes (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because he was blocked[4] just barely over six months ago, which is why SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)'s vote was discounted.[5] It doesn't mean he isn't a good administrator (which he is), it just means he's not "in good standing" to judge the editor. HTH :> Doc talk 06:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since that entry was over 6 months ago, Rodhullandemu would be able to vote. However, it doesn't really matter since Rodhullandemu doesn't appear to support the recall, and the method which Looie has chosen to employ is that only people who agree with the recall need vote. @Rodhullandemu, I've also moved your reply to HJ Mitchell to the talk page, if possible try and keep the discussion there. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected yet again - thanks! I'm still reeling from knowing that WP genres are listed on The Beatles' official website, and just moved up a thread on a whim. Am I the last to find out about this? Cheers ;> Doc talk 06:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the block "felt" more recent than 6 months and a week or two. Time does fly... 28bytes (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re genres... I sometimes wish there was a "g" flag, similar to the bot and minor flags, that editors could select when they change the genres on songs. I have a lot of music watchlisted, and I would love to never see each time assorted editors decided to change something from "pop" to "new wave" to "pop rock" to "rock" back to "pop". 28bytes (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right? The warning templates for it[6] are seldom used compared to the "genre-warring" that takes place every minute around here. And to think a money-making monster like The Beatles could use us as a reference for their product! I'm going to go add a bunch of crap to the genre pages and laugh like a teenager as my non-WP friends look it up on the official Beatles site (totally jus' kidding ;>) Doc talk 06:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Road

Dear Mr Hull and Emu

I am john Kurlander and was the principal assistant engineer on Abbey Road. Alan Parsons was brought in at the end of the project to help us get finished. Tony Banks was not involved. Please accept this as a citation, as i really don't know what more evidence you require? Sincerely John K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.51.249 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don't see that name (or Tony Banks) listed at Allmusic[7] or at The Beatles' official website.[8] But even more frightening than that: the official website lists Wikipedia's information (complete with "genres"). God help us all... Doc talk 05:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pettyfer's Photo

If you have a problem with the photo then you put a new one up cause it needs one and I followed the instructions and put it up the way that wikimedia told me so now you put up a photo the way you think it should be done cause NO ONE wants an picture of a 15 yr old boy when he is 20 and looks nothing like that now. Thank you very much Cvourt (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Photos of living people need to be free of copyright, and yours isn't. Whereas a better and more recent photo would be desirable, it still has to follow the rules on copyright. Make no mistake, there are two legal issues that will threaten the viability of this project: breach of copyright and libel, and it makes perfect sense to err on the side of caution on both of them. Unless, of course, you are personally prepared to issue a disclaimer absolving the Wikimedia Foundation from all and any legal liability in respect of any edits you may make here- but I don't think you can afford to do that, nor have the legal experience to understand exactly why your edits are so threatening. Rodhullandemu 01:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i dont hence the reason im asking you to do it cause apparently you know what your doing, and you are one of the billions of ppl in this world that actually understand the instructions and can follow them properly so since you do can you plz find a photo that can be put up that is more recent thank you Cvourt (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

