User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/18

Round 2 - Potentially a much more serious issue

OK, the latest story is, Jackson has a rare lung condition, is near blind in one eye and on the verge of death. Again, one newspaper is reporting it and other sources are reporting on the primary sources claim. Jackson's people have not commented. This could be another nightmare in the waiting. — Realist² 17:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just what we need in the run-up to Christmas! Business as usual, we wait for a reliable source, i.e. Jackson's people. I'll keep an eye on it. --Rodhull andemu 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite the Sun this time, it's coming from someone who used to work for Rolling Stone. He's writing a book on MJ and these details will be included. I can hear the cash register now... — Realist² 17:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Halperin is writing it, he looks like he has some good credentials behind him...but seems to have gone...down market in recent years. Anyone who has anything to do with Court TV should come under scrutiny, they made a lot of money out of portraying Jackson as a beast during the trial. — Realist² 17:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dindo94

Hi Rod, could you talk to User talk:Dindo94, he's using youtube as a source again, and considering the reply on my talk page, I'm not sure he understands English. — Realist² 01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on your talk page. Given his username, my guess is that he's about 14. WIll keep an eye on it. --Rodhull andemu 01:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, cheers. By AGF-o-meter runs on low power at this hour of the night lol. Best to ask for a second helpful eye. — Realist² 01:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Murder conviction without a body

On 23 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murder conviction without a body, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Neutralhomer is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tutuman

At least one more sockpuppet for Tutuman: KosovoLegacy (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). Bubba73 (talk), 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, suspicious, but WP:AGF, I have left him advice, and if he doesn't want to take it... --Rodhull andemu 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you compare his edits to chess in early literature to the edits by Tutuman, etc? Bubba73 (talk), 00:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Remarkably similar, but I cannot rule out a concerted campaign off-wiki to get this guy included. KL has a longer history and in no way related to chess; that's why for the time being I am waiting to see what happens next. Of course, WP:MEAT may apply, but at least he now knows there's an issue with adding this guy here. --Rodhull andemu 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't know how such a campaign could be done, unless they had KL's password. Of course it is possible that the PW was stolen. Bubba73 (talk), 00:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in some chatroom or forum somewhere, maybe even in the same student house, but it doesn't matter. If KL doesn't want to be blocked, he'll stop, simple as that. --Rodhull andemu 00:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KL made a small edit to Howard Staunton, but I don't know if it is genuine or subtle vandalism. Bubba73 (talk), 01:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to WP:AGF on that edit because it preceded my last warning to him. Strictly, it's unsourced, but immaterial. However, it's now plain that he is interested in chess-related articles, and one more step out of line will cast him into the pit whence nobody returns. --Rodhull andemu 01:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Staunton-Morphy controversy says that Morphy didn't go to Europe until 1858, so the 1857 date added by KL is probably bogus. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the attempts to arrange the match didn't necessarily depend on Morphy actually being in Europe at the time. I'd revert and let it go. Tag it {{cn}} or revert as unsourced, but to block for that would be a step too far since it can't be shown to be vandalism. --Rodhull andemu 01:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the contributions by 64.24.41.50 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and Bootsatbush (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) to Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history. Bubba73 (talk), 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of this crap. Bootsabrush indef-blocked and the range of the IPs (small enough not to cause too much damage) hard-blocked for a month. They'll need a new ISP. --Rodhull andemu 02:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Back to an earlier one, I'm pretty sure that Morphy was unknown in Europe until he went there in 1858, thus no negotiations with Staunton in 1857. I could be wrong though. Bubba73 (talk), 02:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chesk out 64.24.57.103 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). Bubba73 (talk), 04:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Largegs (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is another suspected sockpuppet. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another sockpuppet: Largegsss (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). Bubba73 (talk), 06:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the name and time of vandalism, Largegss (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is probably another one. Bubba73 (talk), 02:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB help

I need your help. I had been a user of AWB for some time and it helped me a great deal, particularly in my categorization work. Last month, I did something wrong and User:MaxSem removed me from AWB. Since Dec 14, I have tried to contact him to discuss this matter, but now find that he has left WP. I would like to get back AWB to help me with my editing. What can I do? Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you again. Hmains (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toya and Robert