On Template:Bulletboys [9] (blanking the page and removing links). Warned on talk page (as did another editor). They claimed ownership so I cited WP:OWN in reply. Not much else I can do but revert so bringing it to your attention sir. HrZ (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's done it again. Arjayay (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected for a week due to edit-warring. Rodhullandemu 19:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Jimmy D'Anda. That BulletBoys template in no way adds to the benefit of the page that is about me. There is a link to the BulletBoys page where viewers can go to learn more about the full history of BulletBoys if they so choose, rather than reading history about a band that I left in 1994. I might add that it holds inaccurate information such as the current line up. I don't want it on my page, yet user HrZ seems to be concerned more about his own wikipedia editing prowess than having accurate information in a useful place. January 22, 2011.JDld03 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you feel slighted by your presence in this template, but our mission here is to report facts from a neutral perspective. The template may mention you, but it is not "about" you. If reliable sources cite you as a member of this band, so be it. If the history of the band, as reported by the same sources is accurate, so be it. Meanwhile, if you have contrasting sources, it's up to you to discuss them with other editors either on the talk page of the main article, or that of the template, although the former is to be preferred. Also, reverting to your own preference without discussion, as you have done, IS edit-warring and disruptive. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind being mentioned on this template at all, as a matter of fact I should be. I just do not want the template to be on the page which is solely about me. I think it is better suited under the BulletBoys page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDld03 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at your article, which falls far short of our standards in many ways. On balance I think the Bullet Boys template should remain because at present your former membership is the only thing conferring notability within our criteria for musicians. If it were removed, some other editor could easily nominate that article for deletion, since the Lynch Mob wikilink goes to the wrong page. Some references would also help in preserving the article because it is also at risk of deletion on that account. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 17:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add (directed at User:JDld03). The BulletBoys template is primarily for the the BulletBoys article. When individual articles are created for band members, the template is usually added to that page (as was done by User:TheWeakWilled on Jimmy D'Anda here), the template, though, should not be edited for that individual article, as you were doing. However, I would be willing to update the article (Jimmy D'Anda) to wiki standards if there are enough reliable sources available, also if you have a reliable source for the BulletBoys current lineup, it would be helpful. I would rather the article was accurate (I am not all "concerned more about [my] wikipedia editing prowess") but wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. HrZ (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I have a question regarding how to deal with an IP that continues to change information in a BLP without providing a source. It's not vandalism per se, but I have left templated messages requesting sources and a personalized final warning pointing them to the article talk page to discuss the desired changes, but they continue to simply revert to their unsourced preferred version. Since AIV is not an option, what is the next step when dealing with an IP who refuses to discuss why they keep blanking the info? Note that I searched for sources to support their version but could find none. The typical generic online sources (IMDB, TV.com, movietome etc.) all use the 1973 date.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruptive editing and per WP:BURDEN, it's their responsibility to provide sources for their edits. Good faith can only last for so long, and the time must come when blocking is the only option, per WP:COMPETENCE. Rodhullandemu 23:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a warning in Italian; perhaps that will get the message across. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I have to say it's a bit frustrating as there isn't really a venue for this type of disruption. The typical DR methods only apply when there are editors actually willing to discuss the desired changes. I suppose ANI could be used, but a somewhat WP:LAME matter like this would likely just be drowned out amongst the typical drama and bickering there. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who just will not discuss changes are disruptive, and blockable for that. AIV should be adequate, but ANI will get some attention. Rodhullandemu 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately the Italian did not work either....--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had an idea it wouldn't. Let's see if a 55-hour block concentrates the mind. Rodhullandemu 17:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me again :( The IP date changing bandit from above is back. Could you lock them down for a little longer? Or should I just revert on sight? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for a week. Reverting will just give an opportunity to repeat the edits, so I think we must be preventative here. Rodhullandemu 21:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Bloccato" it is then. As always thank you for the help. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Perry Glasser

Thanks for restoring. If I understand the Talk right, 2 guys with nothing better to do on Xmas Eve who have never edited before who are challenged by typing and spelling and adult diction decided an entry had to go. I appreciate your sanity. Perryglasser (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your article because I thought it qualified within our notability guidelines. That's not to say that the article is perfect, merely that it crosses the threshold. Rodhullandemu 00:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wack Pack for deletion

The article Wack Pack is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wack Pack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USURPATION OF GLADYS KNIGHT'S EMPRESS OF SOUL TITLE

If you look at the history of the Empress of Soul title, you will see that it is very contentious. After much debate and research here on Wikipedia, it was determined that there were "hundreds" of sources for Gladys Knight as the Empress of Soul, including the Society of Singers' official declaration of Gladys as the Empress of Soul, September 10, 2007, on the occasion of presenting her with the 16th Annual Ella Award. Additionally, the references to Gladys as the Empress of Soul are sourced back to the 60's. One off the cuff reference by a partisan of Mary J. Blige does not warrant including her next to Gladys. This is not in keeping with Wiki's standards, and Mary 's name should be removed immediately!!!Comprendo (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Gladys is known THROUGHOUT THE WORLD as the EMPRESS OF SOUL. Check out news accounts in South Africa and Great Britain, Australia, etc. to get an idea of how widespread her renown is. Mary J. Blige doesn't approximate Gladys' being known as the Empress of Soul; and a passing reference is insufficient to allow her to be credited with that title.Comprendo (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article makes abundantly plain, a title may apply to more than one artist. It is not the case that it is given and then uniquely possessed by one artist for all of time, so the idea that a title can be usurped is risible in the extreme. If you disagree, please argue on the Talk page rather than here; that way, other editors may offer their opinions. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not your talk page?Comprendo (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below, and please try to keep the discussion in one place. It makes the thread difficult to follow otherwise. Rodhullandemu 19:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox help

Hi!