Vandalism? No.. I was just banned from a web forum because ..well there may have been another reason but I'll go into that in a moment. I began a thread on an unofficial King Crimson forum asking if anyone had learned the actual place Robert Fripp ,in his on line diary refers to as 'Brendenborough' and the actual name of a Restaurant ,pictures of which as well as the town he has posted in the dozens on said diary. I didn't ask the names be revealed I didn't offer to reveal them .I merely asked if anyone had found the actual places themselves as I had just done with the help of this Wikipedia article. In the course of the progress of the thread I mentioned above, my personal web site was hacked. A blog to which I had linked,not of my own authorship was posted. The blog contained a parody. It cast the Pope and Christian's in the now common character of Muslims behaving badly when their Prophet is in their view insulted. The blog in parody had St. Patrick being called a drunk and Christians going into a rage calling for another Crusade... it was a bit of comedy yet some forum member insisted I was inciting mass murder .. no exaggeration. I used no profanity or otherwise abusive language merely defending myself,no more..Its irrelevant to this article ,i only included the explanation because i mentioned being banned from the forum and that came about after I posted with my question about the town named in this wiki page. That out of the way.. it was said in the thread i mention that my mere discussion about the true names of the places to which Fripp only alludes with assumed names was violating his privacy and could lead to some vague harm or whatever you might imagine in the extreme. My point was just that if Fripp has and he has posted hundreds of pictures of his home, his home town and its environs if referring thereto with an assumed name the sharing of the places actual names was not anything he can honestly expect to remain forbidden if except for some gentleman's agreement between world famous musician and sycophantic toadies.. I have no desire to pick a fight with you but seeing as you're a Lawyer I'd be interested as you are able to hear your thoughts. As you say the information is public record, fine but my inquiry is about the use of that record. Can it ever be argued in law that such a record while public is intended to be used by for instance Government agencies for purposes pertaining to various obligations arising out of common citizenship and the widespread publication of things like home addresses,which is not being done here though it may be argued the Town is so small it'd be difficult to retain a personally desired anonymity after it, or just home towns might be used in some,God forbid unlawful way and so would be a matter of principle to refrain from doing so when it is requested Out of curiosity as I do not represent anyone in the article, if one of the persons named in it contacted you or Wikipedia asking the name of the town be removed from all records would it be done or would you,as you've done with me insist its public record so basically get used to it?. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelicanpaul (talk • contribs) 07:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost tl;dr but the answer is that if Robert and Toyah want privacy they should not make knowledge of where they live public, presumably as they allowed the local paper to do. It's easily ascertainable frm the electoral register in any case. If they object to us printing what is essentially a vague location, they can email our OTRS team, but sinec the information is already public domain, it's unlikely they'd get very far. And you shouldn't believe what your told in blogs and forums. We don't. --Rodhull andemu 07:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hi, could you weigh in on the developments at Ian Halperin please. — Realist² 16:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have left COI and other advice on editor's talk page and watchlisted the article. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I had an odd feeling he was related to Halperin in some way, even before he said it. It seems the mainstream press are slamming Halperin's recent allegations and picking apart his history in general. It's the first time I've seen the press on Jackson's side in a long time lol. — Realist² 16:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to make a request, no need to worry now. This will give him the oppotunity to use the talk page. — Realist² 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

I know it's Christmas, season of goodwill and all that, but isn't this assuming a little too much good faith?[1]--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it seems to have worked, together with the {{AssignedPA}} on the talk page. Meanwhile, as far as Christmas goes, I have to go and defrost the pizza I will be having for my Christmas dinner tomorrow. You block him if you think it's appropriate. --Rodhull andemu 21:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of which, have a very merry Christmas tomorrow. — Realist² 22:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you too. It might even be quiet enough to get some articles written; I can't remember last Christmas very well, so it may not have been that bad. Meanwhile, I recommend A child's Christmas in Wales and the related song, which always creases me up. Childrens' Christmasses are always so precious, it seems, whilst ours, based in experience rather than innocence are somewhat more practical and cynical. Ho hum. If I make it through this holiday, I'll see you on the other side. All the best. --Rodhull andemu 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas :). I hope you have a good one (and the pizza goes down well!) While it isn't the new year yet, here's to a quieter one regarding certain characters! ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you, and thanks for the help. I would like a quieter New Year, if only to be able to get some sleep. --Rodhull andemu 23:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

M.H.^{ITrue Romace iS Dead} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This card promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has has made your day a much better. Best Wishes and Happy Editing.

15:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - December 2008 Issue

Summary: You can now join Wiki UK Ltd, which hopes to become the official UK chapter of Wikimedia in January. The organisation is planning its first Annual General Meeting, where members can vote on who is on the board, and put forward and vote on resolutions. The organisation is already supporting activities such as a bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford and the exciting Wikipedia Loves Art project at the Victoria and Albert Museum. We also bring you news of the the recent Wikimeet in London.

In this month's newsletter:

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Newsletter delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor

Could you pull his disruptive editor to the side and give him a 'ittle talking to. I think he realizes that I can't do much more than issue a million template warnings. *Sigh* — Realist² 18:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours should be long enough from him to read and understand WP:BADCHARTS. --Rodhull andemu 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can only hope. — Realist² 19:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revived Doctor Who Speedy Deletion

I think we clashed - I suspect that whilst I was planning to close the AfD and then delete the article, you were planning to delete the article and then close the AfD :P. Ah well, got the job done... _Talk Islander 01:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, correct result. I do feel sorry for the author, because he obviously felt it was the right way to go, but was unfamiliar with the way things work, especially with regard to heavily-watched featured articles with their own projects, and a cadre of committed editors. WP:BOLD might have applied had he been aware of it, or indeed, other policies. Hopefully, we won't lose him and he will develop into a good editor. Losing the sockpuppets would help, of course. --Rodhull andemu 01:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalar on multiple IP's

Over the last few weeks Jamalar has been using her IP's to alter genres on Alice Glass, Gwen Stefani and No Doubt amongst others. Would it be better to block these IP's or semi protect the articles? I can't really take this to WP:RFPP because they have no background knowledge. I suspect we are going to have to continue the IP blocking. Let me know anyway. Cheers — Realist² 14:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a short rangeblock would do here to get the message across- I'll take a look. --Rodhull andemu 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful, I'm getting really tired of handing out warnings that mean nothing as the IP shifts. — Realist² 20:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. To cover all IPs would require over half a million, which is way too big, even for hours, but the problem goes back over days. A smaller range is 2048, but even so, that goes back nearly a week now. WP:AIV wouldn't take it, and you are right that WP:RFPP wouldn't either. All I suggest is you revert unsourced edits and point her at the talk pages; if she continues to edit-war, sanctions would follow. Irritating, I know, but I'm reluctant to fly in the face of policy. --Rodhull andemu 20:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I'm being called a dick on Alice Glass. These stupid IP's are getting tiresome. — Realist² 21:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say it ain't so

Although if you have really made up your mind to quit, then there isn't much we can do, is there? However, I'm clinging to the hope that after a month smelling the roses, you might come back feeling refreshed…--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the above - I shall keep an eye out for your moniker reappearing, I always read your comments and am often influenced by the views even where I don't respond. It is always a sad day when a fine mind and decent person leaves the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not feeling myself. This is a difficult time of year. --Rodhull andemu 14:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on Jimbo wales's page.

That really did not sound like you at all. Please don't give up; wikipedia is something worth fighting for... Surely?Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Galib is wishing you a Happy New Year. This card promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day much better. Best Wishes and Happy Editing!

Best To Reply At My Talk Page. Thanks.

Just Stopping by. Yours Truly, M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 15:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

.[reply]

re: Amy Winehouse

I often see the same sort of comments about Janis Joplin [2]. Some people have different preferences. I was quite impressed with Bettye LaVette, who sang "Love Reign O'er Me" during the Roger Daltry/Pete Townshend portion of the Kennedy Center Honors. [3] I believe Daltry teared up, I know Pete nodded continuously with an intent expression throughout her performance. It was a wow. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honorifics

please see Talk:Honorific_titles_in_popular_music#Proposal_to_move_to_List_of_Honorific_titles_in_popular_music. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Rod, as a qualified lawyer, please could you have a look at Dnepropetrovsk maniacs and offer some thoughts. Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Russian law, but my first impression is that if all this information is in the public domain there, we should have nothing to worry about. From our point of view, WP:RS is the problem in that we should prefer sources in English or find someone who can check the cited ones against the article for accuracy. On the whole, however, there are huge chunks of text seemingly reliant on a single citation, and others apparently uncited. WP:BLP applies to the remaining unconvicted defendant, so anything that cannot be verified in relation to him should go until it can be reliably sourced; that would be independent of any external issues. AFAIK (and I am not an expert in US law), we shouldn't worry if (and that's the critical point) the sources are reliable. Only a Russian-speaking editor would be able to tell. I'd ask User:Alex Bakharev or anyone listed in Category:User ru-N or Category:WikiProject Russia members to take a look at it. My initial thoughts, hope that's helpful. --Rodhull andemu 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rod. I have asked Jimbo for a comment on this, as the situation is getting out of hand and could make Virgin Killer look like a vicar's tea party.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Doctor Who new Doctor

Please do not revert my edits to this article! I have been watching the show right through as I sit here, and the caster has already stated that he has cast a 26 year old in the part for this new run. As Matt Smith is the only 26 year old in the running, this is a safe edit. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will never ask for your advice on horse-racing, then. We have to stick by WP:V. It's just the way it is. --Rodhull andemu 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er - Let me try this a different way then. The show marked as the SOURCE for the 11th doctor is what I am watching. If this can't be used as a source, it should be removed from the article, otherwise I will quote it as a Reliable Source, since that is the programme announcing the next doctor, which they have done. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no different way. We needed to wait until it was made clear in the programme, not get involved in detective work, and how can we fill in the "minutes" field in {{cite episode}} until it's been made clear beyond doubt? That's what WP:V is all about, although it's now academic. --Rodhull andemu 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Escape