I'm trying to add 'infobox football match' to 1986 Football League Cup Final but it doesn't display properly. What am I doing wrong...? --Twentiethil1986 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] Sorry. I hadn't noticed that I didn't close one of the brackets, which made the table not display properly. --Twentiethil1986 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not getting back to you; I had a quick look but couldn't see anything out of kilter. It has to be said that I am not at my best at present; perhaps when I've had some spleep. Rodhullandemu 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USURPATION OF GLADYS KNIGHT'S EMPRESS OF SOUL TITLE

If you look at the history of the Empress of Soul title, you will see that it is very contentious. After much debate and research here on Wikipedia, it was determined that there were "hundreds" of sources for Gladys Knight as the Empress of Soul, including the Society of Singers' official declaration of Gladys as the Empress of Soul, September 10, 2007, on the occasion of presenting her with the 16th Annual Ella Award. Additionally, the references to Gladys as the Empress of Soul are sourced back to the 60's. One off the cuff reference by a partisan of Mary J. Blige does not warrant including her next to Gladys. This is not in keeping with Wiki's standards, and Mary 's name should be removed immediately!!!Comprendo (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Gladys is known THROUGHOUT THE WORLD as the EMPRESS OF SOUL. Check out news accounts in South Africa and Great Britain, Australia, etc. to get an idea of how widespread her renown is. Mary J. Blige doesn't approximate Gladys' being known as the Empress of Soul; and a passing reference is insufficient to allow her to be credited with that title.Comprendo (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted one of the so-called references to Mary J. Blige as such is a general reference to "when it comes to the empresses of soul." This is not even a reference to Mary as the Empress of Soul. I can find hundreds of articles referring to the general "queens of soul." Would you allow that every artist referred to in such a general statement should be listed along with Aretha Franklin as the Queen of Soul? Of course not!! Similarly, Mary J. Blige should not be listed as the Empress of Soul. However, if you persist in leaving Mary J. Blige listed along with Gladys, by your own standard, I can reasonably list every singer referred to as one the queens of soul along with Aretha Franklin. Though I believe that would clearly lower the standard for Wikipedia, I intend to do that as YOU have set such a standard!!!!Comprendo (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop adding repetitious material to my page; it's just a waste of my time. I've already advised you to take this to the Talk page for discussion; please do so. Rodhullandemu 19:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What talk page are you referring to? Is this not your talk page?Comprendo (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page for the article. We work here on the basis of consensus, so it makes sense to let other editors offer their opinions; here is not the best place for that. Rodhullandemu 19:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personal attacks

Please stop your personal attacks on me. I think raising the possibility of "Seriously, Seth, as an an admin, I could block you ..." is over the line. I am aware of your views regarding me. You need not re-iterate them, especially in a context where you raise the possibility of abuse of power. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, seriously, I think you should consider whether your input here is constructive. I don't see it gathering much support, and it may be that some other forum would be more appropriate for you. It's not as if you are short of such venues. The wasp at the picnic is never welcome. Rodhullandemu 04:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Diana, Princess of Wales

An anonymous IP [[10]] has fallen foul of 3RR repeatedly adding the incorrect honorific 'Lady' to her name post divorce. He has ignored a message at his talk page to discuss the topic before making changes and has just gone ahead and changed the articles again. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a 3RR warning, which I have now left, and I'll revert the most recent changes. Cheers, Rodhullandemu 19:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And he ignores you and does it again. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he did revert his edit with a minute, but I am keeping an eye on this. Next time... I see Nancy already got to him. Rodhullandemu 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison sock

Hi Rodhullandemu. As I'm sure that you are aware we have a new sockpuppet editing this article. Last spring our SP master was User:Dmerkurev. This time this 128.54.69.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP is the one that performed the edit change to the Rolling Stone item that has been made by three users using the repeating letters for their username. It geolocates to La Jolla and I think Dmerkurev was based in LA. Of course, in the seven or eight months since D's last spate of socking he could easily have moved (wouldn't it be sad if this was a Professor or a teacher's assistant?) I am reluctant to add the sock tag to this new puppeteer's Userpages until we get more concrete evidence. I know that you are a busy busy admin so I wanted to update you on what a couple of us who have George's page on our watchlist have found. Do you think a short period of page semi-protection might sent this person on their way? Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'd for a week, and I'll see if a rangeblock is feasible. Rodhullandemu 19:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As ever thanks for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 20:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The/the Beatles

Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [11] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