Rodhullandemu, I see you're working on a treatment of "differences" between the fictional story as told in the film The Great Escape and its inspiration, the actual WWII escape. I have grave concerns about this, especially with regards to WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Also, Film Style Guidelines tell us that differences must be put into real-world context and that merely listing and describing the differences are discouraged. Consequently, the focus of such an article should be on why the screenwriters and Sturges decided to deviate from Brickhill's book and reality (i.e. what production and artistic goals, realities, logistics, and opportunities caused them to make the changes). This is the real-world context that is required to truly make this article interesting and of value. This approach would require extensive sourcing.

As it stands right now there are many problems with the article since much of its content lacks development and production relevance (not to mention appropriate sources). Also, I question why this treatment — which would nicely augment the Production section of the film's article if done well — is being done as a separate article rather than at the film article? Especially since that and related sections in the film article are sadly deficient. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim, I haven't worked n this for a while, but I think it was felt that the main article was too long and somewhat overloaded with the section about the differences, but I take your point about OR & SYN in this split version. I'm sure there may well be sources out there, interviews with Sturges etc, to contextualise the deviations from the "real" story, however, I'm too burdened at present to have the spare time; if you mention your concerns to User:Marktreut, who did the split and edits occasionally, he may well be able to address them. I'll get back to it when time permits. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this

Do you have any thoughts? I have this gloomy feeling it will go unresolved again. Very few admins are actually engaging in the discussion. — Realist² 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. My feeling is that our patience is (or should be) running out for him. His continued WP:POINT violations and WP:SOAPBOXing, coupled with the apparent failure of mentorship don't inspire me with confidence that he will ever find something else to do. ~~However, he hasn't replied to that thread yet~~. If he does, I will look at it again, because I think we should be reaching a breakpoint with him. --Rodhull andemu 18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see he has replied. I would support a community-based topic-ban. --Rodhull andemu 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he replied this morning, although based on his reply, any sort of "voluntary" withdrawal from sexuality articles isn't going to work. — Realist² 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs 2

If you have not already done so, please could you add Dnepropetrovsk maniacs to your watchlist. The need for close supervision of this article cannot be stressed strongly enough. Under no circumstances should any attempt be made to link to the video in the article or on the talk page. Other graphic content could be added as the trial progresses, and Wikipedia does not want to face a barrage of complaints in the media that it has handled this issue irresponsibly. Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --Rodhull andemu 21:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed regarding sock of banned user

Hi, I notice you semi protected James Stewart today due to edits made by User:HarveyCarter so you know the back history of this. Each time I see one of his edits I revert it and also check the edit history of the IP. Lately he has been tendentiously editing Mickey Rooney, Audrey Hepburn, William Holden, Jeremy Brett plus the old favourites, is starting to work on Steve McQueen and Marlon Brando and has made 4 edits/reversions to Dick van Dyke in the last day. He seems to be fixated on bisexuality and smoking related illnesses. Dick Van Dyke has recently had bronchitus. It's sourced, it's harmless, who cares? But it's coming from a banned editor. I don't know what to do. To take something like that to the protection page would make it look like I'm being trivial and tendentious to anyone that doesn't know the history. I don't want his edits to be ignored or accepted because if we do that we may as just give him a new user name and tell him to get on with it, but he just continues plugging the same thing over and over. Do you have any suggestions/thoughts? Thanks Rossrs (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BAN: "By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." In this editor's case, he is de facto banned as the result of multiple sockpuppetry but has failed either to cease editing or apply to the arbitration Committee to appeal his ban. That, to me, shows a single-minded determination to ignore the will of this community. Although his edits may be worthy, I cannot tell since he almost invariably cites offline material, which other more knowledgeable editors have on occasion pointed out to be unreliable; accordingly, per above I invoke that presumption of reversion. And the general tone of his edits cannot be said to show that he supports our neutraility policy. As such, I don't see any reason to extend any benefit to this editor, whose antics are so insidious that they have been mentioned off-wiki. --Rodhull andemu 11:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The tendentious editing in which not even a comma is changed each time the information is inserted, suggests a single-minded approach, although I've noticed that "sources" sometimes appear from nowhere after a number of attempts to include the information unsourced. I won't bore you further with my thoughts on this subject, but thank you for your comments. Rossrs (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I start to wonder why we even bother. The semi-protection on Dick Van Dyke expires and he's immediately back making the same edits. Does he sit and wait for the clock to tick over on each article in turn so that he can resume? Rossrs (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember that people who are mentally ill do not rationalise in the same way we do, and may tend to obsess over minor detail. This editor would seem to fall into that category and all we can do is Revert, Block and Ignore. Tedious, I know, but one day he will die. --Rodhull andemu 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a jolly thought! It actually didn't occur to me that it may be beyond the control of this editor. Revert, block and ignore will be my mantra. Except for the blocking part, because I can't do that, but reverting I can do, and ignoring I can just about manage if I push myself. Tedious, yes. :-) Rossrs (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me,

Edit warring over genres on Santogold and Santogold (album). Sock puppetting Jamalar is not helping but now another IP is in on the action. — Realist² 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahead of you, and both will be semi-protected for a week. --Rodhull andemu 20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'm just going to go check its all factually accurate according to the current sources. Jamalar is currently stalking my talk page. *Rolls eyes* — Realist² 20:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm tempted to just fucking give up. Multiple flies are adding unreliable sourced information to Circus (Britney Spears album), Circus (song) and If You Seek Amy. The two sources for the believe of a third single are terrible. One is a blatant blog, the other is published by a person called "Lead bitch". This is not sufficient sourcing to call it the third single and certainly not enough information to start a new article called "If You Seek Amy". I've asked for help but no-one is giving me any help, no-one is listening to my warnings. Established editors agree with me that the sources are terrible, but Britney fans are going crazy in a swarm. The information needs removing, the article needs deleting and these articles need protecting until someone can come up with a half decent reference. — Realist² 22:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look tells me it's fast-moving but the article is already semi-pp'd. My guess is that it will die down in a day or so and we can go in and clean it up. There are no grounds for full protection and I'd let it settle. Just chill. --Rodhull andemu 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep sorry. Creation of the single has been blocked, and some of the articles have been semi protected. That should help. Sorry for losing my composure there. Today have been a crazy day at Wikipedia. — Realist² 22:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK proxies again?

It's amazing, but it looks like some UK ISPs are proxying again.[4]. Have you got any thoughts on what to do next, because I'm stumped.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arisedrew

I looked at his recent contributions. He's been doing a lot of vandalism and trolling. I gave him a warning, which he promptly deleted off of his talk page. Do you think repercussions are justified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew647 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, he is allowed to delete such messages, but I will take a look at his recent contribs. I considered an indef block earlier but saw one or two useful edits; however, if he's carrying on, perhaps it's about time we showed him the door. --Rodhull andemu 22:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. He hasn't edited since, but I've left him a final warning for WP:NPA. Thanks for letting me know. --Rodhull andemu 22:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. I can't believe I missed signing my last post too. Rough day, I guess. Cheers, Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Henry

Hi, I saw you reverted someone on Lenny Henry, who claimed he went to Sledmere Primary School. Thing is, I also thought he said that St John's was wrong. I haven't been able to find any sources for St John's, but did find this from here validating Sledmere. There is a discussion on the article's talk page if your interested. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, WP:RS is our key; I have "St John's" written down as his own correct version; but you shouldn't discount false information for comedic purposes either; Steve Colbert is noted for it. In this case, if it lacks a reliable source, it should go. --Rodhull andemu 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I think we should just drop that bit, it's hardly pivotal to the article. Incidentally I had another look, a Labour one here (bit confusing tho) and this one implies he went to a St John's Church. Anyway you support me if I remove it? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's something that could be properly sourced; I'd flag it as {{cn}} to show it's in doubt and work on it when time permits. To be honest, it doesn't matter that much, since when you get to 50, which primary or junior school you attended is probably more important to the school than it is to you. --Rodhull andemu 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualizer

Dear Rodhullandemu,

I just noticed you're one of the admins dealing with the guy who claims he's the real Doctor Robert. As we speak he is trying to promote this same story on Dutch Wikipedia. At first I thought we were dealing with someone with mental problems, but I just found out the guy actually uses "Doctor Robert" as one of his aliases; it's the name of some music project. This leads me to believe that all contributions, even on talk pages, ar actually attempts to get more hits on all websites he mentions.