Would you please find some impartial and uninvolved administrators to assist with investigating the problems that violations of WP:OWN by User:Jezhotwells and his small coterie of other editors have caused in Harold Pinter since 25 December 2008? That user is preventing the correction of errors of content and format (some which involve living persons) in the article Harold Pinter. The harassment of other editors caused by continual filings of notices at ANI and other noticeboards in Wikipedia instead of concentrating on the accuracy and reliability of the article with continual reversions contrary to Wikipedia's own WP:MOS and other policies in WP:LOP weakens rather than improves the article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's own guidelines include "Ignore all rules" when doing so improves its content for readers. These problems have gone on far too long, as Jezhotwells continually enlists help from friends among other Wikipedians to maintain control over the article. I do not use e-mail in Wikipedia and cannot call for these kinds of reviews myself. My requests through public Wikipedia space go unheeded and the article (and Wikipedia's readers) suffer. Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, please block 66.66.17.59 as an obvious (beyond obvious) IP of the banned User:NYScholar. He should not be editing. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue singles discography

Hey, I wrote a new lead to that article. Could you read over it here and give me your opinion? I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me, seems to cover all the relevant info and is well-sourced. Rodhullandemu 22:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thank you. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muse

http://board.muse.mu/showthread.php?p=7322857 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroFuturism (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't regard that blog posts are reliable sources unless they are uncontrovertibly posted by the person under discussion; in this case, a third-party post is lamentably inadequate. By all means, find a quote that Howard has himself endorsed this outlet, but otherwise, it cannot stand. Imagine if you were he and finding on reading this article that he is claimed to have endorsed a product that he in fact hasn't. Galling. Rodhullandemu 23:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were supposed to look at the images....it was a bit down, but there have been a few of him wearing three different shirts from the store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroFuturism (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Moore

Could you please place an IP block on this article - it is subject to the usual spoof death claims. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk)

Is it a spoof though?. Has already been mentioned on 5pm BBC radio news and there are several news reports via Google in recent hours (although mainly blogs and Twitter so could be spoof) Next few hours will tell. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC seeming to confirm death [[12]] 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 17:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligence - back in the time of my earlier comment, it appeared to be of a suspicious and dubious source. Of course, the passage of time has sadly proved the information to be accurate. Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not been around for long today but it was the first thing that caught my eye in the news. A sad loss, but the article seems OK now. Rodhullandemu 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help, i have been accused of being a sockpuppet

I noticed you had been involved in blocking another user (known as Waterspaces). I fear another user that i have often disagreed with (Kitchen Knife) has accused me of being the same user. Which i am not. I feel this is a vendetta against me by the above user but regardless of my opinion of this i wondered if you would help in a neutral way. I cannot tell you how infuriated i am with this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody accuses of sockpuppetry without a good reason, and a check will be looked at with fresh eyes by an uninvolved Admin. Your editing behaviour will be compared with the other user and if necessary, your IP address, operating system and browser will be looked at, although such evidence is not always conclusive. If you aren't Waterspaces, you should have nothing to worry about. Rodhullandemu 19:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I am not Waterspaces but it's not the point. I have been accused based on previous disagreements nothing more. Some edits i have today i have made mistakes and acknowledged this by asking for help but i feel this is an opportunist action by Kitchen Knife to get me in to trouble surely this is not right? Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Avril Lavigne

Hi Rod, a user is vandalising this book I created by changing the (universal) format to their apparent liking. I've undid their first edit and rv'd their second one. Can you watch out for this, please? Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been watching it; seems constructive discussion is ongoing. I'm not too up on books, but there's always dispute resolution for content disputes. Rodhullandemu 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lame

I think that was the lamest Reductio ad Hitlerum I have seen in a long time. — Satori Son 14:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh! I think he's outstayed his welcome. Rodhullandemu 14:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By far. Thanks. — Satori Son 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor Request

Hi Rodhullandemu:

I'm a new Wikipedian working with the US Public Policy WikiProject. I am looking for a mentor, and I saw you are available. We have several campus ambassadors to help with things generally, but I would certainly appreciate any help you can provide.

Whenever you have a moment, let me know if you would be willing to be my mentor.

Best Regards,

Gardner.rw1 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mentor?

Hi Rodhullandemu,

My name is Elliot (Goldmund 722) and I'm a graduate student at Indiana University in the midwestern United States. Through my uni I am participating in the 'Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy' project, part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy Initiative, a project aimed at finding better ways to recruit experts and students to help improve Wikipedia content. I'm currently looking for a mentor, and am curious if you would like to mentor me?