Unfortunately, I cannot remove all those links (including the links in the automatic message) off his personal talk page as it's currenty protected and I'm not an admin on this "version" of Wikipedia. I did remove them from Dutch Wikipedia and gave him his final warning; one false move and he will be blocked. Could you please remove all links from his talk page User talk:Virtuliazer? I also placed this request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but, as you already dealt with this, I figured you might know what to do a bit sooner than an admin who doesn't already know this (nut)case (sorry for the "PA" towards this used; I couldn't help it :p)

Thanks! Kind regards, Erik1980 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually worse than that; he claims to be *the* Doctor Robert who is the subject of The Beatles song from 1966; this I find hard to believe since he was two years old at the time. I'm not sure there's a need to remove his links from his talk page; since they're not in the Mainspace, they don't fall within WP:EL and can safely sit there as far as I'm concerned; unless you think there's a good reason to delete them? I don't think they strengthen his case for, er notability. --Rodhull andemu 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I also thought he actually thought to be "the real one", but most of these external links turn out to lead to his own websites or MySpace-accounts, most of them containing promo for this "Doctor Robert" act... See this link... That in turn leads me to believe it's all part of some promotion campaign, perhaps to get more hits on his websites or to get higher up the Google ranking. Doesn't user talk content also appear on Google, then? In that case they can just be left on his talk page without a problem... Should they have any effect on Google, I suggest we don't provide him with the free publicity. Erik1980 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we use something called "nofollow" tags (which I don't pretend to understand), but the effect is that overloading any page here will not affect its Google ranking. Given some of his comments to me, he clearly has not understood this, as some of his claims about his own MySpace ranking are clearly wrong. --Rodhull andemu 00:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true, he's saying the same on Dutch Wikipedia plus he's claiming that he's the top hit on Googe nowadays... Well, let's just leave him be then... In his own world of dreams ;) Keep up the good work keeping vandals off of Prince Harry's article! :p Erik1980 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One final update on this fellow: On Dutch Wikipedia he just stated that he will get his article about his band Glasco Turnpike on English Wikipedia... You may want to place it on your watchlist ;) Erik1980 (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have your fried every vandal at the Wiki?! :D

OK, Sky News have been screaming that our Harry is a racist for hours, but the page has only been vandalized twice. Where have you hidden all the vandals to? — Realist² 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think they're all comatose after the pubs have shut, but I'll keep an eye on it. But wouldn't it be good to see off all the vandals? We'd have more time for Good Articles then. --Rodhull andemu 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, it was somewhat refreshing to see. I've nominated this for DYK by the way. Never done one of them before, hope they allow it on. I think it's rather interesting really. Good hook. — Realist² 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinter article Mediation

Would welcome your input at Talk:Harold Pinter#Mediation. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Falcon

You might be interested in the odd happenings at this article. The subject of the article edits his own article (neutrally, with third party sources), but probably sock puppets are not happy about it. Removing sourced content and making BLP comments (which are also personal attacks funny enough) on the talk page. 0.o — Realist² 18:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it but it already seems protected. --Rodhull andemu 18:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a...hmm that's interesting post. :D — Realist² 18:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HarveyCarter sockpuppet

Hey, I've noticed how good you are at reverting edits by the HarveyCarter sockpuppet, something I spend an inordinate amount of time doing myself. But I've also noticed that you seem to have the knack for quickly getting pages protected or achieving other processes beyond mere reversion to subdue his incredibly annoying efforts. Anyway, I thought I'd let you know that he's doing his James Stewart racism crap at full speed on the The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance page, in case you want to join me in keeping an eye on it. I'm reverting like crazy, but I don't really have a good sense of the best way to get things protected, so either advice or another hand on the tiller would be very welcome. Thanks! Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Virtualizer

I had originally declined this user's unblock request at WP:RFU. However, after a few days to reflect on the events that led to his block, he has come back with a request rationale that I find acceptable for a unblock. Do you want to take a look at it and provide your input at well? Trusilver 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to an unblock, but I think he's got an uphill struggle to establish notability given that all his sources seem to be self-published. I don't see any need to comment on his talk page since he seems to have formed a dislike for me. --Rodhull andemu 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I weighed the potential for him to benefit the project against his potential to be disruptive and decided do decline his unblock request. To paraphrase Sandstein - Truth-bearing single purpose accounts really are more trouble than they are worth. Trusilver 01:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission

Can I borrow your vandal notice and adapt it a bit for my talk page? I know it won't prevent anything, but I just had my userpage protected. The notice will eventually become relevant, and it's already mildly humorous. Thanks. --Call me Bubba (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. Best of luck. --Rodhull andemu 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proto punk Category

You have had dealings with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chris_Henniker before I see. He has created a new Proto Punk cat and is diving all over wiki assigning musicians to it....Dave Edmunds?...David Bowie?...Pete Townshend?....proto punk musicians? Erm really? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protopunk seems to be a genre recognised by Allmusic, and we have not only an article, but also a list of these artists; leaving aside whether the list is redundant to the category, if these artists are reliably sourced as "protopunk" (which I admit has passed me by), it shouldn't be a problem.--Rodhull andemu 11:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; sorry about that