Thanks,

Goldmund 722 (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

hello,

please see Talk:2011 Australian Open/GA1. This is no doubt a personal attack. I commented on his talk page but he continued to trolling on my user page. Could you block him, please? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a last warning on his Talk page. Please let me know if he does it again. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is still trolling on my talk page.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your trolling on mine jog on KnowIG (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUCK UK

  • If you get the chance could you have a look at the above, it's being heavily edited by the companies sales manager and I've reverted her a couple of times but don't want to get involved in an edit war at all, but it seems to me that at least some of what she is adding is both promotional and non encyclopaedic? Thanks Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're a star, thanks. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UB40

Rod
There have been a number of recent amendments to UB40, removing criticism of their recent performances, both referenced criticism and those with citations needed dated February 2011. In the last 24 hours I have reverted those of User:80.42.130.175 (4 edits all UB 40) and User:82.10.250.212 (1 edit = UB40) roughly the same edit has now been posted by User:James boles (5 edits Ali Campbell and 2 edits UB40). I am now up against WP:3RR - am I being unreasonable?
Arjayay (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take the view that removing sourced content in an attempt to avoid NPOV is vandalism- it's typical of fans, in my experience. I'd try to take it to the Talk page, but I wouldn't say you're breaching 3RR. I'll keep an eye on this and if necessary, protect the article to prevent edit-warring. Rodhullandemu 17:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting messy. All User:86.138.45.49 did was revert the PoV changes by User:James boles that I was objecting to.
I'll let things settle down for 24 hours. Arjayay (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011



This is the second issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


  • Userboxes and profiles - Add an ambassador userbox to your page, and make sure you've added your mentor profile!
  • Be a coordinating ambassador - Pick and class and make sure no students fall through the cracks.
  • New screencasts - Short videos on watchlists and a number of other topics may be useful to students.
  • Updates from Campus Ambassadors - Ambassadors are starting to report on classroom experiences, both on-wiki and on the Google Group.
  • Other news - There's a new on-wiki application for being an Online Ambassador, and Editing Friday #2 is today!
  • Things you can do - This is just a sample; if you're eager for something to do, there's plenty more.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's a wonderful life

A new admin getting their user page vandalized is like an angel getting it's wings...thanks for the block. I think I managed to track down the rest of their sock accounts (they weren't terribly imaginative), but we'll see. Cheers,--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression this wasn't a brand new editor by the way he carefully crafted his abuse in the sandbox. But if you aren't pissing off the vandals, you aren't doing the job properly! Cheers. Rodhullandemu 23:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you couldn't care less?

If you really couldn't care less,[13] then why are you still edit warring? Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do care when people purport to use unreliable sources to represent a false and unjustifiable position. That's not what I came here to do. And discussion isn't edit-warring. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, remember? However, if you disagree, try dispute resolution, starting with a third opinion. If you don't, I shall. Rodhullandemu 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about; seems to be becoming a habit with you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA. Don't push it, for one day, you will surely push it one step too far. Meanwhile, step away from me, the person, and deal properly with my substantive arguments. Although we have a past here, that's what a professional attitude requires here. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you already have pushed it too far, and did so some time ago, but you survive because you are (at least for now) an administrator. I will be very happy to leave you alone, as I can't bear to have anything to do with you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this relief, much thanks. It's mutual, but I am currently editing Clown as an editor, not as an Admin. I may have made mistakes as an Admin, true, but I am as human as the next man. I shudder to think who is the next man, but I do not count it as you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I don't consider Malleus human, either... HalfShadow 03:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; it helps sometimes to know you are not alone. Rodhullandemu 03:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, yes. Originally I was going to state that I considered you some form of insect, possibly a cockroach, and that I might be tempted to go so high as one of the lower form of rodent, but I felt that might be considered rude. HalfShadow 23:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really do make assuming good faith extraordinarily difficult. See your own Talk page. If you really can't move on from that, sorry, not my fault, but it's not just me. Have you a mirror? Rodhullandemu 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

marking mentees' userpages

Hey RH&E! This is just a quick reminder: please be sure to add {{WAP student}} (for an example, see User:Sfofana) the user pages of your mentees. And once they are working on articles, be sure to tag the talk pages with {{WAP assignment}}. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and  Doing.... Rodhullandemu 19:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were too quick

Hi Rod. I noticed that you blocked today's version of our prolific sock puppeteer. S/he has also been here as User:Hrthrthrthrt, User:Tyutyutuyty, and User:Eqleqewqwe in the last couple of weeks. I don't know if it is worth blocking them since they only get used once and then a new username is created but I thought you might like to have all of the names in one place for convenience. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Probably easiest just to play whack-a-mole as they appear. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael

Hi Rod, I don't think you rv'd far enough down??? Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. Rodhullandemu 21:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and Happy Valentine's Day! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu&oldid=414153480"