I should have checked the Peter Falk talk page before making the addition, especially given that the note was a month old and no mention was made on the main page. Sorry about that. Magidin (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Rodhull andemu 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise sought at WP:AIV

You seem to be active, and your knowledge of a particular vandal has been mentioned at WP:AIV. Care to take a look? --barneca (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

87.36.25.36 (talk · contribs)

Apparently the privilege has been left up to you to block this user. They've been trolling on my userpage and vandalising other ones. Wonder when they'll learn... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, as always. Do you mind if I come to you direct in future when blocking this vandal, or is that in violation of some WP policy I don't know about? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine and will save time since I know this editor. He can always apply for a review by an independent admin. --Rodhull andemu 15:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okies, thanks for that :). Hmm, why does this suddenly remind me of another editor we've had trouble with in the past? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're all the same? Touch wood, the other seems to have stopped for now (and your script seems to have moved). --Rodhull andemu 15:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that they keep coming back even when told to buzz off! Agreed re: the other, and yes, it has. I'm in the process of moving my website to a dedicated host, plus the other seemed to have stopped so I decided it was surplus to requirements for the time being (I'm still waiting on the possibility of a toolserver account, which is where I'd prefer to host this!) ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon, didn't I? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 13:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

still have this page on my watchlist... Sorry if it looked like I dropped the ball yesterday; I meant for you (Rod) to review and block if deserved, not that I'd wait for your opinion and then block. Miscommunication on my part. JGX, it is indeed often better to go directly to an admin who's familiar with a returning vandal; there are several people who's socks I can recognize, but it would take a long time to explain the whole situation to an uninvolved admin. People usually just ask me to block them myself, to save them the trouble of a long, involved SSP report. Anyway, sorry if you guys were waiting for me to do something. --barneca (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I thought my input was being sought on the basis of the decision being made by an uninvolved admin, but I agree familiarity with editing patterns shortens the process. --Rodhull andemu 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Barneca, I understand your position yesterday - I just wasn't sure if there was a policy in place about going to related admins straight away. I'll remember in future, and thanks for your advice anyway. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And did those feet?/Jerusalem

Thank you for putting me right re Blake's typography!

The article should really be labelled Jerusalem. Or there should be two articles one for the poem and one for the Hymn. Everyone in England refers to the latter and if they're looking on Wikipedia they get the Israeli/Palestine place.

How do I propose this?Brixtonboy (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's always been difficult to separate the two; it would be difficult to show notability for the hymn separately, and I note Jerusalem (anthem) redirects to ADTF.. You couldn't really discuss the words of the hymn without the analysis of the poem that is in this article without introducing redundancy. The article really should be within the scope of the Literature project, and I see a move proposal, although not discussed at length, was rejected in 2006. By all means, however, feel free to make a new proposal on the talk page, but the impression I get is that it would be unlikely to succeed unless you can make a strong case. --Rodhull andemu 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:CatchMySoul.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:CatchMySoul.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permissions

Hi! I noticed that you're active on the requests for permissions page. I've got a request up there for use of NPWatcher that's been there for a couple of weeks - could you take a look at it if you're not busy? Thanks much. Graymornings_(talk) 02:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done No problem. --Rodhull andemu 13:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate it. Graymornings_(talk) 08:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same old boring Harvey Carter nonsense

Hi, would you mind looking at Talk:Tyrone Power please. Mindless nonsense since December, but the last two edits here and here are beyond humouring. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MaceyCruthird.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:MaceyCruthird.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. — neuro^(talk) 18:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB approved, thanks

I know it sounds stupid, but I just wanted to say thanks for approving me for AWB. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Rodhull andemu 12:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kooper

Thanks for adding to the Al Kooper article one of the images of that I am currently uploading. I think the one I've just selected is a better choice, but if you think not please feel free to revert. - Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you prefer, it's just good to get some free images of him. --Rodhull andemu 12:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back again - 87.36.25.37 (talk · contribs)

Would you like to do the honours? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 12:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recon there would be any grounds for blocking the range 87.36.25.x (0-255)? This is the range primarily used by this user (presumably it is the school they work for) so would stop us having to keep blocking random addresses every now and again. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 13:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to look it up to make sure they are all assigned to the schools, but it's a small enough range to minimise damage. Leave it with me. --Rodhull andemu 13:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked at the WHOIS for the latest IP, and it said that that range is allocated to that particular school. Let me know how you get on it. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do you want to protect the page while you are at it - they're trolling again. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 13:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you deal with our uninvited guest again - 87.36.25.38 (talk · contribs)? Thanks ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 13:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you get back...

87.36.25.39 (talk · contribs) please. Did you get any further with researching that range block? I think it is fairly evident that this user is just moving down that range... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 09:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon-blocked for a month. Looking at the contribs, all edits this year seem to be from this one editor, so there should be little collateral damage. --Rodhull andemu 13:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Are you going to block the 0-255 range then? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 14:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant to say I'd done. Perhaps you'll get some peace and quiet for a while. --Rodhull andemu 14:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I noticed after I'd said that actually. Thanks anyway, and hopefully! ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 14:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image placeholders

Hi, thanks for pointing out that discussion. the thing is that no consensus was reached and the discussion seems to have stopped since May last year. I reverted Wizardman's edit and he didn't leave a note about why he had removed the placeholder. This hasn't become policy has it? or do you know if anyone ever came up with a different system? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as 66% against using them, and since no major consensus has emerged since, that's what we go with, although it's advisory, but is a centralized discussion. I would presume in User:Wizardman's case that an Admin and an Arbitrator knows what he's doing. I've seen nothing since that consensus to convince me otherwise, and User:NYScholar (although he's since removed the placeholder) seems to be ploughing his own furrow; certainly this is the first time I've ever seen anyone try to justify the placeholder being there on the basis that "someone might come along with a free image", because my experience is that they don't, and it's up to us to do so. Like we have time. --Rodhull andemu 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Since W_Dodds failed to create any reasonable genre rules to put forth to WPP:MUSIC and since he himself continues to be a very regular g_warrior himself... even busting 3RR on several occasions to do it... can we roll back time to that fantastic week where Wikipedia music articles, sans genre fields, were at peace. Surely reason and common sense can win out over edit wars and stupidity. Maybe?? Hopefully?? The Real Libs-speak politely 11:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of out of the loop on that particular debate, but I doubt it would be seen as helpful to remove the genre field without consensus; my impression is that the genre-wars have cooled down, because nobody is alerting my to any particular ones. If this is not the case, and it's still an issue, perhaps an WP:RFC on the Templates would be a way to go, to establish a wide consensus- but my feeling is that no new arguments would be forthcoming and neither would any consensus. If I can think of anything better, I'll comment later, but these are my first thoughts. --Rodhull andemu 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not

i aint trying to rewrite history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.132.214 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not you, but someone using your IP address. --Rodhull andemu 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Date delinking

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. I have a question for you though, how/when are editors supposed to know when this whole date linking thing has been settled? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These things are usually announced in WP:AN and if major, at the top of each page. --Rodhull andemu 14:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible indef block needed

This guy, is impersonating a good editor on the Smooth Criminal article. He's adding links to file sharing sites, the same sites the good editor is trying to keep out. I spoke to the good editor, he's clarified that the account does not belong to him and supports blocking it. — Realist² 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this editor is unfamiliar with our ways and have soft-blocked him; but I have also advised him to take note of WP:EL. If he tries it again, of course, it's a permanent goodbye. --Rodhull andemu 17:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Rod, oh, btw, what is the latest news on the flagging idea? I know you keep up to date with this issue, I haven't been editing at my normal pace this week due to RL issues. — Realist² 17:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current status is under discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales; not a pretty sight, but it looks like it's going to happen as a trial. There's also an ArbCom request (linked) to muddy the waters. --Rodhull andemu 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope something is done. — Realist² 17:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rian13 sock - 82.46.178.52 (talk · contribs)

Hmm, an IP you suspected as being as Rian13 sock is vandalising WP again. Considering they are assigned PA, you should be able to block them for a long time... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really do it for more than six months, but that's the length of her brand-new holiday from editing! --Rodhull andemu 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Worth extending the block on her main account (not sure how long its got left on it...) ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was only blocked on 13th December, but I've reset the block to restart from today. Good idea. Next one will be indefinite, I feel. --Rodhull andemu 20:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. She doesn't seem to get the message... ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered at 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

DYK for Catch My Soul

On January 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catch My Soul, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked

You don't have anything to do with this, but would you mind reviewing this block log for me? It's blocking the actions of my bot - I get lost in all the terminology and processes involved. Thanks for any help you can provide. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue

Over at Lady GaGa the image uploader wants credit for his image. I've added his name to the footnotes, as a compromise. I remember we did a similar thing on the Michael Jackson article. Is this OK, should there be no references at all, or is he allowed to add his name in the image caption? Oh and congrats on the DYK. — Realist² 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK as it is now, and though his licence should be CC-BY-SA, he's made it clear he requires attribution. I think we did the same at Arthur C. Clarke when someone provided a photoof him. Cheers. --Rodhull andemu 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, seeming as he's doing this on a lot of articles, I think we would rather have the images with the name, than not at all. — Realist² 23:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]